All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 28, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
October 28, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, folks, we now have been told why the drive by media is in the tank for Obama.
Our buddies at the Politico.com have run a story, admitting that the coverage for Obama is so much favorable, and they basically tell us that don't blame them for the fact that the McCain campaign's horrible.
And nothing they can do about that.
Greetings and that doesn't describe what is going on, by the way.
Greetings and welcome, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
Three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 at the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Let's see, who is this AP Obama has uh has issued an interesting uh uh advice piece for those of you experiencing election stress.
Says here's some advice for coping with the final days of the presidential election and life beyond.
By the way, uh Obama wants everybody to take the day off next Tuesday.
Uh just taking it just tell your boss you want to take the whole day off.
It's fundamentally important for the future of America.
Take the whole day off so that you can vote as many times as you can figure out how.
He doesn't say that you are to vote as many times as you can find a way to, but uh of course everybody gets paid.
Of course everybody gets paid, but it's it's you should take the day off next week.
That's how important and uh and crucial all this is.
Anyway, here's the advice from AP Obama on avoiding election stress uh and life beyond, step away from the computer, the television and the newspaper, avoid vicious political arguments.
This from, by the way, from Gretchen Rubin, the New York-based author of the forthcoming happiness project, be proactive instead of powerless by volunteering or otherwise making your voice heard.
Take care of yourself by getting enough sleep, eating right, and exercising.
You'll feel better while recognizing those things you can control.
Uh realize also that uh no candidate is as good or as bad as you might imagine, and when all else fails, change the subject.
Turn to those things that are more eternal and more important, such as nature and family.
It's a great time to go into nature.
Go camping.
My gosh, folks, we are nothing but a bunch of helpless children.
Now we have to be advised by AP Obama on how to deal with election stress.
And basically, by the way, the one thing they did not advise people to do is turn off the radio.
They said turn off the television, don't watch uh too much internet and so forth, don't have a lot of arguments with people, but they did not say turn off the radio.
So you can do all those other things they advise, but leave your radio on.
Now, the Obama video that we play, or audio actually that we played yesterday from the Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001, as expected, it has been spiked by the drive-by media.
It's not being aired anywhere.
And I act I firmly believe, uh, ladies and gentlemen, these polls are getting tight again, exactly as I predicted.
Well, we've got uh the tip poll is about to three points or just a little bit under here.
Yeah, IBD tip poll uh 2.8, Obama's lead as of yesterday.
And as all of this uh all of this talk about landslide and it's in the bag, and yet Obama's spending all this time in these battleground states.
Now, so is McCain, obviously, but uh it we're we're being sold a bill of goods.
This is it's time to show up and not be dispirited.
It's time to get busy and to keep your spirits up here, folks, regardless what you hear in the drive-by media, because it's all pro-Obama.
I mean, it's it there's uh Jay Carney has a piece in Time Magazine, doesn't actually say this, but I mean the the uh uh uh implication or the inference you can draw is why doesn't McCain just quit?
Well, it is it's over.
Why why why didn't he just quit?
Uh let's make this official.
I I firmly believe that if the public can be made to understand the significance of that 2001 audio, that if they understand that Obama cannot in good faith uphold the Constitution because he dismisses it, And he doesn't like it.
He wants to change it.
He doesn't like its limits on government.
He looks at that as a problem.
The limits of power on government in the Constitution represents a problem to Obama.
If people understand that he believes in a massive redistribution of wealth that includes raising taxes on everybody who pays income taxes, especially the middle class, then I think he can be defeated.
And I think this audio from yesterday that we had that's that's popped up everywhere, can be a game changer, whether the media or the self-appointed elites on the left and right think so or not.
And the fact that they're not airing this audio in uh in any of the drive-by media is indication of that to me.
See, I think the people of this country love their constitution.
And the people of this country reject socialism and they don't support an authoritarian judiciary.
And this is the Obama agenda.
He wants to unleash the full power of the federal government, especially through the courts, against the people, including the middle class.
