All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:21
April 23, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away today, and this is your undocumented anchorman, Mark Stein, sitting in.
Tomorrow, Mark Davis will be here.
It's an all-marker-palooza guest host end to the week here on the EIB network.
It's the EIB version of Earmarks.
You tune in and you earmarks.
It's either me or it's Mark Davis.
But Rush is going to be back in on Monday, reinvigorated and ready to mark the first 100 days of the Obama administration.
1-800-282-2882.
We've been talking about, I think, essentially the criminalization of politics, which is what we see in the fuss over the torture memos, alleged torture memos, the getting out the caterpillar.
Maybe, I don't know about the caterpillar.
Maybe it's one of these extra hairy ones, so it's ticklier or whatever.
But the big getting out, getting out the killer caterpillar and the waterboarding.
And as an aside, because somebody brought it up, I mentioned this business with Perez Hilton and this gay blogger damning Miss California as a dumb bitch for what was actually a very tentative answer on gay marriage.
And apparently now we're being damned as homophobes and all the rest of it.
No, forget about that.
You guys won.
There's gay marriage now in Massachusetts.
There's gay marriage in Iowa.
You guys won that one.
And so all we're arguing about here is whether a young lady who's entering the Miss USA competition, whether she should be disqualified from the possibility of winning that because she has given a dissenting answer on gay marriage.
Now, look, I don't even think, I don't even know why they're asking about gay marriage on the Miss USA competition.
What's it got to do with that?
I'm a traditionalist on beauty contests.
But apparently in America, it's no longer enough to look great in a swimsuit and be able to demonstrate a useful talent like the ability to juggle three buttons while singing Bridge Over Troubled Water or whatever.
The way it used to be in the, I used to love that in the old days.
That's great.
And we could do with more, you know, the economy wouldn't be in the hole it was in right now if we had more Americans out there who were trained to juggle three batons while singing Bridge Over Troubled Water.
So I'm a traditionalist when it comes to beauty contests.
But what is weird now is this determination, this really thuggish determination to make the price of dissent too high, even on issues such as this.
So if you're entering in a beauty contest, and if you're thinking of entering a beauty contest, it's worth bearing in mind this now.
You can look terrific in a bikini, but the real trick is that you've got to look terrific inside the liberal straitjacket.
Do your views conform to the narrow perspective of the cultural left in the year 2009?
The fact that there are big majorities out there who share Carrie Prayjan's views on Miss California's views on gay marriage, the fact that the president of the United States campaigned with basically the same formulation of words that she used is apparently not enough.
And it's grotesque and hateful and thuggish and horrible for her to be allowed to win Miss USA by promulgating those views.
And now, because I mocked, I mocked this gay blogger guy, this Perez Hilton, for not being as urbane and witty as Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward.
I'm now Apparently, when I'm getting calls, people say this hobophobia and hateful and all the rest of it.
You guys won this.
In Iowa yesterday, they announced that they were changing the words of the marriage certificate you get in the state of Iowa.
They were removing the words bride and groom because they're heterosexist.
And they're replacing it with party A and party B.
So there's no more brides, grooms, husbands, wives.
There's just party A and party B when you go and get married in the state of Iowa.
It's like it's, as it was said earlier, it's like everything's legalistic now.
Will the party of the first parts parts in the party of the second party's parts and all the rest of it?
That's how it is now.
You guys won that one.
Same thing in Spain.
Spain did the whole thing, gay marriage thing, and they removed the words husband, wife, bride, groom, took all that out of the language, and they didn't go for party A and party B.
They went for progenitor A and progenitor B.
I think it sounds more romantic in Spanish.
But if you're at a singles bar in Barcelona and a hot-looking woman comes up to you and says, do you want to come back to my place and play progenitor A and progenitor B tonight?
You say, yeah, sure, baby, but just so long as I can be progenitor B this time.
I don't know, by the way, if you've got, like in Iowa, it's party A and party B, and in Spain it's progenitor A and progenitor B. Would a party A from Iowa be allowed to marry a progenitor B from Spain?
I don't know.
This is taking us all into new territory.
But essentially, the gay activists won the gay marriage debate to the point where now a woman stands up on TV and says, well, I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
And everyone's saying, oh, that's unacceptable.
Oh, we can't have people saying that on national television.
It's brought the whole Miss USA competition into disrepute.
This is the speed at which things change.
Where does it lead?
