All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:02
June 5, 2008, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Any views expressed by the host on this program, not necessarily those of the staff managers, nor is sponsors of this station.
But they soon will be.
Because the views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Okay.
Yes, I love hearing myself.
I love listening to myself.
Because I always like hearing people who are right.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushmow at EIBNet.com.
Yeah, I was uh during during the break here to the top of the hour.
I was I was perusing various websites, conservative websites.
I'm not gonna mention a name, it doesn't matter they're a dime a dozen now.
But I ran across some some guy little post on his blog saying, you know, the conservatives have got to change with the times.
This is not Reagan anymore.
They can't keep talking about Reagan.
We've got to modernize, we've got to adapt.
You know, the the problem with this, the problem let me make it as simple as possible.
It's nothing to do with Reagan, has nothing to do with cult-like devotion to Ronald Reagan.
It has to do with the fact that personal freedom will never go out of style.
And can personal freedom is at the root of conservatism.
Personal freedom and liberty and holding on to it and maintaining it.
And that's what conservative is, and that's never going to go out of style, and I don't know that we have to adapt that to anything other than what needs to be adapted and changed and stopped is the ongoing movement found in way too many parts of this country that would infringe upon individual liberty and freedom.
And yet we're told, well, come on, you gotta you gotta adapt, you gotta modernize, you gotta understand where we're headed here, we've got a new set of problems and so forth.
That's just it.
There isn't a problem in the world that doesn't have as its best start in solving it, freedom.
Pure and simple.
Anyway, welcome back.
Great to have you here.
I'm watching the news also at the top of the hour break.
No matter what channel I turn to.
Hillary Clinton exiting race on Saturday.
Hillary Clinton going to praise Obama on Saturday.
Hillary Clinton getting a blah, blah, blah, blah.
That's not what's happening here.
It is not what's happening.
Let's this this is this is uh what you gotta read between the lines, you gotta understand how to understand what a Clinton is saying.
She did say that at some event on Saturday, that she would extend the quote, let me give you the quote.
Extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy.
Congratulations for what?
She doesn't say there that I would extend my congratulations to Senator Obama on winning the Democrat nomination, and I will support his can he's not saying that.
Then she said, I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democrat Party nominee, and I tend to deliver on that promise.
Well, she's admitting he not the nominee as far as she's concerned.
If she was going to acknowledge that he was the nominee, she would say, I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he got the Democrat Party's nomination.
I tend to deliver on that promise since he is our party's nominee.
She didn't say that.
Let me go through the two sentences again.
Quote, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy.
Candidacy for what?
And then she said, I've said throughout the campaign I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democrat Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise, perhaps if he is the Democrat Party nominee, but she's not acknowledging that he is.
So you have to look as our uh buddies here at uh newsbusters.org.
It was Mark Finkelstein, says, look at what she didn't say.
She didn't say I lost.
She didn't say I'm withdrawing from the race and asking my delegates to support Obama.
In fact, it's the opposite.
She's she's going to ask to hold on to her delegates for now.
She's going to hold folks, she thinks something's going to drop out there.
I'm telling you, the only reason to do this, well, there may be m she may still be angling for VEP.
But it's amazing how many Democrats don't want her a bill anywhere near that.
No, no, no, no.
Now they're talking about Kathleen Sibelius and some other babe.
I forget who.
Hoya, Janet Napolitano.
Any woman but Hillary.
So she's going to hold on to her delegates.
This she thinks something's about to drop or will drop or something is uh is going to happen.
She did not say that Obama won.
And she did not say he is the nominee.
She didn't even say he's the presumptive nominee.
She said she will extend her congratulations, but she doesn't say for what?
She pointedly does not say for having won the nomination.
So the drive-by's and everybody else that's panting over this.
Why, they they are they're just they're just responding to this in a formulaic way or a template way, but she's playing this really, really close to the vest.
All right, let's move on to this Tony Rezco situation.