He views the government of the United States as a weapon, as an instrument to be used against people.
And that's what throws him off about the Constitution.
The Constitution limits legally what government can do.
So if you can't change the Constitution, you pollute the judiciary with people of like-minded views who will rewrite laws and enact what you believe, using the Constitution as the uh as the basis for doing so.
Now the Democrats have made it clear here they want to create a permanent majority.
They want to intimidate anybody who disagrees with them, and they want to squeeze the greatness and the independence out of the American spirit.
This is precisely what they want to do.
Wayne Heisenberg, uh, owner of the Miami Dolphins, has gone public and says, I want to get rid of this team before the end of the year, because I don't want to pay Obama my capital gains taxes when he raises the rate next year.
I'd rather give the money to charity, said Wayne Heisinger.
Now, Wayne Heising has started from nothing.
Wayne Heisinger does more for people than the federal government could ever hope to do in an effective way.
He is a multi-billionaire.
And he has employed people.
He is generous beyond anybody's ability to understand.
He is not particularly political.
I mean, I I've uh I've been on golf trips with uh Mr. Hezinga.
I've been down to Miami Dolphins games with him and and I I'd I'd call him a friend.
And he's not a, you know, he's not a particularly political guy.
He he looks at the government as something that's got to be dealt with in the form of his uh his doing business.
And uh regardless who wins, he's got he's got to find an accommodation.
But this, you know, for him to say that he wants to get rid of the team here before Obama's tax increases go into effect, is uh is is profound.
He wants to squeeze Obama wants to squeeze the greatness and the independence out of the American spirit.
I know a lot of Democrat voters, by the way, who have held Obama fundraisers, and who support Obama, who at the same time are going to try to divest themselves of uh numerous assets before the end of the year in anticipation of Obama winning and raising the capital gains rate.
So there's a lot of people, you know, that they they understand what Obama represents and what what he poses, but for some reason that we can have you again in a psychological analysis, try to figure out why they just can't bring themselves to uh oppose what he's gonna do, even though they admit that it is affecting the way they're gonna govern their lives and run their businesses.
Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said yesterday he's looking forward to one party controlling all aspects of government, despite Republican charges, it would be disastrous.
Republicans had a chance to rule, they failed miserably.
I think it's time to give the other party a chance.
Now you remember all through 2005, 2006, the Democrat mantra was this is one party rule.
This is uh this is unconstitutional, this is not right.
Now they are advocating, and by the way, the one the Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate.
That is a far different thing.
If the Democrats pick up 60 seats in the Senate, then it's you you can folks, you can you can write the uh you can write the history of the country for the next 25 years in advance.
If they get 60 seats in the Senate, pick up another 25 to 30 seats in the House of Representatives.
Pelosi, by the way, who was one of those people caterwalling and wailing and moaning about one party rule when the Republicans ran the White House and the Senate and the House.
The Republican Senate majority was what?
One or two votes?
Six votes.
Six votes.
And we had a bunch of recalcitral Republicans that voted with the Democrats half the time anyway.
And when we had our majority, we undercut ourselves, gang of 14, all this other rigmarole.
Pelosi, in the home stretch of the presidential campaign, uh says that don't be afraid of Democrat control.
In fact, Democrat control will end up being more bipartisan than if Republicans are able to stop us in the Senate.
Now let me explain how she means this.
Let me explain what Pelosi means when she says that total Democrat control of government for the White House to the House to the Senate will end up being more bipartisan.
Means that she intends to be nicer to Republicans who can't stop her.
And bipartisan as she's defining it means she's gonna be she's not gonna start ripping them as much.
She's gonna be nicer to them.
She'll let them go to the committee hearings now and then, she'll let them have their votes, but they're not gonna have a chance of stopping anything.
And so it'll be more bipartisan, I mean there will be less arguing.
That's what she means.
There'll be less arguing, there'll be less acrimony, and isn't that of course what we all want?
Uh so the language is being polluted, uh, a number of other things uh are being perverted and polluted here at the same time.