There's a polygamy case coming to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Supreme Court of Canada said, you've got to have gay marriage.
They imposed gay marriage coast to coast, coast to coast.
So you can be party A, party B in Newfoundland, or you can be party A and party B in British Columbia.
Coast to coast, gay marriage, federally.
And now they've got a polygamy case coming up for the Supreme Court.
And basically all the polygamy lawyer cases, polygamy guys, big-time polygamists, lots of child brides, and he's going to be reading back everything that was in the Supreme Court judgment on gay marriage, just taking out the reference to the gender of the participants and replacing it with reference to the number of participants.
If the sex of the participants in marriage is irrelevant, why should the numbers be irrelevant?
So they're talking about polygamy up in Canada.
And I wrote about it up in Canada a couple of weeks ago, and I get all this mail from liberal progressives who go, well, what's the big deal about polygamy anyway?
Yeah, gay should be allowed to marry.
Polygamists should be allowed to marry.
Gay polygamists should be allowed to marry.
Next thing you know, this liberal columnist up there in the Ottawa Citizen writes a column saying, well, well, okay, gay marriage and polygamous marriage.
What about adult incest?
Adult incest?
I don't know about you.
It doesn't seem quite right to me, but I can no longer, I can no longer remember.
I can't quite figure out why I object to it.
This is the liberal dilemma, that there is no line to draw.
You draw the line, boom, you're down the stairs, a couple of treads and rises, and now it's time to draw the next line.
Boom!
Three more steps down the stairs.
Time to try and draw the next line.
It can't be drawn.
The institution of marriage predates the United States, one of the oldest societal institutions on the face of the planet.
And it's something that Conservatives are wary of this because the Conservative temperament says you temper with basic societal building blocks that predate every nation-state on the planet very, very cautiously.
And we've reached the stage in nothing flat, in nothing flat, where Miss California saying that she thinks marriage is the kind of boy-meets girl activity.
It's unacceptable to say that on national TV.
So that's a little bit of blowback I'm getting over my homophobic remarks about that thuggish blogger who was on the judging panel there.
I mentioned this thing, really just coming off the back of Earth Day, where the British have decided that overweight people cause global warming.
This new report they got out there.
And by the way, did you know that in Britain, they have these creepy teams of government nutritionists that go door to door and ask to come inside your house and go into the kitchen and conduct a quote health audit of the contents of your refrigerator.
And don't worry, they're not yet confiscating your Twinkies.
They just want to take a census of how many Twinkies you actually have in the kitchen.
And it's important to bear that in mind when you get attracted to the idea of government health care, because government healthcare licenses the state to control every other aspect of your life.
We already have that argument here.
People say, well, you have to wear seatbelts and you have to wear helmets on motorcycles because otherwise you'll be taken to a hospital and if you don't have health insurance, they'll have to patch you up and the taxpayer will end up paying.
So government health care, government healthcare licenses the government to control every other part of your life.
You already have the situation in Britain where people are denied hip replacements if they're obese.
They're denied in Northern England, in Manchester, they're denied heart surgery if they're smokers.
Essentially, how you live your life, the government regulates your life now in the cause of whether you've got, in the cause of whether you're entitled to the government health care you paid for anyway.
Very interesting.
Anyway, with all these overweight people causing global warming, I was fascinated to see Mia Farrow set an example.
This coming Monday, Mia Farrow is going to begin a hunger strike for the people of Darfur.
I know, I know, I know.
Whenever I hear about starving celebrities, it always sounds like that the old Hollywood joke about the starving beggar with a tin cup pleading, I haven't eaten for three days.
And Sarsha Gabor says, darling, I wish I had your willpower.
But the new Hollywood, it's no joke, it's no joke.
All these anti-war celebs a couple of years ago, do you remember Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, Willie Nelson, Michael Moore?
They all announced they were going on hunger strike until the war in Iraq was ended.
And I was wondering what happened to this.
Are they dead now?
I haven't heard from Michael Moore in a couple of months.
Did he starve himself to death?
But then it emerged that this wasn't really a proper hunger strike where you stop eating and after a few weeks you die, but a so-called rolling hunger strike in which celebrity A would refuse food for 24 hours and then hand over to celebrity B for the next phase of the rolling hunger strike.
So like Sean Penn starved himself to death, but you know, just for a day.
And that was like the big celebrity hunger strike a couple of years ago, but maybe it's still going on.
I don't know.
But that's not what Mia Farrow's doing.