Obama yesterday issued a statement saying that uh this isn't the Tony Rezco I knew.
But Obama knew Rezco as a close friend and an ally for over 20 years.
As Rezco rose to become Illinois' top political fixer.
What Tony Rezco did Obama know?
If he didn't know this guy.
What Jeremiah Wright did Obama know?
And of course, we're not allowed to talk about these guys.
We're not allowed to talk about Rezco.
We're not at that the politics of distraction.
We've got to move on from that.
Here's the story.
Rezco found guilty on 16 charges, not guilty on eight.
Tony Rezco, now a convicted felon, a high-flying developer, fast food magnate, who was once a major campaign fundraiser for Governor Blogovich in Illinois, and for Obama, and one of the governor's closest advisors, now a convicted felon.
A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezco of 16 of 24 charges that he faced in a political corruption trial that cast a harsh light on the Blogoevich administration.
Here are eight things that you need to know about Obama and Tony Rezco.
And these come from Tim Novak.
Number one, Obama and Rezco met in 1990.
It is 2008.
How many years ago was that Don Quick?
It's 18 or 19 years that they met ago.
Obama was a student at Harvard Law.
He got an unsolicited job offer from Rezco, who was in a low-income housing developer in Chicago.
Obama turned it down.
Number two of eight things you need to know about Obama and Rezco.
Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm that represents developers, primarily not-for-profit groups, building low-income housing with government funds.
Number three.
One of the firm's not for private not-for-profit clients, the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation, co-founded by Obama's then boss Allison Davis, was partners with Rezco's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel in low-income apartments.
Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project.
According to the firm, only five hours of that came after Rezco and WPIC became partners, the firm says the rest of the future Senator's time was helping the firm strike the deal with Rezco.
Rezco's company, Resmark Corporation, also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals, none of which involved Obama, according to the firm.
Number four, in 1995, Obama began campaigning campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate.
Among his earliest supporters, Rezco.
Two Resco companies donated a total of two grand to Obama.
Obama was elected in 96, representing a district that included eleven of Resco's 30 low-income housing projects.
Number five.
Rezcoe's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001 when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments.
The state foreclosed on the building which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.
Number six, in 2003, Obama announced he was running for the Senate, and Rezcoe held a lavish fundraiser June 27, 2003 at his Wilmet Mansion.
Number seven.
A few months after Obama became senator, he and Rezco's wife Rita bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood, a deal that has dogged Obama for the last two years.
The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for 1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price.
Rezcoe's wife paid full price $625,000 for the adjacent vacant lot.
The deals closed in June 2005.
Six months later.
Obama paid Rezcoe's wife 104,500 for a strip of her land so he could have a bigger yard.
At the time it had been widely reported that Rezco was under federal investigation.
Questioned later about the timing of the Rezco deal.
Obama called it boneheaded because people might think the Rezcoes had done him a favor.
Eight months later, October 2006, Rezcoe was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension biddings under his friend Governor Blagoyevitch.
Federal prosecutors maintain that 10 grand from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama for his run for the Senate.
Obama has given the money to charity, and it'll probably end up paying for a party at the Democrat National Convention.
So what do we have here?
Among Obama's most intimate spiritual mentors and closest friends, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Flager, now Tony Rezco.
He's known each of them for more than 15 years.
The Power Line blog guys put this together very well.
Over the past few weeks, Obama has made public statements suggesting that over the years he failed to discern the offensive qualities that have made each of these people notorious.
He didn't know them very well.
These are not the people he knew.
This is not Jeremiah Wright I knew.
This is not the Michael Flagger I knew.
This is not the Tony Rezco that I knew.
He said, I'm saddened by today's verdict did Obama.
This isn't the Tony Rezco I knew, but now he's been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.
Reform of what?
This is exactly what Bill Clinton said when it was learned at the GHICOMS.
We're sending money to his reelection bid in 1996.
