All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:47
October 24, 2008, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, folks, the education news just keeps on coming.
A history teacher at North Hascral in East Lake Somewhere is on paid leave.
Dean Morrison is the teacher.
He had been fast forwarding between two History Channel segments when his class of about 20 upperclassmen got a glimpse of a woman giving a guy a Lewinski.
Immediately after class, Morrison reported the blip to the principal.
Parents were notified he's on paid leave.
All he had to do was saying he was teaching the history of the Clinton years and he would have gotten away with it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Exactly right.
If he's just been telling people that he was teaching the history of the Clinton years, he'd have gotten off.
In fact, he'd be a hero today.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Wrapping up the fastest week in media.
It's open line Friday.
Here's the telephone number.
800-282-2882, the email address.
L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Check the oil price here, folks.
Um whoa.
Oil price at $64.91 cents right now, despite the OPEC cut.
All right, here are the rules for Friday, and you uh if you're a regular listener, then you know Monday through Thursday, this program is exclusively about what interests me.
I don't talk about anything that doesn't interest me because things that don't interest me bore me, and I don't want to be bored, and I don't want you to listen to boredom on the radio.
But on Friday, I throw that caution to the wind, and I will fake it.
Uh, when we go to the phones, the subject matter is up to you.
Content of the program's up to you.
We go to the phones.
You can talk about whatever, even if I don't care about it.
Uh, if you think something hasn't been mentioned, feel free.
Once again, the phone number is 800-282-288-2.
Well, the bottom is falling out from the uh oil price, bottom falling out.
Democrats, I wonder, I'm just wondering if the Democrats will put together a bailout plan for the oil companies, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
We bailed out AIG, and by the way, they've gone through 80% of their money.
And they may need more, or they're gonna have to shut down.
That's uh to have it in the stack here.
We bailed out the banks, we bailed out everybody, we're gonna bail out people that don't pay taxes.
We bailed out people who got mortgages for homes and couldn't pay them back.
I wonder if we will bail out big oil.
Or are the Democrats happy that big oil is being killed right now?
You remember during the last set of big oil bashing hearings, we reminded the country that no one comes to their defense when oil is dirt cheap.
Well, that's where we're headed again.
How about some hearings to find out what we can do to help?
Uh, maybe open up and war.
Pass legislation to guarantee offshore drilling indefinitely.
There wasn't any greed here.
There wasn't any price gouging.
Supply and demand, 8% after tax profit.
The price is still plummeting here, and the oil companies are being hurt very, very badly.
I don't hear anybody talking about bailing them out.
The stock market today, down 276 at 275 at the moment.
It was down much uh worse than that.
It's rebounding just a little bit.
Uh the foreign markets.
This was strange, too.
The foreign markets usually follow our lead.
And we were up yesterday.
We finished up 172 on the Dow.
But the foreign markets, all of them plunged overnight, and the uh after hours trading had to be halted on our stock exchange by rule when it reached minus six percent, down five hundred and some odd points.
So everybody was expecting a bloodbath today.
We haven't really had a bloodbath now down 2716.
And this is uh, you know, I I've got audio soundbites today, Maria Barcheromo, CNBC yesterday confirming one of my theories, talking to experts, saying, Yeah, this is there is fear over Obama.
There's fear of Obama winning, fear of his tax increases, fear of what he's gonna do to small businesses.
It's real and it is uh is genuine.
The markets predict the future, the markets correct themselves, and they prepare for what they think is down the road.
Now, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, Democrats have been desperately trying to find a Republican to blame all this on.
And yesterday, Alan Greenspan, the husband of NBC's Andrea Mitchell went up there and almost fell on the sword.
Now, I don't know that he's going to suffice as a Republican here scapegoat.
Here's a little bit about what Greenspan said.
We had a question from Henry Nostrelitus Waxman.
He said, The question I have for you is you had an ideology.
You had a belief that free competitive, and this is your statement.
I do have an ideology.
My judgment is that free competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies.
We've tried regulation, none meaningfully worked.
You feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made.
What I'm saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw.
I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact.
In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right.
It was not working.
Precisely.
No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I've been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
Now let me tell you what they're talking about there, folks.
When Henry Waxman questions Greenspan on his ideology, it's capitalism.
Greenspan admitted yesterday that free markets screwed up.
That's how he stays in good graces with the people that run Washington, D.C. Because the free markets did not screw up.