She, beginning on Monday, she's stopping eating, period, in order to save Darfur.
And there's something really almost desperately sad about this, almost too sad to comment on, really.
The left loves its causes so long as they don't require meaningful action.
Ask Tibetans how effective half a century of Americans driving around with free Tibet bumper stickers on their cars have been.
Or ask the citizens of Darfur how well they think the Save Darfur campaign is from their point of view.
So we'll get into that and lots of other stuff too on torture and the economy and lots more.
Straight ahead.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Let's go to Ray in Titusville, Florida.
Ray, you're on the Rush Limbo show.
Good to have you with us.
Hey, thank you for having me aboard.
You said something earlier today.
And by the way, I really enjoy when you're on for Rush.
You do a great job.
Oh, thanks.
Good to hear that.
Well, anyway, I heard you say something about General Motors laying people off.
And then I started seeing a pattern.
Ray, Ray, can you just speak up a bit?
Your line's kind of, I don't know whether it's Janet Napolitano listening in or whatever, but it's going a bit, it's fading out.
So can you just speak up a bit?
Yeah.
All right, is that better?
Oh, that's terrific.
The Fed's monitoring can hear you clearly.
And they are.
Okay, so anyway, I kind of related it to cap and trade.
I know I don't have a lot of time, so I'm going right at it.
So they're going to tax the power companies.
The power companies are going to pay a tax on creation of energy of what the intelligent people in the country think is too much energy.
And they're going to pay that tax to the government.
Then they're going to pass that extra money that they have to pay to the government onto the consumer, which is going to raise power prices.
And then the government says they're going to go ahead and rebate the increased cost to the consumer back to the consumer.
Right.
So, if this is true, no one really loses and no one gains.
The power company doesn't lose because they get the money from the consumer.
Yeah.
The government doesn't gain because now they've got to pay a bureaucracy out of deficit spending, basically, because the government has to give all the money back to the consumer for this.
So why do it at all?
Well, well, you say nobody gains.
That's true.
Somebody does lose, and that is you.
And this is what is absurd about the so-called talk of the green economy.
The idea is that you can punish the energy companies, that you can make General Motors make so-called environmentally friendly cars that nobody wants, and that there is no price to the consumer that will arise from it.
And you're saying, you're saying, well, if you take X million dollars from the power companies who pass it on to their consumers, but then the X million dollars is given by the power companies to the government, which processes it through a huge bureaucracy and then rewards it back to Mr. and Mrs. America at 27 Elm Street, so that there's no loss and there's no gain.
But obviously there is a loss.
You've created a permanent bureaucracy and you've made the cost of doing business apart from anything else more expensive in America.
So a lot of companies will find it a lot more beneficial.
This idea that we're going to be reopening factories in America, who the hell would open up a factory with these environmental costs imposed on you when you don't have to do that in India and China?
Oh, I think that's going to create a train wreck.
I didn't mean to say that no one would gain.
The government will gain a bureaucracy and really like things like that.
Yeah, and they'll gain power.
I mean, this is the sort of what is so pathetic about this idea that you can somehow just tax an economy into green compliance, and it won't have any impact on how we lead our lives.
You can, if you want to really, if you really want to have, go back to reducing carbon emissions, decreasing our carbon footprint, we can all live in mud huts and we can send the women folk down, instead of putting it in the big washer dryer, we can send them down to the river to beat out their clothes with the other village women down by the stream every morning, and that will work.
That kind of primitive society will reduce our carbon footprint.
But the idea of government distortion will not.
Here's a good one for you.
Everyone in the northern half of the United States should move to the southern half of the United States so they don't have to heat their houses and create that enormous carbon footprint every winter.
Yes, that would.
I don't think, you know what we need to do?
We need to take that border that Janet Napolitano doesn't pay any attention to, the Canadian border, and bring it like the northern tier of states.
And then Canadians would have, because if you're a Canadian, you look on like northern Maine the way you'd look on the Bahamas.
You've worked it all.
That's the problem with Canada.
They laid it out too far north.
You've just proposed the solution to all the that would that would do well for NAFTA and it would get us and it would correct the bad relations we've had with Janet Napolitano now.
Oh, absolutely.
So the Canadians would just think that they had all moved to Florida anyway.
Yeah, it wouldn't cost them anywhere near as much to heat their houses as they were.
No, no, because if you're in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and you're like, and you suddenly move to like the upper peninsula of Michigan, and on a balmy spring day, it's like 43 and drizzling.
