All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:07
October 8, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic, premium cigar smoke, both first and secondhand, I am Rush Lindboy, and this is the EIB Network.
Glad to have you along for the ride today, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Those of you on hold on the phones, be patient.
I'll get to you right after the monologue segment here.
The opening segment of this hour.
I just want to go back to one thing here about Robert Frank, the economist at the Johnson School of Management at Cornell, which is a grad school, but he does teach economics 101, I've been told.
He says here, some people worry that tax incentives for reduced consumption might throw the economy into recession, but total spending, not just consumption, determines output and employment.
If a progressive consumption tax were phased in gradually, its main effect would be to shift spending from consumption to investment, causing productivity and incomes to rise faster.
So people, rather than trying to buy a nicer house in a better neighborhood to send their kids to a better school, which he condemns in the piece, meaning that you should be forced to stay in a neighborhood with a bad school, that you will instead, rather than go out and spend money that would cause your tax rate to rise, you will invest it.
Now, our practical example, he starts out here by saying if a family with 10 million spends 10 million, wants to add a $2 million wing to their house, and with 100% consumption tax on the spending, then that $2 million project would cost $4 million, two to the contractor, and two to the government to reduce the deficit.
Now, no matter what you do, taxation changes behavior, as the tax cuts of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Jack Kennedy all demonstrated.
We've got full employment.
We've got beyond full employment statistically.
We've got people making more money than they've ever made.
We've got opportunity for the achievement of prosperity and people's objectives at an all-time high in this country.
And yet these people, these are the learned ones, these are the ones with the degrees, these are the ones who spent their lives becoming scholars, and it's what we get for it.
Idiocy, blindness to sheer reality.
I'll guarantee you, that family with $10 million to spend and wants to put a $2 million wing in a house is not going to do it.
And they won't put just a $1 million.
They just won't do it.
They'll make do with what they've got.
And then the contractor that would be hired doesn't do it.
He doesn't get the job.
And the people who work for him don't get the job.
Hey, this is really good to spur the housing market, isn't it?
Or these people would find a way to do it off the books somehow.
This guy does not, these people do not understand the dynamics of American life.
What they want.
Well, it's interesting.
I got an email to the Rush website subscriber address from a guy who took a class from this professor.
He proceeded to give all the money to a central decision maker.
He says living in a communal system and taxing can lead to the best economic outcomes.
Basically, he preached to give all the money to a central decision maker, i.e. the government, let the government distribute it evenly or the best way.
He said that the best outcome is for everyone to have a bigger piece of the pie.
So if you take the money from the rich and put it into the pie, then the poor's pie gets bigger and that's better for everybody else.
It's asinine and it's socialistic.
How long ago did McDonald's start up?
Sometime in the 1950s, right?
When did Ray Crook get started?
50s or 60s?
Do you realize if the government had come up with the idea for McDonald's back in the 50s, they'd still be holding hearings on it?
What the pay scale should be, what the zoning regulations would be allowed to be, what kind of ingredients in the food.
They don't get any things done.
It's like I've asked constantly, why in the world would we hire people who've never been in the health care business to design a national health care system?
But people have accepted that premise.
Why would we do this?
Isn't the lament about the insurance companies already in healthcare that we're turning over medical decisions to insurance companies?
And don't you find that ridiculous?
Those of you that go to HMOs and others that have to live under these severe restrictions and guidelines of the insurance companies isn't one of the things that you say, well, why aren't they making medical decisions?
Why can't my doctor make the decisions?
Well, by the same token, if you're not going to be confident with an insurance company making medical decisions, why in the world will you be confident with Hillary Clinton doing it?
She's no different than an insurance company.
She doesn't know anything about what she's doing.
But why this blind faith acceptance that I am from the government and I'm here to help?
Why do people accept this?
Well, I know why, because for 50 years it's been portrayed as the engine of fairness.
Here, listen to this guy's last paragraph.
Although the Bush tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest families threaten American economic prosperity, it is just the opposite.
It's staring at this guy right in the face with life in America today.
You don't even need the statistics.
In order not to believe it, you've got to have a closed mind governed by liberal/slash socialism.
Anyway, all the Bush tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest threaten America's economic prosperity.
They've done little for their ostensible beneficiaries.
