All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:43
September 3, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, great to be with you.
Walter Williams will take you into the Labor Day weekend tomorrow and Rush will return next week.
People have been writing, the analysts and the experts have been trying to analyze what it was with Obama's strategy that went wrong.
And in fact, I think it was the right strategy for him.
And if it had worked, it would have been amazing because I think the plan was to come in on the way.
November was an unusual election.
There was obviously a throw the bums out aspect to it.
A lot of people were sick of the Republicans.
A lot of people wanted all the messiness and the whole kind of war on terror template of the Bush presidency to go away.
But it wasn't just an anti-Bush thing.
Obama was an unknown factor, but there was clearly a pro-Obama, a pro-Obama spirit among enough centrist Democrats and moderates and independents and squishy Republicans that there actually was a pro-Obama tide that wafted him in to the White House.
And he figured on January the 20th, well, look, I can do all this stuff, and if I do it all quickly, and if I throw enough spaghetti at the wall, then the Republicans in Congress may pick off this little bit there, that little bit there, but I'll get all this stuff through and it'll be a done deal before anybody notices.
In other words, while we're still all in Mr. Hopi Changey mood, I'll get all this done, and by the time my ratings start to work their way down to where a normal political figure would be, we will have the apparatus for a European-sized, a Euro-Canadian-sized social welfare state in place at the national level.
And once you've done that, it can be reformed, but it can't be undone.
And people don't understand, I think, the way the minute healthcare becomes governmentalized, it becomes the dominant issue.
It becomes the dominant issue.
For one thing, it's the biggest single budget item.
It's bigger than anything else.
People complain about healthcare costs now, but in fact, there is no figure on American healthcare.
You can put a dollar figure on what Americans spend on healthcare, but if I decide I want to spend an extra 500 bucks tonight on healthcare, I can do it.
And that'll add to the figure.
You can't do that in socialized systems.
In socialized systems, healthcare is actually a line item in the budget.
It's a literal line item in the budget.
And if what you want isn't covered by that or hasn't been budgeted for it, then you can't get it.
But it's also the biggest line item in the budget.
And that means that every election you fight is always on healthcare.
It's on what can we do about healthcare?
How can we improve healthcare?
How can we reform healthcare?
How can we control health care costs?
And what that means for right-of-center parties is that you always end up fighting elections on left-wing terms.
And that's why once you have government healthcare, it becomes very difficult to have genuine conservative government again.
That's why if you listen to Conservative parties in Britain and Europe and elsewhere, often the rationale for a so-called right-of-center party is not that they're going to give you small government and individual liberty anymore.
No, their remaining rationale is that they can run the big government nanny state more efficiently than the left-wing party can.
So essentially, they say once the left has put the big nanny state in place, the right's only remaining rationale is that they can run it more efficiently than the left can.
So the minute you have that, the minute you have government health care, you cross a line where it becomes incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to have genuine conservative government ever again.
And that's a path that Americans should think very carefully about running, about going down.
Let's go to Sylvia, who's been hanging on a long time.
Sylvia is calling from Westminster, British Columbia.
You don't have to look far to see where government health care leads folks here.
Just lift your eyes a little bit north over the 49th parallel and you can see what it does.
Sylvia, glad you waited.
Great to have you on the show.
Hi, Mark.
Thank you very much, and bless this station and Fox TV.
Basically, what I wanted to talk about was that our taxes are so high here, it's because of health care.
For instance, there's government, the national health care plus the provincial health care, plus in BC, we've got the carbon tax on our gas.
We pay $1.11 a liter, transform that at $4.22 a gallon.
Yeah, $4.22 a gallon.
$29.5% of that is to the government.
That's right.
And that's exactly what will happen to you.
If you're paying $250 or $260, it'll soon be over $4 a gallon if you let this go through, because it is for mediocre health care.
That's what we're paying for.
It's waiting up line up after lineup to get any help here.
Also, from what I know, Americans have their taxes paid up on April 13th.
Yeah, right.
We're well into June.
15th.
It's the 15th, yeah.
We're well into June.
That's two months more of your paycheck going to the government for things like health care.
If you earn $5,000 a month, that's $10,000 for free, mediocre, line-up health care.
And what people forget is if you look at the amount of money that you have paid in health care, you should be entitled to like three fatal illnesses a year in British Columbia.
At least.
At least.
But you don't get it.
And I think it was near neighbors of yours in the Fraser Health Authority who announced that they would be cutting back on elective surgery by 15% next year.