To you, it is like being in the Virgin Islands.
So that would do wonders for continental relations.
See, you've just solved all the problems.
I'm pretty good at this stuff, I'll tell you.
You see the big picture here.
I do, I do.
So the big thing is we need to make sure that everybody gets laid off but still gets paid, and we need to tax everybody back into the Stone Age, but still make sure that no one actually pays anything more.
And we've got to make sure that somehow we close down every single possibility for a new business in the country because businesses contribute to global warming and, you know, actually that's not a very good thing.
Exactly.
Thank you for your call, Ray.
That is terrific.
The big geopolitical picture in nothing flat.
This is the strategic genius we need in America today.
You're listening to Mark Stein sitting in for Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network.
Lots more of your calls straight ahead.
1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hey, good to be with you.
Don't forget Rush will be back in on Monday.
You know, I mentioned earlier this Janet Napolitano business about the Canadian border, where she essentially said, which is completely factually inaccurate, that the 9-11 terrorists entered the United States via the northern border.
And the Canadians are mad about this and getting madder.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canada had severed diplomatic relations with the United States by the end of the day.
This is from Canada's big liberal newspaper, The Globe and Mail.
The Globe and Mail.
Big Libs, Big Libs.
And this is by Lawrence Martin, who is their big-time liberal columnist.
I ran into him once at the Summit of the Americas, and he was all jealous of me because Condi Rice gave him the bums rush and came over to me, and we went off to have dinner together and go dancing till three in the morning.
And Lawrence Martin was furious about this, big-time liberal columnist.
Here's the opening line of his column today: What is Bush throwback Janet Napolitano doing in Barack Obama's cabinet?
This is the Democratic governor of Arizona who has chosen to blame Canada for 9-11.
You remember she redefined terrorism as man-cause disaster, and then she advanced, she said the terrorists got in by the northern border, so it's now a Canadian man-cause disaster.
The liberal media in Canada is furious.
What is Bush throwback Janet Napolitano doing in Barack Obama's cabinet?
This guy says, it's as if she's in the claws of Dick Chady.
This is how great it is, folks.
Dick Chady has never blamed Canada for 9-11.
The Democrats did that.
The Obama administration did that.
And now the director, the Secretary of Homeland Security, is being called a Bush throwback, Democratic governor of Arizona.
Let's go to Don in Columbus, Ohio.
Don, you're on the Rush Limbo show.
It is great to have you with us.
Hi, Mark.
My comment is about the California Miss USA candidate on there.
She had a no-win situation on there for her answer.
She couldn't, you know, with the way the question was proposed.
Yeah, I think you're right.
You mean there's no longer a correct answer to that?
Well, there's no free speech when, you know, they asked for her opinion, she gave it, and then it was spun around.
And, you know, I said, really, the question should have been the same question proposed to all of them.
They should have been kept in isolation.
Yeah, yeah.
If you're going to ask that question, you ask it for everyone.
But it really wasn't fair.
And you make the point that it is a free speech thing.
The reason they're going so bananas about it, and this thug blogger who was on the judging panel is going bananas about it, is because he wants it to be unacceptable to say that I think marriage is between a man and a woman.
In other words, a statement that would have been completely uncontroversial for most of Western civilization's history is now apparently beyond the realm of acceptable debate.
And that was the stage for him to put his beliefs in front of America.
And now he's downgrading her answer.
Yeah, and I don't even know why this guy was on this show anyway.
I mean, I got no.
One of the most interesting comments on this, by the way, was by these gay bloggers, gay Democratic bloggers for Hillary, who thought that this ugly thug gay blogger of the judging panel was doing to Miss California what the Obama crowd had done to Hillary in primary season.
Now, I can't, I got, I feel like James Baker on the Balkans.
You know, I got no dog in this fight.
You know, if gay Democratic bloggers are beating up on another gay liberal blogger, I just want to sit back and watch.
I can put that on pay-per-view.
It'd be far more interesting than Miss USA most of the time.
But I do think you're right that the idea is to shrivel the acceptable boundaries of speech so that this woman effectively is cowed into giving the politically correct answer.
So everyone gets the message.
So if you're a Miss South Dakota, if you're a Miss Wisconsin, if you're Miss Connecticut, when you're on that show next year and this subject comes up, you'll know what not to say.
And what not to say happens to be the position of about 70% of the American people.