Not even the great and courageous Alan Greenspan apparently has the guts to tell Henry Waxman that every bit of this mess can be placed right at his feet.
Along with Chris Dodds and Barney Franks and Barack Obamas and Acorns and Franklin Reigns.
Here's here's the totality of what Greenspan said.
You found your view of the world, your ill ideology was not right.
It was blah, blah, blah, blah.
Greenspan said absolutely precisely.
It's precisely the reason I was shocked because I've been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.
Then he said, and when we had the vote or the bite, I have found a flaw.
Pressed by Waxman on what Greenspan saw as his biggest mistake at the helm of the Fed.
Greenspan said, I made a mistake in presuming.
Get this one.
This this frosts me.
Folks, this just Waxman's question is a total setup.
It's a softball, and Greenspan took it for his own self-interest.
He said, I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.
Free markets did break down, and I think that as I said, that shocked me.
I still don't fully understand how it happened or why it happened.
And obviously, to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I'll change my views.
And if the facts change, I will change.
The free market did not break down.
The free market was not free.
There was nothing free about what was going on in the subprime mortgage crisis.
There was coercion from government, from Janet Reno, from the Clinton administration.
He doesn't have to look far to far to find out where it broke down.
These were not free markets operating.
All of these subprime mortgages were worthless paper from the get-go.
The banks, I know they packaged these and sold them as securities, derivatives, uh, and and a bunch of uh bunch of other products, and they got their leverage all out of whack.
Uh and and uh you know, they they they were perhaps a little uh uh this is trying to protect themselves with this by coming up with other sources of revenue that the mortgage repayments were not going to provide.
So now here's Greenspan.
Of all people of the this is exactly what the Democrats wanted to hear.
Free markets do not work, capitalism does not work.
That's why subtext we need Obama.
So Greenspan's not in office.
What does he care?
It's just like Colin Powell.
Everything it's self-interest.
You get brought up there and you say whatever you have to say to get out of there with your um with your reputation intact.
Now, what is this?
What does this illustrate?
This illustrates illustrates precisely, ladies and gentlemen, the political class will protect themselves first.
Republicans and Democrats.
They will circle the wagons and they will protect themselves.
The political governing class will never take the hit for the things that they do and have caused.
It happens in both parties.
A brief timeout.
We'll come back and continue with all the rest of today's exciting open line Friday in just a moment.
Guy named Kevin Collins at CollinsReport.com has taken the AP survey, had the one-point lead and has uh dug deep into the internals.
And uh he says that this AP poll that hasn't one point for Obama just screams trouble because this poll reported uh that Obama's base support is just 80 percent.
Now, and that's a big if if that's true, but if it is true, it's monumental.
And I I hate to keep going back to yesterday, but offered you a theory.
This was in the third hour yesterday, that what's happening with a lot of these polls, the pollsters go out and they ask all of their respondents, are you Republican or Democrat?
First question.
And uh right now you got about 10% more people who say they're Democrats just in general than are Republicans, and this is because you know, war in Iraq's been forgotten, Bush is not popular.
That that figure turns around when there's a popular Republican in the White House.
So you got a 10 10-point advantage here in Democrats, so the pollsters, therefore, wait.
They put that many at least more Democrats in the poll than they do Republicans.
And uh the one of the things that they're not factoring, I'm constant confident of this, and this is this AP poll uh data sort of confirms this for me.
One thing that they're not factoring uh is how many Democrats are not gonna vote for Obama, despite what they tell the pollsters.
A lot of Reagan Democrats out there.
There are a lot of Democrats who don't like Obama.
There are a lot of Democrats who didn't vote for him in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Texas when the primaries are going on.
There are a lot of Democrats who don't like French type socialism, which is what Obama is talking about here.
And you know what the situation was in France before they elected a conservative Sarkozy to start fixing it.
It was a mess, couldn't fire anybody, unemployment was at 14%.
Over half the country receiving their total subsistence from the other portion of the country that was working.
Now, last June, when uh when former Hillary supporters were asked, fifty-eight percent said they supported Obama, but the same survey also showed that 21% of Hillary supporters were voting for McCain.
And they did a follow-up survey of the very same people.
Sometime later, it showed McCain had grown to 28% of Hillary's voters while remaining stagnant at 58% for Obama.
So in the internals of the latest AP poll, it looks like the undecided seem to be moving to McCain.
Now, the media is not talking about these numbers, obviously, but they could be very important.