When the wealthy spend millions of dollars on ever more elaborate coming-of-age parties for their children, they only raise the bar that defines a special occasion.
Even purely in terms of self-interest, they and their families would have fared much better if the money had been spent to repair aging bridges and inspect cargo containers that enter the nation's ports rather than have a coming-of-age party for their young people children.
It's none of your business, Mr. Frank, what people do with the money they earn.
It's not your business to judge it.
It certainly isn't your business to start making tax policy and economic policy based on it.
But that's who the educated among us are, folks.
These are the smart people.
These are the learned ones.
They know better than you and I, and they don't like the way any of you spend your money.
Even those of you in the middle class who want to get a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood to get your kid a nicer school, that shouldn't happen either.
Government should be in charge of who decides who is going to go to school.
And if these people win the White House in 08, this whole process is going to start.
I don't know if this guy's consumption tax policy will ever become, I frankly don't think they'll ever give up the power that they have to social architecture with the progressive income tax.
But this kind of thinking is going to rule the day.
This kind of, and by the way, Mr. Frank would be happy if he had the money to throw the greatest coming out party for his kids in the world because he's smart enough to know how to do it.
You're not.
He will not, he'll not make sure his money goes for new bridges or whatever the hell else yours will, but not his.
Did you see Nancy Pelosi yesterday on Fox News Sunday?
We have some sound bites here.
Here is Chris Wallace asking Pelosi, would you be satisfied with having some troops in Iraq in 2013?
No, I would think that the minimal temporary, I would describe a minimal temporary force to be there for a few years following the end of next year.
Okay, so she stutters and stammers and fumbles when hit with the troops in Iraq till 0 to 13 question.
Kooks can't like this answer.
What the Kooks want to hear is no.
If I have anything to say about it, they're getting out of there.
Wallace said, you said the other day that you were praying for President Bush to change his mind about vetoing the S-CHIP program.
Do you pray for our soldiers to win in Iraq?
Iraq?
Of course I do.
Of course I do.
Of course.
What a question.
First of all, I pray for President Bush all the time, and I prayed especially hard that he would sign the children's health bill because it's so important to America's children.
When you pray for President Bush, what do you pray for?
I pray that, well, at the same time as I pray for him, I pray for America's children and that there can be some compatibility in their thinking.
But I pray for his health, his well-being.
I pray that he makes the right decisions for the American people.
Do you ever pray for him to change his policies?
All the time.
But let me draw a line.
When I was growing up in politics, we were always told that we shouldn't pray for a political outcome.
We just pray that God's will would be done.
We pray for the children.
We pray for the children.
Oh, yes.
And of course, now she later in the interview talked about how the S-CHIP program, she actually admitted it, or Mrs. Clinton did in a recent statement.
It's not for the poor anymore.
It's actually a middle-class program.
Pelosi sits here and advocates this program, which already exists, and nobody's talking about cutting it.
The president wants to expand it by $4 billion, but not to the extent the Democrats do.
He wants to keep it a program for poor kids.
Pelosi admits in this interview that she wants it to include families up to $60,000, $65,000 a year.
And of course, the question that needs to be asked is: how come, of all things in life, particularly needs, where have we arrived as a nation where apparently a majority of us believe that the particular need of health care is one we should not have to bear personally?
Why is it that we can scrounge up the money to send our kids to private school, but it's somebody else's responsibility to pay for that child's health care?
It's not the parent's job.
Where did this settle in?
I know where it settled in.
You know how it used to be?
Back in the 60s, you went to the doctor, you got a bill, and you paid it.
It was that simple.
There weren't any middlemen.
There wasn't any insurance.
The government got involved.
Prices spiraled.
And the average pay-as-you-go customer couldn't afford health care anymore as it gradually increased.
And now we've gotten to the point where people think, I can't afford it.
I need help.
And health care is a right.
Blah, So while people will go out and spend all kinds of money on a new car or on a plasma TV or private education, for some reason, the notion of paying for their own health care for their kids is not their responsibility.
And we are not going to survive as a nation if that number exceeds 55 or 60 percent, because then we're going to have mob rule.
We're going to effectively have groups that will be able to go through every neighborhood in the country and tell people, I'm taking some of what you earn so my kid can have health insurance.
It won't happen that way, but that's the way it's going to happen.
It'll happen with legislation and tax policy.
