All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:03
December 31, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now, look, I don't want the last couple of hours to dissuade you.
I happen to be a big fan of Earth First.
I'm dead serious on this.
Earth First, my friends.
We can mine and log the other planets later.
Ah, ah, I am Jason Lewis doing my best to fill in for the big guy, Rush Limbaugh.
He'll be back on Wednesday and give us his expert analysis on the Iowa Caucuses.
We've been talking about that the big day Thursday and then on to New Hampshire and Michigan and South Carolina, Florida, and February 5th, Super Tuesday.
So it's going to get, well, rather interesting the next few weeks and months ahead right here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
The contact line, as always, 1-800-282-2882.
That's 1-800-282-2882.
And Russia's new email, lrushbo at eibnets.com.
Just to make certain that you don't think the festive spirit has gone out of academia, let me bring you the latest in political correctness from the University of Minnesota.
I am from the great North Star State, the stomping grounds here.
So here's what I have to put up with on a daily basis.
I have a friend, believe it or not, I do have friends in education.
And I mentioned earlier that if we don't get a handle, the biggest drivers of government spending, remember Mike Huckabee on Meet the Depressed yesterday said, the reason I raised taxes in Arkansas so much is, well, it was for the kids.
It was education.
Every single Democrat socialist hides behind children.
Every program that they want to fund, it's all about the kids.
S-CHIPS, education, health care.
They've got to have a crisis.
Global warming happens to be the mother of all crises.
If the government can control your energy consumption, you have nothing.
You have no control over your life whatsoever.
You got that second computer you want to hook up?
Forget about that.
That second car, forget about that.
It is absolute command and control, which is why liberals love the global warming mantra so much and why it's so, so distressing to see a few rhinos, Republicans in name only, go that direction.
But education is a problem too, as I mentioned.
It's the single biggest driver of governments at the state level.
And believe it or not, at the federal level, there's far too much involvement.
Ronald Reagan ran on two education platforms in 1980.
One, we're going to eliminate the payback to the teachers' union called the Department of Education that Jimmy Carter put in.
We're going to eliminate it.
And two, we're going to have true market choice when it comes to education via tuition tax credits.
There's no reason tinkering with a command and control, government-run, government monopoly, government school education system in this country.
It can't be repaired.
You can talk in glowing terms about charters.
You can talk about this or that.
But the bottom line is, if we don't instill choice in education, you are never going to get the best bang for the buck.
And you're also never going to remove the palpable liberalism that is so much a part of your child's indoctrination.
Now, I know you teachers out there.
Jason, you didn't understand.
There's a conservative teacher.
Of course, there are conservative teachers.
I know a few of them.
Only years ago, I used to have one as a friend.
But the bottom line here is we know where the NEA stands.
We know where your state education association stands.
We know what's driving your property tax bills.
We know what's driving the state budget.
And the vast majority of people who get a government check for a living tend to be more in favor of, guess what?
Bigger government.
Call 60 Minutes.
We got a news flash.
People who get a check from government tend to like candidates who promote bigger government.
So why do Republican governors run around saying, I got to get the teachers' union on my side?
Well, give them more money.
They'll be on your side.
And what do you get?
You get more indoctrination.
It is an unwinnable battle.
And the best way to do it is to make certain that parents, that the money in education follows the parents.
And the best way to do that is through tuition tax credits at the best and deductions at the very least.
Vouchers bring in some other problems.
Vouchers might publicize, for lack of a better word, the private school system as it exists.
And some people are opposed to that because of that.
A tuition tax credit couldn't do that because you're just getting your own money back.
But I digress.
The University of Minnesota, speaking of education, and did you know that the taxpayer spends $536 billion, that's larger than the defense budget, for those of you that think defense is driving the deficit.
$536 billion in K through 12 education in the last year recorded that I have anyway, 2004, 2005.
$536 billion.
My, it must be underfunded.
In higher ed, another oxymoron, taxpayers will spend an estimated $373 billion for higher education in that same school year.
$373 billion going for student loans, going to, you know, for Sally Mae to ensure student loans, going to direct appropriations to colleges and universities where the social sciences are little more than incubators for leftist thought, not so much the hard sciences.