Because all the health authorities in British Columbia have got this problem with health care costs.
They're cutting back on elective surgeries by 15%.
What that means is that you can elect to have the surgery, but they're not going to elect to give it to you.
You're gone.
You can't have it.
It doesn't matter whether you need it.
It doesn't matter whether the doctor thinks you ought to have it.
You don't have any say in it.
It's a government bureaucrat who just says it's a 15% cut across the board.
And that means, and they define elective surgery, by the way.
That's a very elastic term in government health care systems.
You know, this guy with the missing finger in Los Angeles, that would be regarded as an elective surgery, because let's face it, he's an old guy.
What does he need the finger for?
He's just going to flip it at some young punk who passes him on the industry.
What the hell does he need it for?
So the term elective surgery gets defined extremely broadly once you have a government system in place.
A socialist-run system, absolutely.
It's a horror, actually.
And I'm just, I told you, Screener, I think that you elected a president who is right now, he is financially raping the young children and grandchildren of Americans.
Well, that's a strong way to put it.
I mean, he's certainly spending their few.
I don't want to give the idea he should be living down under the Julia Tuttle Causeway with the rest of the guys, but he is certainly, he is certainly spending their, beggaring their future.
And what, as I think Canadians understand, and Europeans too, when they think about it, is that at a certain level, this stuff becomes unaffordable.
You just can, if you look, if you look at the endless health reforms that and the Royal, what do they call it up there, the Royal Commission?
Every so often you have a Royal Commission to look at reforming health care again.
Yeah, yeah, because basically, no matter what you do, you can never make the demand match up with the supply.
And as you say, what you often end up with is people paying for mediocre care.
In quite extraordinary ways.
I went to see a friend who was in a concert in Joliet, Quebec, last summer.
And at the end of the show, the drummer got taken ill.
They put him in a hospital.
They put him in an ambulance, and the ambulance set off to drive him to the hospital and then reported back that they could find no hospital.
Joliet is halfway between Montreal and Quebec City.
They could find no hospital where the waiting time was under 48 hours for the emergency room.
So they eventually suggested to him, look, why don't instead of coming in the ambulance with us, why don't you just get a friend to drive you back to Montreal and go to a hospital there after he'd been in the ambulance being driven around trying to find a hospital to take him for four or five hours.
And it's not because, when you look at it, it's not because there's huge pressure on these emergency rooms.
It's not because there's lots of people biting each other's fingers off on a Friday night or whatever.
It's because there's actually no insufficient doctors and nurses allocated under the system.
In other words, they build rationing.
They build rationing even into the emergency room system.
That's certainly true in Quebec.
I don't know whether it's that way in British Columbia, Sylvia.
Absolutely.
And just to get back to electing President Obama and that, now the American people know what's happening.
I think the ones who approve of him are almost as bad.
I really do.
Really?
Doesn't matter what road.
The ones who approve of Obama, they want this to go through.
That means they approve of him, right?
Well, there is.
It's pretty bad.
There are a large number of people.
I would say there's two kinds of Democrats, by the way.
There's Democrats who think they would like to live like Europeans or Canadians and have no idea what it's like.
And in a sense, I think they understand it's an almighty bluff.
You know that thing that used to happen every time Bush won the election, all through the early years of the century, 2000, 2002, 2004.
Democrats always said, ah, that's it.
If the Republicans win again, I'm moving to Canada.
And they never do.
They never do.
Alec Baldwin was supposed to be, there was supposed to be a mass migration of Baldwin brothers north of the border to Canada, which would work quite well anyway, because that's where all the movies are filmed anyhow.
Why not just keep them there?
No need for them to come back to Beverly Hills.
So it would have made perfect sense.
But in the end, they never do it.
They never go and live in Canada because in the back of their mind, somehow, they get the feeling that if you were there in practice, living at 365 days a year, the great Euro-Canadian utopia might turn out to be not all it's made out to be.
And I think that accounts for a large number of Democrats, who I think are humbugs on this issue.
They think they'd like to live in Scandinavia.
They couldn't stick it for a moment.
But then there are others, and these are a lot of the people around Obama, who are hardcore leftists and genuinely want to move to a hardcore left-wing society where the state is responsible for 70% of GDP or upwards, and where government regulation is a fact of life.
If you look at this guy, the Green Job Czar, whatever that is, it's not a job.
He goes there.
He's got an office and he's got a salary.
He doesn't do anything.