Now there's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today by Stephen G. Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, a professor of law at Northwestern University.
It's his uh his piece today is entitled Obama's Redistribution Constitution.
The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.
Yeah, we're gonna play the audio of Obama from 2001 every day this week.
We're gonna play it every day.
We're gonna people need to hear this.
I firmly believe that this is very effective.
People like their constitution.
People don't like socialism, which, by the way, was on Greta Van Sustran last night, uh, right off the top of her show at 10 o'clock.
And I I uh I was watching I wish this had clicked in my head earlier in the day yesterday, I was watching Dick Morris on Hannity prior to the Greta show.
And uh Morris was was was making the point that this is as horrible what Obama's talking about is socialism and the American people don't want it, and I got to thinking something.
How many people under 50 actually know what it is based on the American public education system and university education, and those who do know what it is, I wonder how many know it's bad.
It may be taught as something wonderful.
It's probably being taught as something fair and great and something to which we we should aspire.
So I began thinking back in my own life.
When did I learn who taught me about socialism and communism?
And in my case, it was my parents.
My dad was first out of the box.
Remember, I've told you that I first started paying attention to all this when I was nine during the 60 campaign.
And that's when he started telling me about socialism, the progression to communism, Nazism, and all of these things.
And I'm trying to think, since I knew it before I went to school, I'm trying to remember if I actually learned it in school.
Now, this is not to put down the public school system when I when I went there, uh, but I don't remember it.
I remember some of the teachers hating communism and so forth.
They hated communism, but I don't, I don't recall socialism.
Uh it probably was, I just don't remember it.
So you need to ask yourselves, those of you who know what socialism is, who told you what it is?
Where did you learn?
And uh uh well, one of the best books written on socialism is is by Friedrich van Hayek.
There's no there's no question about that.
A number of great books.
They're really labored reading because he's brilliant, and you have to reread a bunch of things.
Constitution of Liberty, Road to Serfdom, Road to Serfdom is uh just profound.
Uh and he also spent time at the University of Chicago.
Yes, he did, which uh has now been somewhere some of these books might have been published by their press.
I'm not I'm not sure which, but here's Calabrase.
I've got to read this last paragraph.
Stephen Calabrese, co-founder of the Federalist Society, what will happen if the Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate and nobody able to stop Obama's judicial appointments.
If Obama wins, we could possibly see any or all of the following.
A federal constitutional right to welfare, a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities without regard to proof of discriminatory intent, a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy,
the abolition of capital punishment, the mass-freeing of criminal defendants, ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors, and approval of huge punitive damage awards like those imposed against big tobacco against many legitimate businesses, such as those selling fattening food.
Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.
We should not let Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.
And that's what Obama says he wants to do.
He wants judges who understand suffering.
He wants judges who understand uh poverty.
He wants judges to rule on that basis, not the law, not the facts of any cases before them.
He wants to know if some poor person's been charged with a crime they should be exonerated because they're poor, because they're already oppressed.
He wants people that will look to adjudicate legal cases not on the base of the merits, but rather on the basis of socialism and using the federal government.
See, he knows the Constitution is too too much time to start changing that around.
Just get judges on the bench that will invent law.
And when you when that's all appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, you've got your judges there to uphold the lower courts.
Frightening stuff.
That's right this these uh audio clips of Obama can resonate.
And we'll uh we'll we'll pound it all during the week, lots of other stuff too as well, but uh must take a brief time out.
Now a little long here in the opening segment.
So we'll take our first obscene profit break of the day, be right back and continue after this.
Having more to do than there is time to do it, Rush Limbaugh and the excellence in broadcasting network from the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Here's Dick Morris last night on the Fox News channel.
He was on Hannity and Colmes, and this is um uh his explanation of uh socialism and redistribution and how it's word.
To use the phrase redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice.
That is 1970s, 1960s radical code words for socialism.
What that is, that that vocabulary I recognize perfectly.