So I had the validation of my skepticism supported and reinforced once again when I got this email from a friend who works at the university.
And they said, Jason, get a hold of this.
Here is a note from the administration concerning all of the departments at the U, all of their office parties, and how they need to keep them inclusive.
Inclusive.
I love that buzzword.
Consider the, and I'll just read it to you from the University of Minnesota driven to discover holiday office party tips.
It's like a bad SNL skit, isn't it?
Holiday office party tips.
Consider the purpose of the party.
Create an environment where everyone feels accepted.
Well, what's more important than that at Christmas?
Plan a time that makes sense with your workplace schedule.
It may be better to plan activities for January or February.
Consider celebrating another holiday instead of Christmas, such as Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
It can be a chance to learn together.
Check to make certain your holiday party avoids conflicts with other events.
You can also use it to plan department cultural awareness activities.
Pick themes that everyone can appreciate, such as the end of the fall semester or the beginning of winter.
This goes back to the kind of the pagan celebration for winter solstice, doesn't it?
What are they going to do over at the U?
Hey, what's the party for?
Hey, the beginning of winter.
Have another beer.
Be aware of unintended messages.
Celebrations held in December tend to make people think of Christmas.
I wish I would have thought of that.
Can you imagine that?
This is higher education at its best.
Did you know that celebrations held in December have a propensity to make people actually think of Christmas, and we can't have that.
So you've got to, if you're going to decorate, the memo goes on to say, if you want to decorate, plan to do it in a way that is festive, but also inclusive of other December holidays.
And avoid, of course, unintended insensitivity.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
They will be coming to the state of Minnesota this spring to demand millions more, hundreds of millions more, in bonding by the state because they're so short on money.
Never fails, huh?
1-800-282-2882.
Now, we've been talking about the environment and global warming and that sort of thing, and how I think education and the environment are the impediments to a smaller government, a freer society, and human progress right now.
And I'm not talking about a clean environment.
Obviously, we all want a clean environment.
Obviously, we all want an educated workforce.
I'm suggesting that the marketplace is the best answer to both of those situations.
The marketplace will give us a cleaner and cleaner environment.
It always does.
It always has.
And it will certainly provide superior education.
The danger for freedom and for liberty is the environment and education are now provinces of government.
We're from the government and we're here to help you.
That sort of thing.
And that is a recipe for oppression.
And it's happening.
Speaking of global warming, a Canadian Greenpeace representative in 2005, when trying to explain the fact that the temperatures are going up, down, you've got all these weather variations that some people use to question global warming.
This particular Greenpeace representative said, look, quote, global warming can mean colder.
It can mean drier.
It can mean wetter.
What's this guy's name?
Humpty Dumpty?
Words mean anything I want them to mean?
And this is the classic gore-like response to any criticism of the global warming religion.
Well, we've got drier weather.
We've got droughts, global warming.
Oh, we've got storms.
That's global warming.
We've got hotter, colder, global warming.
It is the mother of all crises.
And liberals love a crises because war is the health of the state and war is a crisis.
So everything's a war on poverty, a war on pollution, a war on health care.
You start to get the drift after a while.
They convince you to give up things you would never give up.
Your property, your income, your mobility.
You can't have that third car.
You've got to get on a light rail train by a light rail station by a Soviet-style high-rise condo.
That's where you got to live.
It's all in the name of containing urban sprawl.
See, we've got these crises.
It reminds me kind of of the smoking bans.
That started out as an environmental movement.
Environmental tobacco smoke.
And we were told by the EPA it was killing 3,000 people a year until a federal judge in North Carolina looked at the methodology and said, are you out of your mind?
He rebuked the EPA.
There has been no study, whether it's the World Health Organization or Harvard or that federal judge in North Carolina that suggests environmental tobacco smoke kills anywhere close to that many people, if any at all.
As soon as I see a death certificate, a coroner's report, where the cause of death says ETS, then I'll believe this nonsense.
But even if you, even if you went out on a limb and said, oh, gosh, it's irritable, it aggravates my asthma, all of this, therefore I want these smoking bans.
And remember, there are some people advocating a federal ban now on smoking on private property, and that's the key.
That's the bright line, private property.