If Obama is just getting 80% of Democrat support, then he's got to be in trouble.
A base support that low can't be overcome, and is not enough to get Obama elected.
In 2000, Alcor got 92% of the Democrat vote, and he lost in 2004, John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, got 89% of the Democrat vote, and he lost by a clear margin.
Now, there would have to be a huge difference in party ID to pull Obama through with just 80% of his base, and the reported split among independents doesn't help matters.
The base support numbers in this AP poll, if it's accurate, tell a very important story.
And if they are real, it's gonna be tough for Obama to overcome this.
Also, this is from the CNBC.com website.
Election Day only two weeks ago.
This is from actually it's from yesterday.
John McCain and Obama make their final pitches to close the deal with voters.
A stunning new ATI Zogby poll shows a clear majority of undecided voters disagree with Obama's plan for wealth distribution in America.
The major issue on voters' minds right now is the economy.
And the major voting block on candidates' minds right now is the undecided voter, said Brad O'Leary, the ATI news president.
Our poll results show that undecided voters overwhelmingly reject Obama's economic plan to redistribute wealth.
And we've got Obama, let's see.
Looking through the soundbite roster here, Mike, I know we've got Obama saying he's going to stand by this.
Pardon me, folks, will I look for this?
Uh-blah.
Well, it's here.
I can't, I can't find it right now.
Uh but he, I think he told Robin Roberts that ABC's Good Morning America that he will.
He has no regrets about saying anything that he said to Joe the Plumber.
Uh here it is, audio soundbite number seven, Robin Roberts interviewing Barack Obama.
And she said, Are you have any regrets that you said to Joe the Plumber, you spread the wealth comments?
Not at all.
Look, if John McCain's best argument is that he wants to continue the same Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans that in 2000 he himself opposed.
And in the meantime, fails to give tax cuts to a hundred million people in America that I would give tax cuts to.
John McCain's going to have some problems because the American people understand that the way we grow this economy is from the bottom up.
Uh wrong on so many counts.
But the one thing that I have to say here about Obama, he is consistent.
He never wavers from what he says.
Well, that's not true.
He has he's moderated his uh position on a couple things.
Um well, but but but the point is as far as his base is concerned, he's consistent.
He didn't back off this.
When he talks about the free market, he always criticizes the free market.
When he talks about the rich, he always rips the rich.
You know, one day you've got McCain out there sounding like Milton Friedman, the next day you've got him sounding like FDR.
Uh, and uh the the lack of consistency in the in the McCain message is striking compared to the consistency of the uh Obama message.
And he's also Obama very consistent about America is to blame.
America is now he's consistent, he's wrong in practically everything he's voted on and said, but he's consistent with it.
He doesn't shock his supporters, he doesn't make them scratch their heads.
Of course, they're not even really listening to the substance of what Obama is saying.
Now, this tax cut thing is one thing where he has changed his mind.
Because he got caught on this.
He was gonna give a tax break to 95% of Americans.
Now, problem is that uh a little under 70% is the largest number of Americans that pay taxes.
Around uh 30, 32 percent of Americans do not pay income taxes.
This was pointed out to Obama.
He said, Well, they pay payroll taxes, and I'm gonna give them a tax credit.
And they're gonna get a tax credit on their payroll taxes.
They're paying taxes, they ought to get a tax cut too.
She's gonna rob the Social Security Trust Fund theoretically in order to give this tax cut.
And then he said, and this this is one of these things that leads me to believe that that Obama does not understand certain crucial things about this government.
When he was challenged about his tax plan for a tax cut for 95% of all Americans, because 95% of all Americans don't pay taxes, he was quick to point out that working Americans do pay payroll taxes.
He said they needed a tax cut too.
When it was pointed out to him that his tax cut was in reality a socialist welfare program because it was confiscating more tax revenues from income tax paying Americans to hand over to non-income tax paying Americans.
Obama said, no, no, no, no, no.
He did this this week.
He said there's gonna be a work requirement for his tax plan.
Now I have a news flash to Senator government here.
The fact that a person pays payroll taxes means they already have a job.
And if they already have a job, Senator Government, it means they're already working.
So what in the name of Tarnation are you talking about?
These people are gonna face a work requirement.
And that's gonna eliminate the fact that it's welfare.
They're already working if they're paying payroll taxes.
Now, because I have come to understand Obama, I don't think he understands what payroll taxes are.
I don't think that he understood what capital gains taxes are when he started talking about making them progressive.