Uh, because back then I used to hang out with those guys, not the weather.
You did.
That was Alan Colson.
You did?
You had you hung around with those guys.
Don't forget Morris used to work for Democrats like Bill Clinton, so yes, he's well aware of how they do it.
And this is the way socialism is uh is taught in schools these days, redistributionary forces to achieve social and political justice.
So you put the word justice next to socialism, and it will fool a bunch of idealistic utopian-inspired kids, students, and so forth.
So that's why I speculated last night that a lot of people may not really know what it is.
And basically it's it's you know what it is to be quite honest, folks, and this is gonna tear some no.
I cannot believe what I am seeing.
Say it's not.
Oh no!
I do know.
No, no, no, I knew it, but I was oh no.
Barack Obama was given a Pittsburgh Steelers jersey with his name on...
Oh!
Oh!
I know the NFL is socialistic, but don't tell them that.
They don't they don't like to hear that they're socialistic.
Green Bay Packers Board of Directors gave me a little grief over that once.
Oh, I knew it.
I knew it, but I just didn't want to see it.
You know, it's settled when you have a daughter and she goes under the first date.
You know what's gonna happen, but you don't want to be there.
You know, you you just you just don't want to see it.
Socialism is the soft word for communism.
And communism, of course, is only uttered by people like Bill Ayers and so forth, and do it with a small C. But it's it's basically the state running your life.
Because you've ceded all liberty to them.
When you allow the state to arbitrarily take from some under the pretense and premise that they're going to redistribute it for social justice and economic justice.
They're going to take from people who have too much, and that will be decided on by the state.
The state will determine who has too much.
And at some point it will be decided that everybody has too much.
Or that the way to equalize things, and this is the thing that you have to understand about the left, I don't know what you call them socialists or what have you.
They never want to equalize societies by elevating those at the bottom of the economic rung or ladder.
They want to equalize society by taking from those at the top and make everybody equally miserable near the bottom.
And we are back, Rush Limbaugh.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
The Wayne Heisinger example, ladies and gentlemen.
The owner of the Dolphins, Wayne Heisinger said Sunday, no dates been set for selling up to 45% more of the team.
But uh the presidential election is among the issues weighing on his decision because Obama's administration is expected to uh raise the capital gains rate.
He wants to double it, or almost double it, Heisinger said.
I'd rather give it to charity than to Obama.
If you do it this year or you do it next year, the difference is humongous because of the taxes.
Now the dirty little secret is that businesses larger and smaller than the dolphins are going through this same exercise.
A lot of businesses around the country are now asking themselves, what when when do we shut this down?
When do we sell it?
Sooner?
Soon, when do we do it?
Obama's thugs say flat out that taxes are going up in the teeth of an economic slowdown.
We get guaranteed tax increases.
Businesses are being dumped in anticipation of Obama's presidency.
And the uh at least people are contemplating doing this.
And what's you know, what's ironic about it is that that these businesses are the business that employ people, and many of the people who work in these companies have been infested with this whole silly notion of economic justice, meaning that there's a great equalizer, some great powerful force that can come in and take away from the people who are too rich and who have uh no right to it, they don't deserve it, and somehow give it to everybody else.
There's an interesting statistic, and we're almost at this point.
You could confiscate, not tax.
You could confiscate the wealth of the upper five percent or the upper ten percent, you can confiscate the wealth of the upper 40% of the people in this country, you can do it one time only because they'd have nothing left, and you could run the government for less than a year.
If you confiscated their wealth, there simply isn't enough private wealth to take a portion of it and make everybody else in this country rich, which is what socialism implies.
What the social justice, the economic justice, the way they use the uh the uh term uh in order to sell it, uh it's uh it's very clever rhetoric, but it doesn't end up working that way.
Everybody ends up being taxed because there isn't enough private wealth generated for the government to take it every year and make a substantial difference in the lives of people who are not wealthy.
It just isn't the case.
Never has been the case.