He is the green.
The only green job czar that's been created that the Green Job Czar has created is his green job.
He's got a job.
He doesn't do anything.
But he goes to the White House every day as one of Obama's czars.
Now this guy, what's he called, Vin Jones Van Jones?
Van Jones?
He is a communist.
He was, and I was interested when they said a former communist.
You know, normally when people say former communists, you think it's like a phase they went through when they were in college.
So it would be something he went through in the 60s or 70s or 80s or whatever.
No, it turns out this guy was a communist in the 90s after communism fell, after the commies gave up on communism.
This guy, after the Russians gave up on communism, after the Chinese largely gave up on communism, after the Romanians and the Bulgarians and the East Germans and the Czechs and the Slovaks gave up on communism, Obama's green jobs are goes, hey, now's the perfect time to become a communist.
And this guy is in the administration.
And there comes a time when you have to look at Obama and say, well, look, let's say he's not quite as hardcore a communist as this Van Jones guy, Vin Jones, whatever he's called.
But he clearly is comfortable in the company of people who have a dramatically different view of the role of the state than any viable American elected official has ever had before.
And that is something that should be disquieting.
There is no way this green job czar would have gone into any previous administration in the history of this country.
And what kind of wacky guy decides, by the way, he's like watching the Berlin Wall come down and people streaming through it saying, at last, free at last, free at last.
They're all walking through from East Berlin.
The walls come down.
And he said, you know, now is really, if ever there was a moment to get into the communist racket, now is it.
And this guy is Obama's green job czar.
I think Sylvia is right.
When you have people who are committed to that larger state, you have no idea what life is like.
That's why it's important to kill this healthcare thing.
It's important not to let them get a foot in the door and get the second foot in and the rest later, because if they get the broad apparatus they need to governmentalize healthcare, they will do it.
And once you do that, it's very hard to have genuinely conservative government ever again.
Mark Stein in for Rush, more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
By the way, this guy, this green job czar, Van Jones, whatever he's doing in his green job, he's what they call a 9-11 truther.
That's like he's one of these guys, you see him driving around with the 9-11 was an inside job thing.
He thinks he signed a statement saying 9-11 was an inside job, that the Bush administration arranged, should be investigated, the Bush administration should be investigated for arranging to blow up the towers.
So now he is on the inside.
He should be able to find out about the inside job.
There must be a memo somewhere.
Maybe it's in his Green Jobs Tsar filing cabinet.
Who knows?
But what is it?
The left always says that, oh, the right are crazy.
They get attached to these crazy figures like Sarah Palin.
They get attached to these crazy people like the Berthers.
They never distance themselves from these people.
We have now got the Green Job Tsar, the Green Job Tsar.
He's one of the Tsars.
In the new America, it's more important to be a Tsar than it is to be a senator or to be a cabinet official.
The Tsars are it.
You know, it's dancing with the Tsars.
That is basically where America is headed.
Dancing with the Tsars.
He's one of the Tsars, and he thinks 9-11 was an inside job.
I love those guys.
They drive around with these things.
9-11 was an inside job.
So what they're saying is that the government on September the 11th, 2001, decided to kill 3,000 people.
They've got all these theories, that the planes were switched in mid-air, flown out to sea, the bodies dumped at sea, all the rest of it.
The controlled explosions of the towers and everything.
The Jews had a head up, so they never went to work that day.
They've got all these theories.
It's all worked out.
And you think to yourself, my goodness, if the federal government is going, because the federal government can't do the cash for clunkers program.
They can't do that.
But they can do, you know, mass terrorist atrocities for clunkers.
They can pull that off, no problem.
So the federal government, the federal government, arranged all this.
You don't think that they're also capable of figuring out all the guys driving around with the 9-11 was an inside job, bumper sticker, and getting you too?
That if they can pull off, kill thousands of people, switch the planes, dump them at sea, give the heads up to the Jews, controlled explosions at the towers, that they can't, they don't know who's got the 9-11 was an inside job, bumper sticker.
You're there, you're driving around, you've parked your Subaru with the 9-11 was an inside job.
You've gone into your college town coffee shop, you're having your decaf latte.
You don't think they know that?
You don't think, and you're sitting around chewing the fat about 9-11 was an inside job?
You don't think they know that?
Yeah, be very afraid.
Be very afraid.
Because a government that's capable of for some reason, we were living under the bush years in a tyranny that was capable of killing 3,000 people, blowing up buildings, covering it up, but wouldn't do anything about some goofball nut commie called Van Jones, who's a 9-11 truther.