We need reform.
Campaign reform.
Guess who heard him?
Our old buddy John McCain.
And Voila were off and running on the whole notion of campaign finance reform.
The drive-by media's saying that this is no, no, no, no, big deal.
We have a little montage here.
The drive-by is taking great pains to report the Rezco verdict with the disclaimer.
They had nothing, nothing, nothing, no connection, not even a hint of connection to Obama.
Remember Ken Lay.
Jack Abramov.
They never bought houses for George W. Bush, but they were front page news for weeks and portrayed as huge Bush scandals, and of course the drive-by's.
No, no, no.
Here, listen to the Montage.
The Tony Rezco corruption trial.
This was about corruption charges unrelated to Barack Obama.
Barack Obama long ago purchased some land from Tony Rezco.
He has since disassociated himself from Tony Rezco.
Tony Rezcoe was found guilty.
Obama was not implicated in any wrongdoing.
Obama was not connected to the case.
Obama has said he was unaware of any wrongdoing by Rezcoe.
Rezcoe raised money for Obama, but neither was accused of any wrongdoing in this.
Obama's name came up only rarely during the trial, and he was not accused of any wrongdoing.
Of course, we can say the same thing about Tom Delay.
We can say the same thing about any number of Republicans who were guilty by association with Jack Abramov.
And you know how long that story went on and on.
So the drive by us are in full cover-up mode here.
Uh, which means that Obama's character is off limits, just like Bill Clinton's was.
Just as the character of any liberal running for high office will be off limits.
Again, I remind you of the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation.
Or they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Well, this is not progress because we are not talking about Obama's character.
We cannot talk about it.
We are not allowed to talk about it.
It is off limits.
It is not permitted.
We can talk about his race.
However, wonder what Dr. King would think.
I was listening to Obama's speech at AIPAC yesterday.
You know, a year or so ago, as a United States Senator Barack Obama voted against listing the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization.
Then he goes to APAC and announces they should be listed as a terrorist group.
And the drive-by is all but ignore this.
This guy, Obama, he lies repeatedly about his friends, he lies about his lies, he lies about his stances on issues.
He's Bill Clintonists.
In fact, he's Clinton and Carter.
He is Bill Clinton and Carter rolled up into one candidate.
Clinton speak Carter policy.
You've got Tony Rezco and now John Kerry and Chuck Hagel want to talk to Syria.
It's in the Wall Street Journal today.
Culture of corruption?
Tony Rezco, Obama?
Culture corruption, or was that the that was only applicable during the last election cycle against the Republicans, right?
Yeah, yeah, well, we can there's no culture of corruption in Democrat Party.
Democrats cannot be corrupt by definition, because we have no standards.
We can do whatever we want.
We never said that what we do is right or wrong.
Whatever we do is good because we're Democrats.
So you've got Obama running around complaining about lobbyists on McCain's campaign.
You know, we have this little resco matter, a good friend of his who helped finance his campaigns in personal life, and that's a sort of ho-hum.
Doesn't matter, no big deal.
But law-abiding lobbyists are worse than a convicted felon.
We can't let the media in Obama get away with this.
This is sickening, folks.
Obama's out there, he's he's he's he's making a big push to say that there will no talk the DNC will no longer take lobbyists and pack money.
In his first order of business is his party's presumed presidential nominee.
Obama's instructing Democrat National Committee members to adopt his policy against accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees.
The change will make the party and the candidate have a consistent position.
Obama often says banning the donations is uh one way to help keep him free of the influence of Washington insiders.
So he's running around complaining about all these lobbyists there on McCain's campaign.
Yet he's got his little resco matter.
And now we've got law abiding nobody accuses these lobbyists of breaking the law.
Obama's lobbyist broke the law and was just convicted.
But none of these other lobbyists that he wants to ban and get rid of have been convicted.
So these law-abiding lobbyists are worse than a convicted felon that supports Obama.