Here's the next bite.
Question, what message do you think that would send a woman president addressing the nation with a woman speaker behind her?
When I travel, people are so excited that there is a woman speaker that would have broken the marble ceiling, and they're excited for what it means for young girls.
And fathers of daughters particularly have been enthusiastic about what it means for their children, for their daughters, that anything is possible.
This is a men's club here.
It has been.
And I sometimes think it's harder to become Speaker of the House than President of the United States for a woman.
Really?
Well, how come you became Speaker first before we've had a female president?
It may be a men's club, but my God, how many of them's testicles are in Mrs. Clinton and your lockboxes for Christ, but chicka fight?
We all know this.
Hi, welcome back.
Here she had Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.
One of the most powerful people in government and in the country today lamenting that she's still part of some old boys club.
It just goes to show no matter what you give Libs, it's never enough.
One more sound bite here, some demagoguery on display.
Chris Wallace says the president says he's willing to compromise on the S-CHIP program.
If you fail to override his veto, will you consider a deal or will you keep sending him back the same bill again and again?
It's hard to imagine how we could diminish the number of children who are covered.
Stop.
We are not diminishing.
This is so out of control.
We're going to add 4 million kids, folks.
Currently, 9 million are covered.
We're going to add 4 under the president's plan, but there are poor kids.
Pelosi admits that this is not about poor kids.
It's about the children in general.
He calls himself the decider.
And I don't know why he would want to decide that one child has health care and another does not.
Stop the tape.
I'll tell you why, Madam Speaker.
It's because some families have the ability to afford it themselves without stealing it from their neighbors.
He knows that it's a stealth plan designed to advance the whole concept of socialized medicine by covering all children, not just the children this program was originally intended to cover.
The poor.
This, by the way, is how every government program ever started works.
I don't care if it's Social Security.
I don't think it's Medicare.
I don't care.
Whatever it is.
The original cost estimates never matter because it grows and expands to cover more and more people who were never originally intended to be covered.
She knows it.
She's pulling the wool over everybody's eyes.
Pure liberalism on display here described as actually disguised as demagoguery.
Said this was bipartisan.
We took it to the number that we could pay for and that could pass in the Senate and in the House.
Right now, we would be talking about dropping children.
You have to remember that the difference that we're talking about here would be 40 days in Iraq.
10 million children for one year are 40 days in Iraq.
We can play this game all we want.
10 million children for one year we can pay for by reducing Medicare benefits or by cutting one of the many programs that we already have for child poverty.
This woman's invested in losing in Iraq, and she didn't admit that to his first question.
She's invested in losing.
She wants to defund it.
Everybody knows it.
She and Reed just can't get it done because they are ineffective leaders for their side.
They can't get it done.
By the way, this business that children would be cut, this is the same old balanced budget game they play, baseline budgeting.
They want an additional, what, nine or 10 million children covered.
The president's going to go along with four additional children, four million additional children covered.
So then this is a cut.
But it is no such thing.
Folks, really, it's no more complicated than to say, at what point do certain people of a certain lifestyle and income and above in this country assume the responsibility of paying their kids health care?
If it's that important to people, if it's a priority, then people should make the decision to do with something less.
It's their children.
But for some reason, we've gotten to the point now where this is a need I shouldn't have to pay for.
The government should be paying for this.
It's only fair.
Well, the government is your neighbors and fellow taxpayers.
All right.
Richard in Monticello, Minnesota.
You're next on the program today as we go back to the phones.
Great to have you here.
Rush.
A land of 10,000 liberals.
I'm a conservative island.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I understand how you feel.
I want to humor you for just a second.
I used to, I've listened to you for decades.
How's that sound?
Exciting.
I used to cover the Midwest traveling a lot, and I still carry in my car the radio station directory from when the AM station is where you started.
I used to bounce around as I ran out of one zone.
I would have to pick up another zone.
Well, I appreciate that.
That's tremendous loyalty, sir.
What was it you called about?
I think the liberal base has made a marketing and strategic mistake by making you the focal point of this attack.
I think they've taken their eye off the ball.
And if you press them for as long as possible, I believe the conservative base overall will come out ahead.
Well, what you're saying is, and you're right, the Democrats have made me their number one obstacle.
You are not running for election.
I know.
I'm not running for it.