So thanks for your call.
Let's take another quick call.
Let's go to Ferris in Hartford, Connecticut, home of America's crumbling insurance industry.
Good day, Mark.
Are you in the insurance business, Ferris?
I am peripherally.
Okay, okay.
Well, keep that as peripheral as you can, the way things are going.
Well, I'd like to echo an earlier caller, and I'd like to say, Ditto, this is stellar radio, Mark.
Oh, well, that's very nice of you.
I'm, as I always say, I'm a misanthropic writer.
I'm holed up in the hills, and I like coming down to the big town once every couple of months and just being in a big-time radio series.
So it's a terrific kick for me and a great honor.
And actually, just before we get too detoured, I will say it never ceases to amaze me that I, as a humble foreigner, get asked to come and sit in on the Rush Limbaugh show, which is America's most listened-to radio show.
And I look at the pitiful way.
I've lived in other countries in my life, in the United Kingdom and in the Dominion of Canada, and a couple of other places, and I have never, ever been given, enjoyed anything like the signal honor of hosting the number one, the number one show.
So it never ceases to touch me there.
Anyway, Ferris, enough of me.
Unless you've got the violin and you want to accompany me as I'm giving my teary homily there.
But what was your big point?
But first, you must be unfamiliar with the new word for foreigner.
There are no longer foreign languages.
They are world languages, Mark.
You're no longer a foreigner.
You're a man of the world.
Yeah, but I speak conservatism, which isn't a world language.
That's an extinct language, if the O'Connor administration gets it.
That's a concern of mine.
But your command of the militant homosexual movement is.
Hey, do you mind rephrasing that?
My command of the militant homosexual movement.
That was just for four months in the 70s, and I didn't have a lot of money, and it was the only job available.
But carry on, what was your point?
Carry on.
Well, you just mentioned the possibility that Miss Connecticut would be asked a similar question.
And in Connecticut, just yesterday, our Senate passed the legislation which changes the curriculum in all of our schools in the state of Connecticut to encourage the homosexual lifestyle and to treat homosexual marriage as the only acceptable form of marriage in our state.
Now that we had the lawyers who wear robes give us homosexual marriage, now the curriculum has to be changed so that each little child goes into the little brick building with the lady teacher in the front with the short hair.
And she is going to learn.
Whoa, well, Janet Napolitano is not listening today.
No, you make a good point here, which is that it redefines, it redefines everything.
And that's why, as I was saying, when they introduce it, they eliminate gender-specific words like groom and bride and all the rest of it.
And it is interesting when you have these, it came up in a case in England last year.
The school has, same thing, the school district had decided that every child now had to learn about the joys of gay marriage in kindergarten and grade one.
They have this story: king meets king, and it's like a handsome prince, and he goes around and he meets all the wonderful, lovely fairy tale princesses in the neighboring kingdoms, but he doesn't really like any of them.
And then he happens to meet the brother of one of the magical fairy princesses, and they decide they're going to settle down together and rule their magical fairy kingdom together.
Now, this school in Bristol, England, they said, you've got to teach this thing to the kindergarten and first graders.
When that comes up here, and evangelical Christians object, they're told, whoa, man, you're way out of line.
They're treated like Miss California.
You just got to get with the beat.
Is the way it is.
Get on board with the program.
What happened at the schoolhouse in Bristol in England is that a substantial amount of the aggrieved parents were Muslims.
And when the Muslim, when the guy from the local mosque is objecting to you teaching this fairy tale love story, King meets King between the nice prince who goes looking for a bride and finds his true love in one of the fairy princesses' brothers, when they're teaching the gay marriage king meets king story to Muslims and the Muslims object, whoa, that book was out of there instantly.
They didn't want that at all.
And the lesson there is that the cultural confidence of the Muslim community in Britain is when that goes up against political correctness, political correctness crumbles to pieces.
In other words, people think if you look at the internal contradictions of the multicultural society, if you've got that, when the gay, in this case, the gay agenda met the Muslim agenda and the gay agenda fell to pieces and the Muslims won.
But as you said, in Connecticut and in many other parts of this country, they teach those books and Christian groups can complain all they want and they never get anywhere.
They're treated like Miss California.
Good to have you with us, Ferris.
This is the Rush Limbaugh Show from the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network, your undocumented anchor man, your man-caused disaster, as Janet Napolitano would say.
Let's go to Victor.
Victor, you're on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Yes, hello, Mark.