Anyway, I just this is this is just more of the redefinition of politics as Obama wants it in order to keep himself covered.
If we if we kill all the lobbyists, and I know people hate lobbyists, they hate the so-called special interests, but if we let's just play a little game here.
If we kill all the lobbyists, then what?
How will that make government better?
For example, are the environmentalist wackos considered lobbyists?
Damn straight they are.
They lobby Congress all the time.
What about La Raza?
Are they lobbyists?
Damn right they are, and they lobby Congress all the time.
Isn't what Obama and even McCain isn't, isn't what Obama's saying is that they want to eliminate the ability of businesses.
Corporate lobbyists to influence Congress, but liberal groups and liberal causes are free to lobby because, well, they're acting in the public interest.
The environmentalists are in the public interest.
The environmentalist wacko lobby, no, they're not.
They are interested in destroying capitalism and attacking corporations.
But now, according to Obama, corporations aren't going to be allowed to lobby.
They're a special interest.
But liberal groups are not going to come under any kind of ban.
Because they're good people and they're acting in the public interest.
I'll tell you what, when you when you start killing all the lobbyists, be careful, because it's just another ruse to put representative government off limits to those who actually produce things and pay taxes.
The best reform, I say this to McCain, I say it to Obama, say it to you.
The best reform is to cut the damn government.
And then there's less to lobby.
But neither candidate seems much interested in that, especially not Obama, the candidate of change.
I know.
All right, back to the phones.
People uh waiting patiently here.
We'll go to Anna Cortis, Washington.
This is uh John.
Thank you, sir, and welcome.
Hey Roach, great to talk to you and Megadiddos from a retired army officer.
Thank you, sir, very much.
While I was waiting uh ask my question, I was just listening to you talk about Obama and all the people pulling his strings.
It kind of reminded me of the uh Manchurian candidate while uh everybody's manipulating him.
The press keeps saying he's the bravest, kindest, warmest, most wonderful human being they've ever known.
Yeah, no, I've heard this reference to the Manchurian candidate made before it myself.
Yeah, it's interesting.
But my question is uh you were discussing uh letting the Republicans bypass this election.
You know, what would happen if we had a Republican president, McCain, uh, but the Democratic House and Senate, eventually, no matter what happened, the blame would fall on McCain, the Republican.
So why not just let the Democrats have the White House along with the House and Senate?
Uh interesting, but inherent in that is the damage that could be done by by all three branches, or the two branches rather, during those four years.
I mean, we could we could end up fighting in Iran, uh losing in Iran, we could end up with a terrible economy.
I mean, that philosophy is kind of scares me, and maybe you can explain it a little bit better.
Well, in the first, I've not advocated that.
I have presented two options to people and let them think about it themselves.
And both options have one constant, and that is this.
And it's based on current polling data, so it could change.
And we're still five months away from the election and politics, that's a lifetime.
But let's hypothetically say that the polling date is correct and that the Democrats are gonna have at least a 50-seat majority in the House and a seven-seat majority in the Senate, at the bare minimum.
That means that the Democrat agenda is what's going to pass in both houses of Congress.
If the Democrats have seven seats, now I know you need sixty seats there, uh, but if if if you've got seven already, you'll be able to find three moderate Republicans to go along with them.
There are two of them I can think of at the top of my head.
So with that constant, here you have Obama as president.
And let's take a look at each one individually, because I'm analyze what I think will happen.
I th I think Obama and his inexperience will show and rise to the top.
It's going to be really key as to who he has running his program running his administration, who his legislative aides are, as chief of staff, the people that are going to be dealing with Congress on his behalf, because he's not up to it.
He has no experience.
He's a community organizer, he's a senator.
He hasn't crossed the aisle much, if at all.
He's got a lot of language.
He has a lot of soaring language, but he doesn't have and he's got some specific proposals, but he's basically running the liberal campaign playbook from uh 30 and and 50 years ago.