And now he's sitting there in the Green Job Tsar of.
We've got a truther as the Green Job Tsar.
But that's it.
That's America in the dawn of the early 21st century, where it's dancing with the Tsars, where under rule by Tsars, truther czars filling up the White House, Obamacare supporters chewing the fingers off seniors in Los Angeles, and federal stimulus money going to stimulate sex offenders under the Julia Tuttle Causeway into publicly stimulated housing.
That is America in the early 21st century.
How did this happen?
How did this happen?
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein in for Rush.
You know, by the way, by the way, here's a model.
Here's a model, Mayadev, a model politician.
This is the mayor of Doncaster in Yorkshire, England, Mayor Peter Davis.
He scrapped all funding for the annual Gay Pride event.
His line being, if you're that proud about it, why can't you pay for it?
That's a good line to use with any government spending.
He scrapped all politically correct non-jobs, as he calls it, such as community cohesion officers, and he's ended twinning arrangements with five towns around the world, which he described as, quote, just an opportunity for politicians to fly off and have a binge at the council's expense, unquote.
This guy is a man to watch.
Markstein for Rush, more straight ahead.
Great to be with you.
Walter Williams in tomorrow, and then Rush returns next week.
You know, the president's plummeting numbers don't just apply to healthcare and other domestic policy issues.
On foreign policy, Obama's approval has come down from 67% to 49%, according to a CNN poll.
In March, 67% approved of Obama's handling of the situation in Afghanistan.
Now it's 49%.
That's an astonishing drop.
I'm not sure who this is, by the way.
I think a large number of those people are Democrats who accepted the idea of Democrats during the Bush years talking up Afghanistan as a kind of cunning rhetorical tick.
I believe John Kerry's advisors actually explicitly declared this in the 2004 election, that they didn't want to look like a bunch of wimps who were just opposed to all wars.
So they looked around for a war that they could support, and they decided that, okay, they were opposed to the Iraq war, but they were in favor of the Afghan war.
It's like this Democrat shell game.
No matter how many cups you pick up, you never find the P that represents the war that the Democrats are in favor of as the time you're fighting it.
So all the time the focus was in Iraq.
They claimed to be in favor of the Afghan war.
That was it.
That was the good war.
That was the war that John Kerry and Obama and all the crowd were in favor of.
What happened was that Bush in his last couple of years then did the surge and took down the heat on Iraq and essentially stabilized Iraq.
By contrast, what's happened in Afghanistan is that casualties have risen and that a manageable situation is showing signs of becoming unmanageable.
And now the Democrats are beginning to understand that their tough rhetoric on Afghanistan actually has to mean something now.
Don't forget, Obama talked super mega butch uber tough on Afghanistan.
At one point, he argued in favor of invading Pakistan.
I mean, if you think Iraq's a quagmire, Pakistan is like quagmire central.
And he backpedaled on that.
But his whole thing was that somehow he was going to fight the Afghan war in a smart way.
Well, if you're going to fight it in a smart way, you've got to know what is it you're doing there.
What happened in the fall of 2001 is that this country was attacked by people who had passed through training camps in Afghanistan, led by a man in Afghanistan, at the camps in Afghanistan.
And that's not unusual to the situation of September 11th.
You look at all the trouble spots all over the world.
If you look at the Russians in Chechnya, they got people who passed through the Afghan training camps there.
If you look at the Balkans, if you look at Yugoslavia and Kosovo and Bosnia, they had guys who passed through the Afghan training camps there.
If you look at the people who blew up the Bali nightclub in Indonesia and the Indonesian terrorists and the terrorists in the Philippines, what are they called?
MILF.
M-I-L-F, MILF, which is the world's dumbest acronym for a terrorist group.
And if you're the kind of guy who goes surfing on dodgy websites late at night, don't book a rendezvous with MILF without checking whether it's the Philippine MILF or the other kind of bill.
So anyway, anyway, they got guys who turned up from the Afghan training camps there.
So America decided to take out these training camps and the regime that sponsored them, the Taliban.
Well, it's now eight years later, and everybody's there.
You've got Germans there, you've got Norwegians there.
It's a big NATO thing, and like a lot of these multicultural, multilateral, multinational things, nobody's quite sure what we're there for anymore.
But if we are there for nation building, then that is a complete waste of time.
Nobody has ever succeeded in building a nation in Afghanistan.