I spoke with you earlier some time ago about Obama learning new languages, you know, like Austrian, Brazil.
Yeah, that's right.
He expressed some confusion in Europe that he didn't speak that good Austrian.
Right, right.
Maybe his Austrian's gotten better.
Brazilian, too, obviously.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, Mark, first of all, I want to extend to you my great wishes and great thanks from the members of your Free Republic website, from all your fans.
You are hugely popular and just want to relate to our best wishes from Free Republic.
Okay, you sound like I'm going in for a 30-year jail term when you say you have our best wishes.
You may know something I don't know.
Okay.
Well, listening to the phone conversation, maybe I'm getting it before you, but okay, yeah, you may be.
Okay, okay.
But, you know, to be serious for a moment, as I'm basking in your brilliance and basically, you know, laughing non-stop at all the witticism and all the humor, you know, I just am a little bit puzzled because as we're witnessing a fundamental and systematic dismantling of our country by the left, politically, socially,
every which way you can, what is it as a sane person left to do?
What is it that we can do other than just maintain sense of humor and laugh?
What can we do to maintain our sanity?
And more importantly, what can we do to stand up and stop this just a living nightmare that every day we're watching growing worse and worse?
Well, it's not, that's a great question, Victor.
Look, it's not over yet.
There was a poll today that's just come out that showed that 55% of the American people still believe that the biggest threat is government.
This is not yet, not yet, a natural big government society in the way that many European countries are.
So it is not over yet.
And the question is, how do you fight back?
How do you translate what's going on at these tea parties into action?
And I think that there are good things to do about that.
I'm always impressed when I drive around New Hampshire and I meet friends and neighbors who are on the select boards, which are like the old New England term for the little group of three or five elected officials who actually are like the cabinet of small towns in municipal government.
And the number of towns who say, no, no, no, we don't want stimulus money.
People are opposed to the bailout money.
People are opposed to the stimulus money because they know it's a croc.
Because they know you don't get a check for $6 million.
That $6 million has got to come from somewhere.
And the only available people to get it from are 300 million Americans and their as yet unborn children and grandchildren.
And what impresses me is that although we don't hear a lot of encouraging talk out of Washington, when you get down to the state, county and municipal level, you get your and people see the strings attached to some of this stimulus money and they realize that if they take a one-time check for some police funding in some ringy-dink township in the middle of nowhere, that the federal government will be in their lives forever.
These people are turning down that money.
And I think that's actually a very encouraging sign.
I think the next stage of the whole kind of is to translate the objections into action and to actually go to take it to the next level to actually put pressure on municipal and county and state officials to resist the absurd notion that the government can in fact give you money and that that money doesn't come from anywhere.
You know, that's ridiculous woman, that Susan Rosten Rosten or whatever she is on CNN, on CNN, who was berating that fella standing in the street at that demonstration in Chicago.
And she said, well, don't you know you'll be getting a $400 tax credit?
I want my freedom.
I don't want $400 tax credit.
$400, I'll sell my freedom, but I'm not selling it for a lousy $400 tax credit from Barack Obama that comes from me in the first place.
And she goes, well, the state of Illinois is getting $50 billion.
And okay, that sounds great, doesn't it?
Where's that $50 billion coming from?
When those Navy SEALs took out the three pirates sitting in the ship and they shot them dead, did they say, oh, let's have a look in the bottom of the boat?
Whoa, there's a big chest here.
And who would believe it?
It's got $50 billion in old gold Zanzibari doubloons.
Let's take that and give it to the federal treasury and they can give it to the state of Illinois.
It's rubbish.
There's only 300, there are not enough rich people in this country, however broadly you define rich, to pay for what Obama is spending.
So that means the only person he can get it from is you.
And the only way he can take it from you is by limiting your freedom so that you're as stupid as that CNN reporter and you think that somehow it's worth trading your liberty for a $400 tax credit.
That is not yet the American way and that battle has not yet been decisively won by the Liberal left.
This is Mark Stein in for Rush more straight ahead.
This is Mark Stein on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
After the last three hours, I've got my gay marriage answer down.
I've got my swimsuit fitting in all the right places.
I'm practicing my interpretative dance routine of I Will Always Love You and I'm off to enter Miss New Hampshire.
But Rush will be back on Monday and don't forget Mark Davis will be in tomorrow to take care of business on the Rush Limbaugh Show from the EIB Network.
▲
Export Selection