So he I think people like Pelosi, Harry Reid, whoever's running the Senate, they could roll him and get what they want because there's a n no matter who the president is and who runs Congress, there's always a battle between the two branches.
And Congress thinks they ought to be president.
So there would be some battles with Obama.
Let's take let's take McCain.
And by the way, in in both there's another constant here.
Presidents these days define their legacies as getting things done.
That translates into having legislation passed.
We conservatives count things not getting done as progress if they're going to be done by liberals.
But McCain doesn't look at it that way, looks at getting things done.
If all he's got to work with is that vast majority of Democrats in the House and in the Senate, then the Democrats still logically carry the day on the agenda with McCain who has shown an eagerness, a willingness, and even a joyfulness in crossing the island working with them.
So if a Democrat agenda, if a liberal Democrat agenda is going to dominate not saying it's going to win on everything, but if it dominates does it matter who's in the White House if the country is going to be negatively impacted by what comes out of Congress in terms of being able to stop it.
I don't frankly know that he would want to because then he wouldn't be getting things done.
So in either scenario on paper, the future looks like we're going to take a dip.
I don't know if it means war in Iran.
I do know it means massive tax increases and expansion of government, a loss of individual liberty.
Now do we want this to happen?
I just post I I haven't directed people on how to vote here.
Do you want this to happen with a Republican president?
Well do you think McCain has the the wherewithal to stand in in in the way of any of that?
Or he's going to be overridden on a veto?
You tell me well I I suspect that he would at least try and stand up for the uh blocking tax increases.
Yeah I'm sure he would I think it's it's a little bit of an unknown because when Bush first announced his tax cuts McCain was diametrically opposed.
Right.
Dramatically opposed but yeah he can oppose them.
Let's say McCain's the guy a lot of people say Rush this is silly.
You can't have Obama in there.
We're going to have we're going to have at least two Supreme Court appointments.
Yeah I understand that.
So let's say take your favorite judge out there that you think would be great in the Supreme Court your favorite conservative judge McCain in the White House nominates the guy.
Goes over to the Senate where you have the same guys you got Patrick Leahy you got Biden you have Kennedy and probably a couple more on that committee based on the election returns you got Dick Durbin.
You have Senator Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and a couple of more just like him.
Can you tell me what's going to happen to McCain's judicial nominees for the Supreme Court?
Well they're going to get hammered I mean they're they're just not going to get approved it just seems like kind of futile right now to be throwing up our hands.
But wait but wait but wait but wait a minute you just can't leave the Supreme Court vacant if they keep rejecting McCain's nominees he's got to do what?
He's got to send people up that they'll approve I understand that but it seems like rather than giving up I mean are we putting should we put in our our B team or our C team rather than no team I'm not I'm not suggesting giving up.
Let me give you another element to this to think about which is all I've done.
You know I'm of other than Operation Chaos I'm not telling people how to vote.
Here's the thing we have fact grab I want you to hear did you hear the soundbite we played in the first hour of the program from the RNC guy, the chief of the RNC.
Yes I do.
Okay, so we don't well for let grab number two for those of you that didn't hear it this will set up my next scenario that I want John here to react to.
This is uh yesterday morning on WLS in Chicago the Don Wade and Roma show Don Wade says to Mike Duncan who's the chairman of the RNC so we have the Rush Limbaugh problem.
How are you going to get Rush Limbaugh on the Republican team?
Well obviously we we hope that everyone joins the team and what I'm seeing right now is that nine out of ten Republican voters are rallying around John McCain.
On the other side we're seeing uh depending on the state but uh in some states as many as a third of the Democrats say they won't vote for Barack Obama this fall.
Overall It's about 19% nationally.
So we're doing a good job of bringing independents and Democrats over to the Republican side, and they're not doing a very good job of bringing the Republicans to Barack Obama because they're such a stark contrast.