We've got right now 30 states and hundreds of cities nationwide passing these indoor outdoor smoking bans on private property.
Now, when it comes to pollution, there can be no externality when you're talking about private property.
Most people think of pollution in terms of externalities.
If I'm polluting a dump or I'm polluting the river or I'm polluting the air, that is a free dump.
It's called an externality in economist terms.
And therefore, it's got to be reined in because people will keep dumping because there's no cost to them.
But if I'm smoking in my bar, if I'm smoking in my bowling alley, if I'm smoking in my restaurant, you can easily avoid that.
You can't avoid an externality by definition.
You can avoid that.
Don't come in my bar.
Don't go in my restaurant and don't bowl at my place.
What on earth is the state and city government, let alone the federal government, doing, telling me what I can serve on my menu, trans fats ban, what I can smoke, what I can do.
What are they going to do?
Ban alcohol and bars next?
You know, if conservatives believe that private property is sacrosanct, and it is, it is the barrier against the state.
Once you lose private property, you lose the barrier against big government.
The Fourth Amendment says you can't illegally search me.
Unreasonable search.
Why?
Because it's my property.
Once the smoking ban, these nanny state Nazis, I'm sorry to be so vitriolic here, but I believe strongly that this is an outrage.
Once they pierce the veil going from public property to private property, there should have been a mini revolution in this country.
Not over defending smoking, over the idea that why are you telling me what I can do in my home?
And that's coming next.
Right now in Alaska, these poor guys in Anchorage have to go outside 30 below and smoke.
I wonder if that's good for their health.
1-800-282-2882, I'm Jason Lewis, In for Rush Limbo on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Cruising right along on this New Year's Eve, 2007.
Reminder, Rush is back on Wednesday after having last week off.
My thanks once again for the fill-in opportunity.
Always enjoyable to be here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network in Leesburg, Virginia.
Benjamin, you're on with me, Jason Lewis, in for Rush.
Hi.
Hi, Jason.
I would just like to say that no candidate is perfect.
Even Ronald Reagan had his mistakes.
Right.
But we have to go best we've got.
I personally would support either Huckabee or Romney, whichever one makes it to Virginia.
But if Giuliani or McCain, who are my last two choices, made it to the general elections, I would certainly vote for them, even though I disagree with them on so many issues because they, even with all their mistakes, are much better than any of the Democrats.
So let me get this right.
The Democrats are going to take us to a tyranny of socialism in a week, or I shouldn't say a week, in a year, the Republican liberal will take us there in two years, so that's better.
This lesser of two evils is precisely what got the party in trouble.
Wait a minute, let me finish.
This notion that, gosh, we can't demand purism.
Trust me, we're not in danger of having a purist conservative.
We are in much greater danger as a cause, a movement, of watering down our values and voting for anybody because they've got an R behind their name.
I'm a conservative first.
I'm not a Republican Party reptile that's going to just say, oh, I'm going to check in my intellect at the gate and vote Republican.
That's what they would like to have you believe.
And that's what they do, and they stifle you and say, hey, be a good Republican.
It's time for a little hell-raising in the GOP.
My problem with that, you take a look at Teddy Roosevelt.
He tried to run against Taft, and third-party candidates, splits the vote.
The Democrat gets it, and America is overall worse off than they would have been.
You take a look at Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, splits the vote.
Third-party candidates don't win.
So you're saying, well, so the Republicans can be as liberal as they want, as long as you can find someone who's going to be more liberal.
I would say that unless you can find a third party that actually has a good chance of winning.
Well, I'm not talking about a third party.
I'm talking about supporting a Republican who actually believes in the platform and has got the credentials and, most importantly, the conviction to implement it.
It doesn't have to be a third party.
I've been a Republican all my life, and I still am.
I'm just saying that the reason the party gets in trouble is when winning takes precedence over principle, people start to dilute those principles and you alienate the conservative base without which the party will collapse.
In fact, I would argue to you that if you really want to see the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs, just keep going down this Republican and name-only big government rhino stuff, and you're going to see, then you're going to see a conservative third party.
If the Republicans don't get back to their Reaganite roots, which, as you say, wasn't perfect, but it was the closest thing in my lifetime.
If they don't get back to that, then the Republican Party is an endangered species.