This is what is, this is, this is, this is this, on one hand, it's amazing, but on another hand, it's totally understandable if you know who they are, folks.
Now, it is astounding that they are attacking me.
I'm not running for anything, and yet they think I'm their biggest obstacle.
They have as much as admitted this, because not only do I influence you, I influence elected officials, they think and they fear.
And so, I have to be the focal point.
In the process of this, what Richard's theory here is that other Republicans actually running for elected office will be ignored and can sneak by these Democrats while they're distracted attacking me.
And so, I should continue to make myself a target and take them off their focus.
And there might be a fun way to do that: actually start doing campaign-type rallies with the balloons and all that, and the signs that say Limbaugh 08 and just go out and do these speeches now and then as campaign appearances.
That shake them up.
And then, Waxman's investigation of me would have a little bit more ammo he could look at.
Am I mingling politics with my radio program?
Am I using my radio program to advance my candidacy?
Oh, if you didn't hear that, Henry Waxman has assigned his investigative team in the House to monitor me and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin for irregularities and to report back to him, ladies and gentlemen.
All right, I got to run a quick timeout here.
Thanks for the call there, Richard.
We'll be back and continue more of your calls coming right up after this.
Come on, Gabriel, I was born ready.
Rush Limbaugh doing that which I was born to do here on the EIB network.
So, Henry Waxman will now use government money to do what Media Matters is doing and the power of government to threaten radio talk show hosts like me and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.
Bring it on, Senator Congressman.
Just bring it on.
You know what?
You're going to make me start my own campaign.
You're going to treat me like I'm running for office.
See, the point is, I am the Mr. Big because I am the one who gets to voters.
I am the one who gets to voters in their hearts and minds and changes them, persuades them with the truth.
They can't handle the light of truth, folks.
That's why this program is a threat.
By the way, I had some rudimentary information on this two weeks ago, and it wasn't enough for me to trust going with.
But since then, it has been verified.
And most of it's been verified by a Freeper, Free Republic.
And everybody is writing about this now since the Freeper posted it over the weekend.
This 12-year-old kid that the Democrats used in a Saturday radio address to whine and moan and cry to President Bush about the S-CHIP children's health program.
It turns out that the family of this kid sends its kids to one of Baltimore's expensive private schools.
This family owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the $400,000 to $500,000 range.
This family bought commercial property in 1999 for $160,000.
This is Graham Frost, the 12-year-old.
And Frost's father is self-employed, owns the building in which he works.
Father makes about $45,000 a year while his mother is employed at an unspecified salary by a medical publishing house that doesn't provide health insurance coverage.
Bottom line, two points.
This is from Mark Tapscott, who's an editorial page editor at the Washington Examiner.
He's been tracking all this on the blogs.
Two points.
First, people make choices, and it's clear that the Frosts have made a choice to invest in property and a business, but not in private health insurance.
The Maryland-administered version of the federal S-CHIP program, by the way, does not impose an asset test on applicants.
It's one of the states where you have no asset tests, so anybody can be part of the program.
What the Democrats did, the president used his Saturday radio address to explain and defend his veto of the massive expansion of the S-CHIP program.
And an hour later on national radio, the Democrats' response to the president was delivered by a Baltimore private middle school student, Graham Frost, who, along with his sister, was seriously injured in an auto accident three years ago.
His response to Bush was actually recorded earlier in the week, and Matthew Hay Brown, a reporter from the Baltimore Sun, interviewed the young man after he did his recording.
Frost said that his parents work hard to provide for him and his sister, but one thing they can't afford is private health insurance, so they have to depend on the S-CHIP program for it.
Perfect illustration of why the S-CHIP program should be expanded, right?
Well, actually, no, because the Sun only reported the Democrat version of the story, and we can't depend upon a mainstream media outlet like the Sun to get the rest of the story.
Well, the rest of the story is the Frost family sends its kids to one of Baltimore's expensive private schools at 20 grand, owns a house in a neighborhood of homes valued in the $400,000 to $500,000 range, and bought commercial property in 1999 for $160,000.
What's the upshot of all this?
This is nothing new.
The Democrats lie.
They have to in order to make their case.
What was seductive to them was that this young man and his sister were severely injured in an auto accident and they didn't have private insurance.
That's all we needed.
Just to smear the president, that's all we needed.