Do we want to go back to the 1960s failed ideas of the higher taxes and bigger government and uh uh judges who legislate from the bench and and uh not having a strong defense and I think the answer is no.
Well, this is this is this is just sad.
I feel sorry for Mr. Duncan.
In the first place, McCain's not even running to have a bunch of Republicans elected with him in the Congress.
I don't see any action by the RNC to help forestall these big Democrat majorities.
But you just heard him say nine out of ten Republicans are on board are rallying.
They may not I don't think they're rallying.
I think there are more Republicans that are angry at McCain than they're angry at Bush, to be quite honest.
There are more Republicans who are have have more visceral anger at McCain than they do Bush.
But you just heard the RNC guy say, we'll all excite we're looking at these Democrats.
We're attracting all these Democrats.
So here's here's the next scenario.
McCain's let me let me set the table.
McCain wins.
McCain wins, attracting Democrats as Democrats.
Not as converted to Republican or conservative Democrats, but as Democrats.
And so then what do you have?
Then you have these country club blue blood gang and the Rockefeller Republicans, and they're out there saying, see, you conservatives, we don't even need you.
This is the future of the Republican Party.
Independents and Democrats and moderate Republicans, we don't need you.
Reagan was we don't need that anyway.
And they're going to get the wrong idea that that's how you win.
Well, you know, I agree with that.
And as one of the ten percent as a conservative, I'm I'm completely upset about McCain being the nominee.
And I don't even see any action, any coattail action with uh with congressional seats around the country.
Anybody trying to tie themselves to McCain or McCain to them, uh, which scares me more than anything else.
Excellent point.
But what's going on is is the the thought of leaving the House and just saying or the the White House and walking away from everything and saying you guys do your worst in four years, we'll be back with a new team.
I'm not looking, I have never advocated a losing an election, and every time somebody calls and suggests that it happens every year.
It happened in ninety-two.
Rush, let's just lose and let the country see what a rotten guy Clinton is, and it will be back in four years.
You can't trust that.
Um I've I've never advocated a los.
I don't think you win by losing.
I don't think but at at the at the same time, there are really some things to consider here.
Uh if you if you're interested in conservatism being rebuilt and being able to uh nominate the Republican Party once again.
So it's very convoluted.
It is complicated.
It's gonna take a lot of thought by a lot of people.
I I told you earlier Tom Sowell said, look, two of the most inadequate candidates ever.
What it boils down to him to is Iran and nuclear weapons and their pursuit of them, and there's only one guy he has any hope and faith in that will stop it, and that's McCain.
And so that's his decision.
All the rest of it's academic to him, there's no difference in the two.
They're both inadequate.
In fact, you know what I would say that neither of these two candidates is running on substance.
They're both running on image.
We have Obama running on the image, first black nominee.
McCain's image is war hero.
If you strip that away from both guys, you strip Obama's race away from him, you strip McCain's war hero status away from what do we got here?
Literally, what do we have?
And this is what people are so disappointed.
Why in the hell in a country, three hundred million people is this?
The best we can come up with on either side.
Well, maybe maybe a suggestion for for some shows in the future is Well, go ahead and make a suggestion.
Good.
Then we can have you or your staff research all the conservatives that are running for House and Senate seats around the country and maybe rally behind them as a stopgap measure.
Uh well, I've already well, I haven't I haven't researched them by names, but I've said that this is exactly what we need to do, is focus on House, well, state House and uh and local elections to start the new farm team of conservatives uh being uh being built.
Anyway, look, John, I uh I appreciate the phone call.
I gotta go.
We're up uh we're really really pushing the hard break here.
Stay with us, folks.
We'll be right back.
Back to the phones on the EIB network.
This is Northbrook, Illinois.
Darren High, great to have you here.
Oh, Captain My Captain Rush, what an honor it is to talk with you again.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
You're doing a great job.
Don't let the turkeys get you down.
I know there's a lot of people asking that.
You do more.