But the people at the lower end or middle end of the scale don't know this because they keep hearing about the income gap widening and the wage gap widening, and they think that all the wealth is in the hands of a few people.
Very, very, very susceptible argument.
It goes back to this notion that once people decide once they learn that they can vote themselves goodies, then uh you know you're you're you're you start down the dangerous path.
And by the way, for those of you who think that you're okay with Obama's tax plan because you earn less than 250,000, and he said that 95% of Americans are gonna get a tax cut.
And if you make less than two or over 250, or less than 250,000, you have nothing to worry about.
A first thing that's wrong because there are some tax cuts that are going to expire in 2010, and when though when they expire, the tax rate's going to go up for everybody, which equals a tax increase, you're going to have less disposable income.
Here's uh here's Obama July 7th in St. Louis.
If Senator McCain wants a debate about taxes in this campaign, then it is a debate I am happy to have.
Because if your family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes.
Later in the campaign, this is just recently, very slightly, very slightly, Obama reduced the figure.
If you have a job, pay taxes, and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut.
Whoa, so $200 has become, or $250 has become $200,000.
Yesterday, uh Joe Biden in a TV interview on WNEP TV Channel 16 in Scranton Wilkesbury lowered it again.
It should go like it used to.
It should go to middle class people.
People making under 150,000 a year.
Now, uh you can say, well, you know, this Joe.
He's just the these rhetorical flashes now and then and flourishes and and uh he may not be up to speed of what the campaign's doing, but it's come down from 250 and then went to 200,000.
And yesterday Biden said you're cool if you make less than 150.
Anybody over that's gonna get soaked.
So let's now go to Obama from the 2001 audio from his appearance on a uh Chicago public radio station, we have a couple of bites.
Uh well, actually more than that, but two or three of them here will make the point.
Here he complains the Supreme Court is never waited into the redistribution of wealth.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that uh I would now have the right to vote.
I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.
He's complaining.
And that's not the purpose, and that's not the role of the Supreme Court.
And when you hear some of the uh uh opinions of the founders on this whole concept, you'll be shocked, and you'll understand exactly how radical Obama is on this.
He is complaining that the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice.
Now, when you start taking the law, you know, the the definition of justice has become wide open.
And as many people as you talk to, you can find as many different definitions of it.
But when they throw the word political and economic justice in this is not legal justice.
You know, legal justice is an entirely different thing than political and economic justice.
And Obama wants the court to be concerned with economic justice.
He wants legal cases that end up before federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
He wants judges on those courts to look at economic and political aspects of the case, not the legal definition of justice, because the legal definition of justice is not what he's interested in.
Economic justice, punishing achievers, labeling them guilty when they haven't done anything.
Now he complains that the war in court was not radical enough and calls the Constitution a charter of negative liberties.
It wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and more in court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted.
And one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
And uh in some ways we still suffer from that.
By the way, have you noticed something, folks, that when he's in this interview, he's there are no uhs or very few.
There are no uhs and ahs and uh and uh and uh things like you know why?
Because he's not worried of saying the wrong thing here.
He's a state senator in Illinois.
He's talking to friendly people on a local Chicago public radio station.
So he's not he's not concerned whatsoever about saying the wrong thing here.
So there aren't any stutters.
The reason he stutters and pauses and uh uh because he covered his basis, he makes sure he doesn't tell you the truth in this campaign of what he intends to do.
He doesn't like the fact that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
Negative liberties meaning that the Constitution spells out limits on the government.
See, he loves government.
He wants the government to have positive rights.
He wants the Constitution to bestow positive rights on the government so the government can do things to you.
When you follow his lingu uh lingo here, the Constitution's a charter of negative liberties.
It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you.
So he clearly wants a constitution changed, so the federal government, state governments can do something to you.
Not for you.
To you.
The choice of preposition here is interesting to me.
The federal government can't do to you, but it does he's upset at the fact that there are negative liberties as he calls them in the Constitution.
But that's precisely what the Bill of Rights is.