And that's that.
Go ahead, I'm sorry.
If McCain or Giuliani got the nomination, you would vote third party.
Well, I don't know.
Look, I'm not going to tell anybody how I'm going to vote, but I would say this.
I would have serious reservations.
Look, if you had, here's your homework for the New Year's Day.
You ready?
All right.
Go back and take a look at the quotes without anybody letting you know who said them.
For instance, if you had somebody that said, I'm not going to support this tax cut because it's a tax cut for the rich.
Or if you had somebody said, we have a biblical duty to solve global warming.
You have someone that said that illegal immigrants are God's children and that we've got to do something about the environment and we've got to get money out of politics.
That's why I'm for campaign finance reform.
And you put those quotes in the mouth of John Edwards, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, Benjamin from Leesburg, Virginia would be leading the charge to blast these people.
Now, you're telling me you're supposed to check your principal at the door when those quotes come from a liberal Republican?
No, what I'm saying is that when the general election comes, I would look at across the board stances and see these candidates are the only ones who have more than 2% of the polls.
No one else is going to win.
It's going to be one or the other, whichever one has the most.
Well, how far are you willing to go?
How far are you willing?
Let's say you've got two candidates, one a liberal Republican.
Remember, Mike Bloomberg was a Republican when he ran for mayor.
You've got a liberal Republican and you've got a Democrat.
As long as the Republican is better on one issue, you're going to vote for the Republican?
He's liberal on all the other ones?
As long as the Republican is better on the more issues that are more important to me.
I'm not going to just go to party.
I got to go.
I've got to wrap it up.
I understand, but I think the danger is of diluting our principal, not demanding a purity of principle.
Trust me, we're way on the other side of that.
I'm Jason Lewis, in for Rush.
More coming right up, so don't go away.
El Rushbo at EIBnet.com, the new email address for the big guy.
He's back on Wednesday.
I am Jason Lewis filling in for, well, it's just great to be here once again, filling in for Rush.
High atop the EIB Tower in Midtown Manhattan.
For a day, I can say I've got talent on loan from Rush.
Kevin in Las Vegas, Nevada.
You're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network with me, Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hey, Mr. Lewis.
How are you doing this morning?
Could not be better, sir.
It's New Year's Eve and no sight of Ted Kennedy anywhere in Minnesota.
It's a great forecast, then, isn't it?
I just feel safer.
I don't know.
I understand that.
Well, I was just telling your call screener, I was listening the previous hour, and you're talking to a couple of callers about the environment and about agriculture.
And now I am an agronomist.
I graduated from Texas A ⁇ M University.
And I find it humorous that they want to get rid of all of these pesticides and herbicides.
Just like I told your call screener, you could actually drink a gallon of Roundup and you'd probably vomit, but you wouldn't die because it is so specific to what it does.
Now, it's also funny about all these organic products.
But what is the first thing people do when they go camping and they get water from a stream?
Oh, that's even horrible.
That's even more expensive.
You better not drink.
You better not drink it.
And you boil it, you put in the pills, whatever they do to sanitize it.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Oh, I was just going to say, well, I mean, with the organic products, the reason why they are so expensive is, number one, since they aren't using any herbicides or pesticides, they get lower crop yields.
Another thing is they have to pick them before, you know, harvest any of the crop before it is actually ripe.
That way it ripens on the way to wherever they're buying it.
And when you do that, I mean, the plant doesn't actually, the fruit or the vegetable does not actually retain or acquire all the nutrients it needs.
That is why all these quote-unquote Frankenstein, the genetically engineered fruits and vegetables, are better because you can pick them when they are ripe and they last longer.
That's why I laugh at everyone that says they're on an organic diet and is more nutritious.
Well, with all these organic products, they might as well just pass out multivitamins with them because they're not getting all the nutrition that they need.
Thanks to the environmental lobby and the ignorance, or I should say the agit prop coming from the mainstream media, we have a bias against chemicals.
We have a bias against the pharmaceutical industry, against drugs.
Folks, drugs, for lack of a better description, are a good thing.
Better living through chemicals.
I mean, higher yields are good.
They solve hunger.
It really is quite amazing, isn't it, Kevin?