And I just gotta say, since uh Buckley's death, you're the greatest philosopher and pamphleteer we conservatives have.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
I appreciate it.
The pioneers take the arrows.
Uh I can handle it.
Indeed, indeed.
Rush, you know, it's a it's a truth today that if conservatives are going to beat back the socialist looters, we need to get back to basics.
And you know, there's a three-step process for building a conservative, uh, any political movement, and it starts with the philosophers.
And conservatives are lucky because we already have had our philosophers some 50 years ago.
We had guys like Russell Kirk and uh Frederick Von Hayek and Ludwig von Beepis, Frank Meyer and Irving Crystal, who who gave us these timeless, permanent principles, the phone.
Don't forget Edmund Burke.
Yes, I uh I edited him out uh due to time, as a matter of fact.
Edmund Burke is uh is obviously a great conservative philosopher that we need to pamphletize his philosophies today.
See, once the philosophers are saying something that are making a lot of sense, then the pamphleteers grab that and they distill down those ideas for mass consumption.
And once those pamphleteers create this greater seabed for a political movement, then the the politicians follow.
And what's happening today is the politicians have gotten away from those permanent principles, those those principles ratified by the entire human uh experience.
You know, conservatism doesn't go out of style because human nature is not going to change.
And like I say, our politicians today aren't articulating the conservative principles.
Nobody is making the uh principal case against socialized health care, for example.
Well, when you look at you are you are singing my tune, which basically is we have defeatists who do nothing but accept every premise offered by the left.
I have been part of a discussion before the program today.
Uh well, I haven't.
I've been a witness to a discussion when these chat things in a chat room on a blog amongst conservative intellectuals on global warming.
Conservative intellectual pamphleteers, as you would call them.
And they're all saying, well, of course it's happening.
Man-made global warming, of course it's happening.
What we have to do is accept the premise and then go in there and tweak it and make sure that what their fix is doesn't cost a lot of money and ruin the economy.
And so this is what's happened in way too many instances.
We accept the premise because it's easier to do that than to fight the premise.
It's precisely what American conservatives want from their leaders, though, is to fight the premise of all this, to fight the premise of socialized health care, to tell people how it's going to cost them more money and reduce the quality of their care and the availability of it.
It's so frustrating because it's happening all across the world where they're trying it.
Canada, the UK.
There is a great column in the op-ed section of the New York Post today about the kind of care Ted Kennedy got for his brain tumor and the surgery to remove it versus somebody who has the same circumstance in the UK.
It is just, and yet the same people who are benefiting from the greatest health care system in the world are those who want to destroy it in order to put themselves and the government in uh in charge of it.
And it's a pure myth.
It is a myth that they want to do this because they feel sorry for poor people.
It's because they want power.
Liberalism is oriented around a series of false promises and fallacious premises.
And one of the primary things that drives it is this whole notion of we have talked about this before.
And it's the root of class envy, the equality of outcomes.
It isn't fair that some people should have more money than others, bigger houses, nicer cars, uh better neighborhoods, better schools.
It isn't fair.
And America will not be a just nation until all these inequities have been rectified.
So everybody is the same.
Well, the only way everybody can be the same is if a tyrannical despot dictator takes over the group and forces misery on them all.
Because no two Americans are the same.
We have so many sign from physically.
Look at the psychological, look at the differences in ambition, desire, abilities.
And you're absolutely right.
Conservatism is nothing more than natural law.
And at the root of it is freedom.
And they tell us conservatism needs to reform and adapt to the times.
Nope.
Because personal liberty and freedom is for all time.
And it's the foundational building block of what we believe in.
Anyway, a quick time out.
We'll be back right after this.
I know where the time goes.
Fastest three hours in media.
I know you can't pull yourselves away from the radio.
I can't pull myself away from the microphone.
Two hours already done.
Got to pull away here for a little minute, but we'll be back before you know it.
▲
Export Selection