All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
December 10, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Actually, I'm glad it happened.
I am glad that that happened over there.
I was just watching an unbelievable sight, President and Mrs. Obama on the balcony of their hotel room in Oslo.
It's nighttime over there, and there is a torchlight parade reception, and the street is just filled.
It's teeming with people with their candles and torches, with the Obamas standing high above and looking down upon them, President Obama in his tuxedo, and I kid you not, Michelle Mybel looked like she was dressed in a way to make people think she was royalty, a queen.
It was, make no mistake about it, it was on purpose.
But the reason I'm glad it happened, because you know, Snerdley's saying, gosh, you know, they just have to be eating this up.
They just have to look.
They think of themselves as royalty.
That's right.
Let them think of that.
Let them stay so out of touch with how they are perceived by people in this country.
Let them go over there, get all these accolades, and let them continue to live in the universe of lies.
I think it's much better than if he went over there and got booed out of the place.
Give that another year and that'll happen.
But this is good.
This is good that it happened because it continues, allows them to continue to live this delusion that they are special, unlike any others who have come before them.
Great to have you here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
Telephone number, if you want to call.
We'll get to calls here in a minute.
800-282-2882 and the email address, Elrushbo at EIBNet.com.
What the Democrats in the House and Senate are doing, R.E. Healthcare is guaranteeing a revolt.
I don't care where you look.
Polling data from all walks of the polling universe shows a steadily larger number of people opposed to the healthcare plans in both the House and the Senate.
It's not just Rasmussen.
Now, Rasmussen's considered to be a Republican pollster, so the state-controlled media pay no attention to him.
But he's right in the middle of them.
All these other polls, and it's it, the support and opposition are going in opposite directions at a rapid rate.
And I'll guarantee you that the people in Washington, Democrats, are working.
Because the bottom line is, this thing, nobody's going to vote for it if the only people who want it are Democrats.
And I'm talking about the American people now in polls.
One analysis I saw just a moment ago said that if it has 40, 45% approval, then probably get enough Democrats to vote for it.
Think of that.
But if they get down into the 30s, it's dead.
If the numbers of people supporting it get down into the 30s, then it's dead because then you're getting into territory where only Democrats support it, not Republicans, not Independents.
And no Democrat is going to go willingly commit suicide politically at that stage.
That's just an analysis.
We'll see if it actually happens.
But I want to share with you a piece by Robert Trasinski, T-A-R-C, I-N-S-K-I.
This is from Real Clear Politics.
Robert Trasinski writes daily commentary at the tiadaily.com, the intellectual activist, the intellectual activistdaily.com.
The title of his piece, his outstanding piece, you will lose your private health insurance.
What this does is take all the complexity that exists in this plan, boil it down to its essence in an understandable way.
That's what we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
I admire it when it's done elsewhere.
Before Thanksgiving, the Senate voted to open debate on President Obama's health care bill, and that debate has begun in earnest this week.
Well, if they want a debate, then let's have it.
But let's not get distracted by the sideshows that Harry Reid has planned for us.
Forget about abortion.
Of course, the left will accept restrictions on funding for abortion because they want to keep moderate Democrats on board for the goal that they know is really important, giving the government a dominant role in health care.
Everything else is just details.
Funding for abortions is an issue to which the left can return at leisure later on once government is firmly in charge of everything.
And don't bother debating the public option either because it's already dead.
Enough Democrat senators have come out against it.
But Harry Reid is all too happy to have a debate over the public option so he can make a show of compromising and giving it up when he really isn't.
And while we're having that fake debate, he's hoping we won't be challenging everything else in the bill.
So let's get straight what the real essentials of the bill are and how disastrous they are.
Three provisions constitute the vicious heart of the Democrats' health care overhaul.
The first is guaranteed issue and community rating.
This is the requirement that insurance companies have to offer coverage to people who are already sick and that they be limited in their ability to charge higher rates for customers who pose a higher risk.
The extra expense to the insurance companies of covering people with pre-existing conditions will get passed on to existing customers in the form of higher premiums.
But why spend years paying these inflated premiums for insurance you're not using when you can get exactly the same benefits by waiting until you actually fall ill.
The obvious result is that millions of people, especially healthy young people, will quickly realize that there's no reason to buy health insurance until they get sick.
They'll simply pay the fine, which is much less than a premium.
Rather than increasing the number of insured by making health insurance more affordable, this bill makes health insurance more expensive and increases the incentive to simply drop your insurance until you need someone to pay for your medical bills.
It is an attempt to turn health insurance into what the left really wants, another welfare program in which everyone is entitled to free benefits mandated by the government.
But this would wreck private health insurance, making the whole industry financially unsustainable.
On purpose, I might add.
Following the usual pattern of government intervention, the health care bill offers another intervention as the solution for the problem they created by the first.
The individual mandate requires everyone to buy health insurance, subjects us to a tax if we don't.
But this is an especially onerous new tax.
The first tax not tied to any kind of income or activity.
It's not a tax on stock market profits.
Say, it's not a tax on buying cigarettes.
It's a tax just for existing.
That, my friends, is profound.
If you don't buy insurance, which, by the way, none of this is constitutional.
You cannot mandate.