I'm not sure he knows that payroll taxes are taken out of workers' paychecks.
And furthermore, I don't think he cares.
He is just he talks about Biden's rhetorical flourishes, but Obama is given to his own.
What he understands and believes, my good friends, is income redistribution.
He understands socialism.
He understands radicalism, just like his friends.
And I think he's he's uh he's treading here on on uh on dangerous water because this is a this is a wide open for McCain in a normal campaign.
And of course, I want to reiterate something else, ladies and gentlemen.
This this economy, I was on Fox and Friends this morning uh for about 10 minutes.
They got, I think, two questions in in those two minutes, and I made the point that where we are right now, this economy is the election.
I said, even though this economy can be directly traced to Democrat policies, McCain's got to make that case.
Uh people sent me emails.
This is not about just the economy, it's about national security.
I know it's about all those things.
What I'm trying to say is that right now, with a little over a week to go with what's happening in the stock market and all this never-ending news about we're coming up on a recession, we got layoffs coming, people getting Chrysler.
Make deep cuts, white collar workers.
25% of their white collar workforce is going to be laid off next month.
Cuts are necessary because of the deep downturn in the economy and the tightening credit situation, choking off auto sales.
Well, Shazam the thank you, Democrat Party, and thank you, Obama.
So he's got to link the Democrat Party to this economic crisis.
But he just he he has to criticize Democrats to do that, and he's afraid he's gonna lose moderates, which is losing moderates left and right anyway.
How are you?
It's open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis coming up in mere moments.
Devastating audio from a just discovered video containing striking statements from Obama in 1995.
You do not want to miss this.
But first I want to stay on the economy for just a moment.
I want to talk to all of you who have 401ks or SEPKEO plans, some kind of pension plan, a retirement plan.
And the first thing I want to do is share with you something that Joe Biden, he, the one given to rhetorical flourishes, according to Obama, was on the campaign trail in Colorado.
And he was out there doing full-fledged Democrat Party playbook 101.
He promised a full-scale attack on corporate greed if he and Obama win.
Biden vowed to target executives of failing companies who draw big salaries.
Their pensions go first, he told the cheering crowd.
Now, folks, I want you to stop very, very seriously here.
Stop for a moment and very seriously consider what you just heard Joe Biden say.
Here he's got a room full, an auditorium full of rabid Obama supporting Democrats.
They are there for whatever reason they support Obama.
They are filled with class envy.
And here is Joe Biden telling this crowd that these CEOs of failing companies who draw big salaries, we are gonna go get their pensions.
Now for that we're not gonna go get their salaries.
We're not gonna cap their salaries, although that's what they want to do.
He didn't say that.
We're gonna get their pensions.
Their pensions go first, meaning what?
We're gonna take them.
We're gonna punish this evil greed that is making you angry and making you poor.
Well, the only way to punish the greed that is making you angry and making you poor is to take Biden's pension away first.
Biden has a pension as well.
he didn't talk about his pension to this audience.
His pension is what's called a defined benefit option.
It's backed by the U.S. Treasury, which means that Joe Biden and Obama and everybody else in Congress is sheltered from the ups and downs of the stock market.
He gets a generous pension no matter how bad liberal legislation screws up the economy for the rest of us.
And Biden also has the option of drawing his benefits earlier than private sector employees with no penalty.
His contributions accrue faster.
Now the private sector greed that Biden attacks cannot hold a candle to the greed liberals have for your tax dollars, as evidenced by Obama who cannot wait to get his pause on your tax dollars and Biden.
This is striking.
Their pensions go first.
He's gonna take away people's pensions.
If you let that happen, he can take away yours.
Guess what?
They are doing it in Argentina.
They are nationalizing everybody's pensions.
You stick with me on this, folks.
The failures in the private sector are minuscule compared to the continued massive failures of big government.
Everything they touch has unintended consequences and goes wrong, and they then get to act like innocent bystander spectators and point fingers at everybody else, and now they've got greens fan up there agreeing that the free market screwed up when the free market had nothing to do with this economic mess.
It was just the exact opposite.
So, Senator Biden, if anybody's pension deserves to go first, it should be yours.
You are the person of greed.
You're the person who's made how many millions of dollars over the last number of years and given $3,600 of it to charity.
You and your liberal, but you go first.
You give up your pensions.
Show us some leadership, Senator Biden.
You go first.
You show us how it's done.