But this is the sort of back-to-nature Mother Earth religion that is taking a hold of the country.
And if someone in the political arena doesn't stand up pretty soon and lead the way to fight this stuff instead of going along, we're going to wake up one day not only with rotten apples, but with our liberties gone.
That is absolutely correct.
And actually, we'll have a bunch of weaklings also because we're not able to get what we need from our foods.
Now, back to the casino, right?
Kevin, thanks for calling from Vegas.
I do appreciate it.
Have a great New Year's Eve out there in Atlanta, Georgia.
Jason, you're up next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Jason.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well, Jason.
I like your name.
Yeah, good name to you, too.
I happen to be a pioneer, by the way, when it came to the name Jason.
I am 52 years young.
When I was a kid, nobody was named Jason.
I'm just copying you then.
I'm trying to aspire to greatness.
Speaking of you, you're doing a fantastic job.
Rush is a tough act to follow, but you're doing the best job as anybody could.
Thanks.
We're having fun.
Okay.
I got a quick true story about the correlation between government spending and the quality of education.
And this is not my vote for government education.
It's just an example.
So my wife was born in North Dakota.
She came down here during high school.
The average student spend in North Dakota is about $7,500 per kid.
They happen to be around fourth in education in the country.
She comes down here to Atlanta, finishes high school two years early because she's that much further ahead, and we're 49th or hanging on to 48th or 49th.
And our average spend is $13,500 per kid.
I live in downtown Atlanta.
My taxes keep going up and up.
And the guy who's in the call screening summed it up the best.
Adding, pumping in money to the system is not, there's no guarantee for success.
The two lies that the teachers' unions want to perpetrate upon the American people are as follows.
You want better teachers, you've got to have more money in education.
You want better education, you've got to have more money.
The empirical data is simply, frankly, in many cases, the opposite of that.
And two, smaller class sizes will ergo elicit higher educational outputs.
Why is it we go to college and sit in those huge auditoriums with 250 kids and pay more?
Why is it that Japan and other countries have much larger class sizes and do a better job?
So those are the myths.
And the goal here is not to have more computers or better schools.
The goal is to have a better contract for the next time the teachers' union negotiates.
Yep.
I hate to be so blunt, but that's it.
You know, you mentioned Georgia.
The average spending in Georgia is $10,000 per pupil.
In Utah, it's $6,500 per pupil, according to the Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Now, as you just pointed out, the test scores are higher in many other states that have lower.
Now, here's what that will tell you, Jason.
They'll say, yeah, but you can't expect us to educate some kids that don't have any guidance at home.
You can't expect us to educate children that come from broken families and the homework doesn't get done.
And that's a fair point, but more money's not going to solve that either, then, is it?
No, no, not at all.
And I didn't know it was $10,000 for the state, but I know in downtown Atlanta, which is their own system, is $13,500.
Well, that's right.
And they make up the difference in the rural areas.
For instance, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, you've got the per-pupil spending or the average daily membership is what the nomenclature is here.
It's roughly about $1,500,000, $16,000.
You go out in the rural areas where it is much, much less.
You get a statewide average in Minnesota of about $10,300 per pupil.
Now, when people find that out, the public schools are spending $10,000, $11,000.
That would be a pretty good private school education.
And if the public schools, and this is the beauty of tuition tax credits, one of the reasons I've been a big fan of them for years, if they are, let's assume out of that $11,000, the fixed costs are $2,000 or $3,000.
So you've got variable costs of $8,000 or $9,000 that they have to spend with each new student that comes into the system.
If that school system is relieved of educating that child, they are relieved of a $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 expense.
So how would a tuition tax credit, which would remove a child, cost the school's money?
The tuition tax credit might be for, say, at max in a utopian free market world, it might be $5,000 for a year.
Okay, so the taxpayer gets back his five grand in property taxes and or state income taxes, but the school district is relieved of an $8,000 expense.
They came out ahead.
There simply is no argument against tuition tax credits and liberalizing small L, the educational system.
Jason, thanks for the call.
Let's squeeze in Chris in Cleveland before we go to the next break on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Jason, how are you?
Could not be better, Chris.
How about you?
And a happy new year to you.
You're going to ask me where my argonauts are.
See, I used to get that.