Bill of rights in this Constitution, this country founded on the concept of individual liberty and the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.
Life, of course, coming first.
Because if there's no life, then you don't pursue liberty or happiness.
You don't have liberty in a if you're killed in a womb, you certainly have no liberty, and you're not gonna have a chance to pursue happiness.
That's why this right to life is crucial in a society in a government such as ours, chartered as it was by a declaration of independence in the U.S. Constitution.
So he is just outraged here.
He's very frustrated that the Constitution doesn't give anybody in federal government, state government the right to do things to people, and he wants to change.
Doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, although it does.
It lays out a number of things the government must do on our behalf.
Among those is protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That of course spells these things out.
He doesn't see it that way.
Then tells a caller here that he's not optimistic that the court can do this redistributive thing.
I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.
You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.
You just look at very rare examples where in during the desegregation era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to uh local school district.
And the court was very uncomfortable with it.
It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.
You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues and you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process uh that essentially is administrative and and takes a lot of time.
So he's he's just not optimistic.
The court is it's it's too bulky.
A court cannot do this redistributive thing.
Have to be done other ways.
And he adds this.
Yeah, the court's just not very good at it, and politically it's just it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can uh any any three of us sitting here could come up with a a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.
He just doesn't think that uh you know the the the Supreme Court can do it, but if you get The right judges on these courts, then you can bring about economic change to the courts.
Stop and think of that.
That is not the purpose of a court anywhere is to bring about economic change.
And by the way, what is his economic change?
He's talking specifically here about oppressed minorities.
That is what is motivating him.
He is behaving and thinking as though in nine in 2001, this country still is in slavery.
We're still back in the in the 50s and 60s, where he can't go to the lunch counter, where he can't sit at the front of the bus.
He's angry about this.
He's an angry, angry radical.
He wants the courts to change this because the Constitution is too immovable.
And then finally, this bite.
I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.
And that the framers had that same blind spot.
I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now.
And to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
The fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
And that fundamental flaw, the belief that it still exists.
By the way, the framers did agonize over what to do about the slave population, but they had to try to put together a union, and they had these slave states and the northern states, and it was a bit they they agonized over this.
But they left a system to get rid of it, which is what's happened.
But as far as Obama's concerned, the original flaw of slavery still exists.
And this is what he and Bill Ayers are busy trying to teach as many young people in America as possible.
Deep flaws.
Never fixed anything.
And if he gets the judges that he wants on all the federal courts, he can redistribute anything we all have, easily as pie, without changing the Constitution at all.
Here's a good rule of thumb, folks.
If you're trying to find out if something is socialist or not, and these terms are almost exclusively used in the left, you do not hear conservatives talking about economic justice, social justice, and the way the left uh means it.
You know, we are uh, for example, you see in in in in your neighborhood, if there is a school, the such and such school for economic and social justice, it is a Marxist school.
It is teaching socialism and redistribution of wealth and so forth.
Anytime you hear a leftist anywhere talk about economic justice, political justice, social justice, understand that what they're talking about is using the power of the state to take from those who the state thinks has too much or have too much,
or to punish those the estate thinks uh does too much, all for the purposes of equalizing people who are supposedly the lower end of the scale, but that's not the actual end result or the desired end result, desired end result, uh, is nobody having any liberty.
The state being responsible for everybody's welfare, or as many people as possible.
This is the desire.
Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816.
To take from one, because it's thought his own industry and that of his father's uh has acquired too much in order to spare to others who or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everybody that free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
Here's a founding father had nothing wanted, nothing to do with redistribution.
Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801.
A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
This is the sum of good government.
Thomas Jefferson.
Again, Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
They argued, the founders argued over what you know, this this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare.
What are people going to think that means?
There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution.
A wise and frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
This is the sum of good government.
This is the thinking of many.
The days of the founding, and that is what Obama wishes to overturn.
Hannah EIB Network and Rush Linbow take a brief timeout.
More audio sound bites off the charts coming up when we come back.
▲
Export Selection