You want to be fair, you'll get rid of your own pension because you'll say what we have done up here has been a disgrace, and we are resigning out of a sense of honor.
Now, this is just part of this pension and 401k business.
I want to remind you, two weeks ago, Senator or Congressman George Miller from uh from California, who chairs some congressional committee, big Democrat been there for ages, said we're gonna have to do something about the tax deductibility of contributions to people's 401ks.
Because we're governments losing money.
We're losing money on this.
So we're we're we're gonna eliminate, he's gonna propose eliminating the deductibility of whatever you contribute to your 401k.
Now we don't know if Obama would go along with this.
The odds are pretty good that he would.
Because they have another plan.
But now stop and think.
Here's Biden, they're gonna take the.
I don't care what you think of big oil, I don't care what you think of Enron.
The New York Times, by the way, is the Enron of media.
They are now officially, according to Standard and Poor's junk.
On the very day they endorse Obama, they are junk.
This just goes to show you propaganda does not pay.
There isn't profit in propaganda.
The New York Times is no longer the New York Times.
Not what it was.
They're losing advertising revenue, they're dropping pages, they're losing readers, circulation, and they are obstinate as hell about it.
And now they're officially junk on the day they endorse Obama.
So you can talk about all of this greed and all of this private sector greed and so forth, and they're gonna go out, and they're gonna take some CEO's pension, his pension, their pensions go first.
Next, your 401k is no longer deductible, and get this.
If this from James Taranto yesterday at uh the uh Wall Street Journal, Best of the Web Today, and the headline of his piece here are 401ks safe from Congressional Democrats.
Now, I can answer this in two ways.
First place, I know you're scared to look at your 401k statements when they come in.
What's happened to this market?
Are your 401ks safe from Congressional Democrats.
They're not safe from Democrats right now, folks, because Democrats have caused what we're all experiencing.
The second answer to the question is the startling information in this story.
If you have a 401k or equivalent retirement plan, SEPKEO or what have you, you've probably been watching nervously the past few weeks as your nest egg has shrunken owing to the current turmoil in the markets.
It could be worse, too.
But what we mean is it could get worse.
The market turmoil has some politicians on Capit Capitol Hill eyeing the end of the 401k as we know it.
Workforce management reports on a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee earlier this month.
House Education and Labor Committee.
This one listened to this.
Look at me.
A plan by Teresa Gillarducci, who is a professor of economic policy analysis at the new school for social research in New York, contains elements that are being considered under Teresa Gillarducci's plan.
All workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government, but you would be required to invest 5% of your pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration.
In other words, there is a plan that the Democrats are considering to convert your 401k to the Social Security Administration, your 401k then administered by the SSA, your private retirement plan becomes owned by the government.
The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year adjusted for inflation.
Now the purpose of this plan is they think you'll go for this because you've seen these wild market gyrations and you've seen your 401k plunge.
So now they're thinking, oh, that you'll go along with the Social Security Administration running your private retirement plan at a guaranteed 3% a year.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401k contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
So no longer would you get the deduction off the top of your income for whatever you contribute to your 401k.
The current system of tax breaks on 408 contributions 401k contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
Gillar Ducci.
Teresa Gillar Ducci said, I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401ks.
401ks can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.
So that's two people now who want to come along and take away the tax deductibility and subsidy of your 401k.
George Miller, who runs the committee, and some babe, professor of economic policy analysis at the new school for social research in New York.
She outlined her plan last year in a paper, Gilar Ducci did for the left liberal economic policy institute, in which she acknowledges that her plan would amount to a tax increase on people making more than $75,000 a year.
That's considerably less, of course, than the $250,000 Obama has said would be his tax increase cutoff.
In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs so that your 401k would be subject to the 50% death tax rate.
Because the government's going to own it.
The government's going to own your 401k, and your 401k will guarantee you just 3% in government bonds administered by the government, your private retirement account that the government set up and got you into.
Now they want to take over from you.
Just like Joe Biden was to go out and make sure that these evil CEOs, their pensions go first.
The concept that your money is your money will vanish when the Democrats take over Congress and Obama takes over the White House.
All money will officially be governments.
Now, this could be pretty brutal, so they had this babe up to testify before this committee, Teresa Gillarducci.
And she offered a sweetener.
Short term, I propose that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401k assets, perhaps at August levels before the market plunged, for a guaranteed retirement account, just a one-time swap.
How would this work?