The Afghans haven't built a nation in Afghanistan.
It's essentially a tribal society in which the village and the tribe are what count, and there's a remote national government in Kabul that has absolutely no impact on your life.
I wish we could have that system here when I think about it like that.
I think New Hampshire should be a tribal society with a remote national government thousands of miles away that has no impact on your life.
I quite like that system.
So on balance, I'd rather Afghans were nation building in America than Americans nation building in Afghanistan, if we have to go either way on it.
But the point is, nation building in Afghanistan is a complete waste of time.
We should be there for one purpose only, which is to quarantine al-Qaeda in the murky lands on the Afghan-Pakistani border and kill large numbers of them whenever we get the opportunity.
But the idea that we can somehow turn Afghanistan into Massachusetts, which is not a fate I'd wish on them, but the idea that we can turn Afghanistan into Massachusetts is completely preposterous.
You can do it in Iraq.
It is possible to do some kind of nation building in Iraq.
It's completely impossible in Afghanistan.
So if we're going to have a renewed commitment to Afghanistan, we should be very clear what it is that's going on there.
Now, there are differences on the right as to what the purpose of our Afghan intervention is.
I disagree with George Will.
George Will has called for us to get out of Afghanistan and he's called for us to get out of Iraq.
There's something to be said for just going in and whacking the bad guy and then getting the hell out.
You can do that if you want.
There'd be something to say in Afghanistan for going in, killing everybody, killing the people you want to kill, toppling the Taliban, blowing up the camps and then getting out.
But there is nothing to be said, and this is where I disagree with George Will, with choosing, giving the impression to the world that you are choosing to lose a war.
Because America has done that too often in the past, most memorably in Vietnam.
And that Vietnam syndrome haunted this country for decades.
But you can also make the case that that is what happened in Mogadishu.
You can say that the Kosovo intervention, where we staged this little nothing war, air only at great height to no particular purpose, that these kinds of things cumulatively send a message to the world that this country does not have the will to get the job done.
So the idea that you could just pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq now without doing immense damage to the credibility of the United States.
Every rinky-dink no-account dictator sitting in his presidential palace would say, well, look, if you can survive a couple of months of bombing raids, these guys are not in it for the long haul.
A superpower that basically says, no, we didn't lose the war, we just couldn't be bothered going all the way and winning it, is not a country that can say a superpower in the long run.
But in order to be able to accomplish our goals in Afghanistan, we have to have a very clear idea of what it is we're there to do.
And we're not there to nation build.
We are there to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the remaining al-Qaeda networks, including perhaps Osama bin Laden, although perhaps not, and certainly not including the many of his lieutenants who have been killed in the last few years.
But we're there effectively to say, we're going to quarantine you, and if we can't quarantine you, we're going to kill you, any of you who come our way.
And what's happened at the moment is there's been tremendous drift in the Afghan campaign.
It's become a NATO-fied mission under absurd rules of engagement.
You get things like the Germans who won't go out.
I think it's they won't go out at night and they won't go out in snow.
And you've got other countries participating who will say they're prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans only as long as there's two provinces between their shoulders and the American shoulders.
So they'll only deploy to provinces where there's no fighting going on.
And then you get people like the, and then you get people like the Norwegians who will go there, but in a non-combat role.
So they're basically agreeing to man the photocopier back at barracks.
By the time you've got all these people in the game, you've got a classic multinational mission that those countries will only sign on to if some fancy pants, mushy, multiculti nation-building angle is affixed to it.
And that's not what the U.S. should be there for.
The U.S. should not be part of some confused NATO ineffectual multicultural mission to nation-build in a land where no nation has ever existed.
It should be there to kill large numbers of bad guys.
And the question over the Obama administration is whether they understand that is the purpose of being in Afghanistan.
Because if they don't, then these casualties are going to increase.
And this is Obama's war now.
Gibbs was pathetic the other day, blaming it on the United States previous president, George W. Bush, because George W. Bush is gone.
George W. Bush, on his watch, after September 11th, kept this country safe from attack and stayed, as he told me a couple of years ago.
His point was to stay on offense.
Obama consciously has chosen to go move to a more legalistic, law enforcement, reactive model of waging the war on terror, which he won't even call by that name.
And the upshot of that is that we now are in a situation where the Afghan war has got a little more bloody, a little more violent.
These punks, these young punks, often just 14, 15, 16, so people with no real memory of the Taliban or what it was like before the Americans came, they understand the rules of engagement very well.