I used to get that when I was a kid because I was the only Jason in the mid-60s.
Hey, Jace, how are the Argonauts?
Where are your golden fleece?
Exactly.
And I was the pioneer, and no Jason gets that anymore.
Right, right.
Yeah, to mention that there are very few Jasons that I actually know.
Well, I guess I moved.
Real quick, I was talking to your screen caller, and I really appreciate your show.
You're making my drive from Cleveland to Michigan all that better.
Anytime you're leaving Cleveland.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Never mind.
Exactly.
Well, then again, I'm going to Michigan.
Where are you from?
Where are you from?
I'm from Cleveland.
I see.
Well, Cleveland has had a renaissance, hasn't it?
It's tough.
It's pretty rough over here.
Yeah, very, very few industrial parkways.
You mean all those new taxpayer-supported stadiums haven't reinvigorated the downtown area with a Keynesian multiplier?
Why, we're told every time the taxpayers have to build a new stadium for an arena for very, very well-off owners and players, we're told that's going to be an economic catalyst.
I'm confused.
Not in Cleveland.
And the funny thing is that they built this big, gigantic, beautiful rock and roll Hall of Fame.
Yep.
And I don't think I've seen one single solitary rock and roller actually show up, man.
One that's been living anyway.
Yeah.
That's so true.
It started with convention centers.
Remember, every city had to have a huge convention center.
And the argument always was: well, if we build this, it will go through the economy and all the jobs will be created.
And it was this old Keynesian multiplier nonsense, which the usual retort should have been, well, gosh, if building one stadium or one convention center is good, we ought to build 10.
That's really going to get the economy going.
It's just taxpayers getting ripped off right and left.
But I digress.
Go ahead.
Exactly.
Real quick, I wanted to talk about this smoking thing, the smoking bans.
All the environmentalists talking about the smoking and it's bad for everybody and all this other jazz.
I want to paint a picture real quick.
I work in the liquor industry, and I also am a smoker.
And yes, I do realize it is bad for me.
And yes, I actually would wish that they would ban cigarettes because I can't stand the darn things and it would almost force me into quitting.
But I do enjoy it.
They've got to also tell you they've got to exercise, too.
Exactly.
Where does it stop?
That's the danger.
The point I wanted to make, and I was talking to your screen caller, and it baffles my mind when they did stop the smoking ban or stop smoking in the local bars and restaurants and so on and so forth.
It's okay for them to pass a law that says you cannot smoke in a bar.
But in the same breath, they will allow people to, and mind you, I want to also set the tone that I work in the liquor industry.
They let them drink ad nauseum.
Right.
They will let them drive a car to a bar, drink, spend 50, 70, 100 bucks, and until they cannot move, let them get in the car and drive home.
That last night, just last night, just an unfortunate accident.
I heard it on the news this morning.
I'm up against the clock.
I'm up against the clock.
I know what you're going to say, a tragic drunk driving accident.
The point here is, number one, that is already banned.
There is a plethora of laws against drunk driving, and some would say they're not working very well.
So that has been tried.
Adding more laws that don't work smacks of prohibition.
Let me expand on this when we come back.
I got to squeeze in a break right here in the Rush Limbaugh program.
Check out RushLimbaugh.com for all the latest from the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Rush, as I say, will be back on Wednesday.
I can hardly wait.
I am Jason Lewis.
Now, speaking of the smoking ban and the previous caller about drinking, drinking is next.
They're going to go after, you know, you can't take away the rights of the tobacco companies, a legal product, without jeopardizing everybody else's rights.
And once we decided to trample on the law and take away the constitutional and common law defenses of the tobacco companies in these court settlements, you know who's pushing the smoking bans, friends?
It's the money that came from the court law or the tobacco lawsuits.
Whether it was the separate one in Minnesota or the nationwide settlement, the master settlement agreement nationwide.
That's going to groups now hell-bent on enacting prohibition.
They've tried it in their homes in Montgomery County, Maryland.
They're doing it in parks in the upper Midwest.
Believe it or not, we're going to ban smoking in parks.
That could be deadly.
You know, I see a guy 150 yards out.
This is all about some sort of nanny state control.
There are people born who are busybodies.
Unfortunately, they tend to gravitate towards government.