Okay, well, you go back to your districts and you meet up with a 55-year-old who had a $50,000 account last month, and that accounts now just to take a number here, now worth 40,000 because of the market plunge.
We will let that uh that that that person swap out the fifty thousand dollars valued in August for the guarantee of what would become if he retires at sixty-two, a five hundred dollar a month addition to Social Security.
So her plan is to have your 401k plan taken over by the government, invested by the government, a social security plan at three percent, and then your retirement's paid back to you in a social security check.
Whatever your social security benefits are when you retire will be added to by whatever's in your 401k.
The point is that every your you in in your mind, if you go along for this, the government is in total charge of your retirement.
And the sweetener, the the the little hook here is is for people to say, well, my 401k was in August.
It was worth a lot of money, and now it's low.
Okay, we'll give you the August value.
Uh your generous and benevolent government will give you the August value, and then we will take your plan and we'll put it in the Social Security Administration, and we'll invest your plan in safe bonds at 3% a year.
And then when you retire, that money in your 401k gets added to whatever your social and you get one check, your social security check, and in that check will be whatever your retirement account is.
You're essentially giving it up.
And and by the way, gone also is any incentive to contribute to it in terms of the subsidy you get off the top of your income for whatever you donate to your 401k.
Now, I don't want to totally alarm you here.
It's by no means a certainty that Congress or Obama would embrace this proposal.
But I'll tell you when you listen to them talk, this is the direction they're headed.
You know they're going to come after pension plans.
It's one of the largest sources of money out there, be it you California teachers, public employees, uh Teamsters Union, your pension plan.
I guarantee you, people like Obama and Democrats in the House are eyeing that as though it's theirs.
Joe Biden, their pensions go first.
And then Buenos Aires.
A year ago when leftist Christina Kirchner was elected to succeed her husband, Nestor, as president, manj many Argentines hoped that she would follow a more conciliatory path.
But with Gambits like Tuesday's proposal to nationalize private pension funds, the 55-year-old former senator has shown a combativeness that is very every bit the equal of her husband.
She joined and justified the proposed seizure of $30 billion in private pension assets by accusing the funds of having instrumented policies of plunder.
She said Argentina was setting example of how to deal with a global financial crisis.
So here's Argentina with a leftist nationalizing everybody's pension on the basis people running the pension funds are crooks.
Uh folks, you don't take this election seriously.
This exact kind of stuff is headed our way.
We'll be back.
By the way, this move down in Argentina by the uh the the new leftist president, Christina Kirchner, to nationalize private pension funds is being fought.
The city is there, all kinds of lawsuits being filed against her down there.
People are not standing for this.
I mean, we we look at Argentina, if I'm not mistaken, is the country we always heard about uh late 90s as a model for how to redo Social Security.
That's right, Chile.
Sorry, Chile.
One South American country is like all the rest, I guess I get them get the confused out there.
I mentioned earlier that uh thank you for correcting me on that, uh Ill Snerdbow.
Uh the Obama recently discovered video.
We have the audio of it from 1995.
It it what we what it does, it juxtaposes 1995 audio from Obama with a clip from a Democrat primary debate this year.
Uh and it is stunning.
Uh, it's thirteen years ago.
Uh Barry was 34 years old, something like that.
Here is just we have one, two, three, one, two, three, four.
We've got four bytes here.
And I just want you to hear one to give you an example of what's coming at the top of the next hour.
Barack Obama, in his own words, nineteen ninety-five.
And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility.
I think that uh whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children, uh to uh for them to go to school.
Generator Obama, your position of reparations.
I I think the reparations we need uh right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools.
The juxtaposition here is to illustrate that Obama has not changed.
Now next week I'm also going to play for you an interview we did for the next uh issued a limball letter with Stanley Kurtz, who has researched Obama the way the drive-by media used to research everybody who sought major power in this country.
And one of the things that he uncovered that startled me is I I've been among the group of people who thought Obama showed up as a sort of a naive little waif in Chicago, and somehow the words spread and heyers found him and uh some of these other guys, Jeremiah Wright's the other way around.
He showed up in Chicago as a radical, showed up he would him showed up fascinated with sixties radicalism, and he found out who in Chicago the 60s radicals people were and formed alliances with them.
And uh here he is in 1995, uh talking about needing to tax white people, executives in the suburbs, because they don't like paying for schools where black kids go back in a second.
When you hear the rest of the audio for the 1995 Obama, you'll begin to wonder as I did, who taught who?
▲
Export Selection