We don't need any other details because we know that our buddies in the mainstream media are not going to uncover the details.
And if they do uncover them, they're not going to report them.
And when they do, it get uncovered a couple weeks later, a day later, the story is already ours.
We already own it.
So the bottom line for me is they can't rely on truth to make their case for their cause.
They have to lie.
Be it about me, be it about their own voters, such as the Frosts, be it about President Bush.
They must lie.
And anybody who stands in the way of their succeeding with that lie becomes an enemy, becomes a target.
And that's where I and my buddies in talk radio come in.
We are a thorn in their side because we represent the truth.
They are trying to hide the truth that they are lying about.
And they have to do something about it.
And they have to do that by lying.
The truth will not help them.
The truth is inconvenient to today's Democrat Party and today's left.
Fiction is their byword.
Make it up.
Make sure people cry about it.
Have a lot of emotion attached to the fiction.
And have no guilt about it.
Once you get past the lying, the rest is easy, is their philosophy.
The president or the kid, Graham Frost, in one of his radio addresses, asked the question, why doesn't President Bush want children to have health care?
They send the kid out to lie.
They fill this kid's head filled with lies just they have some of these soldiers about me.
Put lies in the kid's head or put it on the script that he's reading.
He goes out and reads it.
He's 12 years old.
They will use anybody.
They'll corrupt anybody to get where they're headed.
That's who they are, folks.
James in Manhattan, glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Why don't we call a spade a spade and say that the Democrats are trying to recreate the Soviet Union?
You know, you've mentioned Waxman, socialized medicine, polluting young minds, you know, George Orwell.
And I think it was on Friday you were talking about how pediatricians in Massachusetts were interviewing children about the social habits of their parents, income redistribution, creating mediocrity and then total dependence.
Well, the answer to your question, why don't we just say that they're trying to recreate the old Soviet Union?
I don't know that it would sell.
You know, you want to persuade people.
Okay.
And people, you have to understand that my perception is that a vast majority of people of the United States of America will just never believe that there's a political party that wants to establish a set of circumstances like Khrushchev and Brezhnev and the boys had in the Soviet Union, or that Eric Schoneker had in East Germany.
They just won't want to believe it.
That's why all during the 80s and 60s, 70s, it was really not productive to call communists communists.
Communists, people didn't believe it was possible for communists to exist in this country.
They don't want to believe it, so they'll tune it out.
But I got to tell you, there's a bunch of communist parties in this country.
They're relatively small, but they're all endorsing the Democrats.
That's one way of doing it, is to point out the communist parties in this country, the Communist Workers' Party, the Socialist Workers' Party, all these communist parties, say, guess who they're endorsing?
Hillary Clinton.
Or in some cases, John Edwards.
Doesn't matter.
But it's always Democrats that they endorse.
Take a look at our enemies.
Bin Laden, Ahmedineza, endorse Democrats.
Use their talking points.
Mind-boggling, is it not?
Are the Democrats embarrassed by anybody?
Hell no.
They think half the country or more wants this kind of socialism.
Well.
Yeah, I got this and some Democrats upset.
I put a picture of Joseph Stalin up on my website on Friday because I've been calling these people neo-Stalinists in the way that they want to control everybody's lives.
How dare you, how dare you say.
Somebody going to say it?
Somebody has to say it.
Bob Beckle went nuts on television.
You've got to be careful about saying Stalinists out there.
They killed 20 million.
No, the Stalinists didn't kill anybody.
Walter Durante of the New York Times said they didn't.
And he got a Nobel Peace Prize for it, which still stands.
Or a Pulitzer Prize, whatever, which he still has.
So according to some people, it never happened anyway.
But there are ways of accomplishing this without using a single word or two words like the Soviet Union, which would just repel people.
It's all about convincing and persuading.
And that just, well, let me tell you, I have this.
Let me call them acquaintances so you people don't beat me up.
I have several liberal acquaintances who over the past week witnessed, and they know me personally, and they've known me for a long, long time, and they've known full well.
What did I say?
Did I say, I said Soviet Union, didn't I?
They saw this smear campaign.
They saw the media surrounding it.
They also saw the mainstream.
You know, this is a key element here.
People have said, how come the mainstream media didn't pile on to this rush?
Normally, you didn't get NBC or ABC or CBS on it.