Whether I smoke in my home or in my privately owned bar is quite frankly none of anybody's business.
And here's why it's none of anybody's business.
You don't have to endure it.
Don't come in my home.
Don't come in my restaurant.
Don't come in my bar.
The marketplace will sort this out.
If people really want a place that has absolutely no smoking, that place will make more money than the bar that allows smoking.
And the marketplace will work, voila, without any government intervention.
That's not good enough for the nanny state liberals.
And it is getting out of control.
They're going to ban cell phones.
They ban glass bottles on beaches in Minnesota, or they wanted to.
They got to have a booster seat for your child if he's nine years old or under 80 pounds.
You got baby Huey in the back of your car as though parents wouldn't have any idea what to do with the child.
The benefit of the doubt always must go to the individual and the parents in those cases.
But when the previous caller said, well, you know, they're not doing anything about drinking, oh my goodness.
We've got a war on drinking.
The mad campaigns, the not a drop campaign, which wants to bring it from 0.08 in many states down to 0.02.
You know, you have gargle mouthwash and get pulled over.
It's a great revenue raiser.
Why don't we focus on the real dangers when it comes to drunk driving?
Those guys blowing a 1.7 or a 0.20.
Instead, it's all about getting as many tickets out there as you can.
It's about control.
And once again, remember, the purpose of living in a free society is all about having the ability of freedom of action, the ability to do what you want to do without interference from somebody else.
Well, why should anybody interfere if I want to be foolish?
And I understand there's a point where he says if you're apt to hurt somebody else, we're going to interfere, and that's where drunk driving comes in.
Nothing to do with smoking bans on private property.
Now, I'm more than willing to live by smoking bans on public property.
I don't like them in many cases, but I'm willing to live by that because through a representative republic and a representative democracy, that's what the people want.
You cross the Rubicon when you start to tell people on private property, let alone a federal edict, what they can do.
And that is very dangerous stuff.
In Philadelphia, Bill, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Jason, thanks for having me on.
Boy, after hearing all that, I feel like I'm walking into a trap.
But I want to tell you first, before I talk about the topic, because it is a little bit different, you know, what the topic I'm going to bring up, you don't hear anyone talking about.
And it's not that I'm against this industry, but it has to do with the gaming industry and the proliferation of casino gambling throughout our country.
And I always get tagged with that nanny state thing.
And I say, hey, listen, in my state, where I live here in Philadelphia, number one, we are the largest city now in the country that's going to host casinos.
Number two, our state is getting 55% of every dollar taken in.
So the nanny thing's over.
They're already in bed with this industry.
Now, therein you hit the problem.
The problem is that governments are using this in their lot.
It started with lotteries, and now they're going into casinos for government revenue.
That's what I'm opposed to.
Well, see, Jason, you know what?
I'm opposed to that too.
But the main problem I have with this industry, and I've been doing this for involved with this for over 20 years now, is the simple fact that this industry has no safeguards or provisions to protect the consumer who you're doing.
All right, I got to cut you off because I've got a break coming here, but I get the gist of the argument, and as you pointed out, you did walk into a trap, but we appreciate it.
Look, that's like saying it was the predatory lending that got the mortgage, the subprime mortgage market in trouble.
No, we're responsible adults.
There's a reason prohibition didn't work.
If there's a demand for this, you don't adopt a one-size-fits-all ban.
Let people choose what they want to do and live by the consequences.
That will regulate the behavior.
I got a break.
You're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Well, it has been a wonderful opportunity once again to sit in for the big guy, Rush Limbaugh.
Remember his new email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
You can always check out the website, rushlimbaugh.com.
Now, he's back on Wednesday.
And then Thursday, of course, he'll handicap the race in Iowa for you on Wednesday.
Thursday's the big day, so you've got to be listening to Excellence in Broadcasting on Thursday.
Then Friday for the post analysis, got to listen.
Well, you just got to listen each and every day to the Rush Limbaugh program.
That's always a pleasure.
I am Jason Lewis, hailing from the great state of Minnesota.
My thanks to Mike and Kit and the rest of the gang at Excellence in Broadcasting.
We'll be back the next time around to do it again, at least I hope.
▲
Export Selection