They understand you can go up to a German soldier and do to him pretty much anything that you want.
That under his rules of engagement, under the rules of engagement for some of these NATO forces, they're not allowed to attack a building.
They've got a list of names of people who are sort of persons of interest.
And unless they've established that no one else is inside that building, they're not allowed to attack that building.
These are ridiculous.
They're not going to war with one arm tied behind their back.
They're going to war with two arms and one leg tied behind their back and then wondering why they're not able to prosecute it effectively.
And the Afghan kids, the stupid Afghan punk kids, have figured this out.
And they know that to most of these NATO members, you can do what you like to them with impunity.
They're just offering themselves a sport to be picked off.
But there has to be one serious nation that understands that you're there to kill large numbers of the enemy and prevent them re-establishing that country as a base of operations for Chechnya, for Bosnia, for Indonesia, and for New York and Washington, D.C., as it was on September 11th.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
You know, those rules of engagement in Afghanistan are totally ridiculous.
If coalition forces discover a house with, say, two high-value Taliban targets, but, say, four other just Taliban riffraff who are not on their list of approved targets, they cannot attack the house.
You got that?
That's like if NATO is at war, not with the Taliban, but just with a list of kind of selected Taliban big shots.
So if Mullah Omar is in the house, but Ahmed, the fanatical but inconsequential camel driver happens to be with him, you can't attack the house.
That's how crazy the rules of engagement are in Afghanistan.
Let's go to Jim in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of America's telegenic Canadian governor.
Jim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you, Mark.
I just wanted to comment on your comment about not building a nation in Afghanistan.
I think we're in a situation now where we have to, but just not a strong central government because that's not something that Afghans have ever had.
I mean, even the old Afghani kings depended on tribal warlords and chieftains to implement his policies because he had really very little Zahir Shah in his heyday was basically the king of Kabul and had a kind of residual respect depending on whether tribal warlords in different parts of the country.
His basic function back then was to mediate between rival chiefs, disputes, and land disputes and that sort of thing.
And so your point here then is that you don't build a society from the capital city down.
You kind of build it from the grassroots.
Exactly backwards, exactly.
When they went in, and the intent was, and I understand it, was in fact to diminish the roles of warlords throughout the regions and these tribal chiefdoms, which had been a source of rivalry and conflict from time immemorial.
But you just can't impose a system that nobody in Afghanistan has ever been used to and doesn't think about it.
No, and this is the trouble, by the way, with UN nation building.
UN nation building always wants to go from the capital city down.
If you look at successful societies, for example, in Iraq, at the time of the worst trouble in Iraq, they had a problem in the Sunni triangle and the Baghdad area, but there were large parts of the country that had functioning municipal government and provincial government and essentially had outpaced in terms of their development the national government.
And that's exactly, by the way, how it happened in America.
America had successful town government and state government in the colonial days, and federal government was the last piece of the puzzle.
So America is actually the model.
America was built from the self-governing township up, which existed in colonial eras, in the colonial era.
They had towns that govern themselves.
That's where the American settlers learned the art of self-government at town level and then at state level.
And the big national government is the last piece of the puzzle.
You can't do trickle-down nation-building.
All successful nations are built from the bottom up.
Thanks very much for your call, Jim.
And Mark Stein in for Rush on the Russian Bosshow.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
I mentioned earlier that mayor in England who's canceled the funding for the Gay Pride Parade on the grounds that if you're that proud of it, why can't you pay for it yourself?
And the other thing I like about him is this the twin towns racket, which is something like all local government do all over the world.
They all fly around the world twinning themselves with towns and exotic locations.
He welcomed a delegation of German VIPs on an all-expenses paid visit to his hometown and told them not to bother coming back.
I have only two words of German, he said, Auf and Wiedersehn.
But those are the only words I need.
Auf Wiedersehn is German for so long.
Get out of here.
We're done.
And that is good advice.
And if you're taking, if you get the Obama speech in your grade school next week, as I said earlier, if you don't want to write in the question, what are your three favorite words in the speech?
And you don't want to put that's all, folks, in case you get expelled, just write Auf Wiedersehn and leave it at that.
Split Widesein into two words if you have to.
Have a great Labor Day weekend.
Walter Williams will be here tomorrow.
And Rush will be back for a full week of excellence in broadcasting with the best of Rush Show on Monday and then Rush Back Live on Tuesday.
This has been a pleasure being here.
▲
Export Selection