You didn't get the New York Times until a week after.
They didn't get the Washington Post on it.
Why did they?
Because they know it was BS.
That's why they didn't jump.
But that's not the question.
The question is, knowing that it was BS, why didn't they write that?
Where was the story, Senate Majority Leader falsely accuses radio talk show host from Florida Senate?
Where was that story?
It's not there because the mainstream press is just waiting for the next little kerfuffle to come up here that they can jump on and get away with being credible on.
Anyway, the story I was going to tell you is a number of these liberals have seen what has happened in the past week and it's shaking their foundations.
They didn't think their people were capable of this kind of lying and character assessment.
They thought that's what we did.
And they have told me they are questioning everything they have believed.
It's only three or four people, but they are questioning.
They started out like liberals do.
They started out trying to equivocate it.
Well, you know, you have said someone, wait a minute, forget this is a lie.
Forget this equivocation, will you?
That's the one thing about you, Libs, it drives me nuts.
We properly identify something you do and you have to say, well, you did this.
It's not the point.
This was an abject smear.
Anyway, by the end of the week, these people all said, you are making me question, knowing you is making me question everything I've believed.
And the only reason they knew about it was because they know me.
If they didn't know me, they would have bought hook, line, and sinker everything that the left put out yesterday.
Now, this, folks, is why, in an additional way, I have such a target, because now there are liberals who are seeing what their side does and how they do it.
And you got to understand, proud liberals really do buy all of the PR.
They think they're better, they're smarter, they're nicer, they're more compassionate, that they're not bigoted, that they're not racist, that they're none of those things.
And now they see exactly people on their side of the aisle and the way they're misreporting, misrepresenting, lying, even after getting the facts.
And it's, I don't know that they're going to stop being liberals, but it has caused them to see something that they've never, ever seen before that they just accepted, which I was talking about at the beginning of the program.
They just accept this stuff.
They just accept, they're the mind numb robots.
They don't think about it.
They're so caught up in hating us and thinking we're rotten to the core while they are God's gift to creation that none of this stuff permeates until these people saw it firsthand.
One of them even said, I'm beginning to wonder about all this stuff they've told me about Bush.
Don't know if it's just, these are just anecdotal little stories.
But don't think that that's not happening across a wider spectrum than just the people who know me personally.
Quick timeouts, much more straight ahead.
All right, folks, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
And don't forget, Henry Waxman is now on the prowl against me and other talk radio hosts.
Investigate that, Congressman.
Well-known white comedian Paul Shanklin and Waxman in a cover of the Beatles Taxman.
Let me take a break here.
We'll come back.
We'll get a phone call in on the other side.
Squeeze a phone call in here, folks.
Time is tight, but we can do it.
Tavis Travis, I should say, Washington, D.C. Thanks for waiting, sir.
You're next.
Thank you.
Look at what Democrats in Congress have done over the past few years.
First, they investigated that conservative White House reporter, Jeff Gannon, after you mentioned him on your show, and then drove Ken Tomlinson off the PBS board because he wanted to monitor PBS for political balance.
Oh, that's right.
They did.
They got rid of Ken Tomlinson.
They wanted to do a study to find out if there's too much liberalism on PBS.
And Libs got flitted.
You're right.
They were livid over that.
Absolutely drove him out of town.
Yeah.
See, that's why we refer to these people as neo-Stalinists here.
By the way, it's their way or no other way.
And it's not open for debate.
They are not going to allow themselves to be challenged, especially with the truth.
It ain't going to happen, folks.
And we had a caller.
I've been rethinking this.
We had a caller in the previous half hour, the last half hour, who suggested, why don't we just say what's going on here?
And he recounted some recent incidents.
And Democrats are trying to resurrect the old Soviet Union.
I said, I can't do that because it would not be persuasive.
Too many people wouldn't want to believe it.
And I got to thinking about it.
You know, there's a whole generation of people out there that will not be scared by the mention of the Soviet Union because they don't know what it was.
They don't know what the Soviet Union was.
They don't know how evil it was.
They may know what it was, but they have not been told how evil it was.
And they don't understand the threat to their lives, the old Soviet Union.
They think of the Soviet Union as Gorbachev.
But by the same token, referring the Democrats to them as the next Soviet Union thus wouldn't work.
▲
Export Selection