Federal government cannot mandate that any of us buy anything.
States can do it.
Federal government cannot do it.
So you pay a tax, a fine, if you opt out and don't buy health insurance.
That's a tax for just existing.
So fearing a public backlash, Congress didn't have the guts to make this new tax very large.
It's only $750.
But actual insurance can cost more than $3,000 a year.
And as we shall see, this legislation goes out of its way to drive up those rates by mandating more lavish coverage.
So we end up getting the worst of both worlds.
This provision won't actually drive anybody to buy health insurance and prop up the risk pools.
All it will accomplish is create a brand new form of tax.
But the biggest power grab in the bill is the government takeover of the entire market for health insurance.
The bill requires all new policies to be sold on a government-controlled exchange run by a commissioner who is empowered to dictate what kinds of insurance policies can be offered, what they must cover, and what they can charge.
Right now, your best option for reducing the cost of your health insurance is to buy a policy with a high deductible, which leaves you to pay for routine checkups and minor injuries, preferably from a savings held in a tax-free health savings account, which covers your needs in catastrophic circumstances, like a bad car expect that's what you'd buy the insurance for with a high deductible.
This is the kind of coverage many people have, but the health insurance exchange is intended to eliminate precisely this kind of low-cost catastrophic coverage.
Its purpose is to force health insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage that pays for all of your routine bills, which in turn comes at a higher price.
So under the guise of making health insurance more affordable, this bill will restrict your menu of choices to include only the most expensive ones.
So there we have the real essence of the bill.
It restricts our choice of which insurance to buy, pushes us into more expensive plans.
At the same time, it destroys the economic incentive to purchase insurance in the first place and replaces insurance with the free-floating tax on everyone's very existence.
That's the fine for not buying it.
By all means, let's debate that in the Senate.
When you understand what this bill does, you can see why the Democrats would be happy to compromise and drop the public option for now.
This bill so comprehensively wrecks private health insurance that pretty soon a public option will seem like the only alternative.
And they will already have put into place one of the new taxes needed to pay for it.
If the left's goal is to impose socialized medicine in America, and make no mistake, it is, I got a quote here from Anthony Weiner.
And what they want to do now, folks, they want to expand Medicare all the way down to age 55, maybe even 45.
Medicare is health coverage for the elderly.
They will expand it 55 to 45 for where it at present is.
And Anthony Weiner said that's the only way, not the only way, the surefire way to get the single payer.
Just expand Medicare all over the place to everybody.
So if the left's goal is to impose socialized medicine in America, this bill does it in the most callous and destructive way possible.
It smashes private health care and then leaves us stranded in the rubble, at which point we will be expected to come crawling back to the same people who caused the disaster and ask them to save us.
And this, by the way, has been known from the outset.
This is why, from the outset, again, I, you know, shattered, how do you know?
How do you know?
Because I just, I'm telling you, just know the whole purpose of this is to wipe out private insurance.
The whole purpose of doing this is to have government-run health care.
Whatever you call it, public option or what have you.
Obama has said so.
And he said it may take 10, 15 years from the time we get started, but that's the objective.
And they're patient.
They got plenty of time once they get the ball rolling in the direction they want it to go.
And that's what this is intended to do.
So Reed's making a big show of dropping the public option while the details of the health care bill are going to drive up the costs of private insurance to the point that you'll not buy it and you'll pay a fine, $3,750 or $750, and eventually private insurance will not be able to stay in business.
They're going to be wrecked, which has always been the objective.
And then the government gets to come in as a saint, a knight on a white horse.
Oh, we'll save you.
Your insurance company screwed you?
Oh, we could have told you that would happen.
We're here to help.
We're from the government.
That's the final, perhaps most compelling reason to kill this bill, the sheer arrogance of the whole enterprise.
It is the arrogance of stampeding an unwilling public toward a monstrous 2,000 page piece of legislation while admitting that it still has huge problems, but promising that it will all somehow be fixed later on.
It's the arrogance of selling us a bill that expands government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars while telling us that it will reduce the deficit.
It is the sheer unmitigated gall of adopting a bureaucrat or appointing a bureaucrat to run a government-controlled insurance market that takes away all of our health choices and then calling this bureaucrat the health choices commissioner.
That's the kind of government arrogance that has to be smacked down hard.
And that alone is reason to demand that your senator reject this vicious bill in its entirety.
Again, Robert Trasinski, Real Clear Politics.
He writes at ti daily.com.
We'll be back.
Sit tight.
You know, when I read that last piece on health care, when I first read it this morning during the intense period of show prep that I do each and every day, I began to think that we're living in occupied territory, that we've been taken over, not militarily, but follow me on this.
We've been taken over financially, economically, politically, scientifically.
Without firing a shot, the left has seized the press.
They have taken control of the banks.
They're about to take control of the insurance companies.
They'll wipe them out much of the auto industry.
The left is now setting a salary scale for people.
They've taken over our currency.
And they're proposing preparing to seize health care.
Now, the occupiers, we're being occupied by the left.
This country, we are now, we need to be liberated.
We, the people of this country, need to be liberated.
We are oppressed now.
You know, Sterdley told me just a moment ago he was watching AE, and it was a series on, what was the war?
The Revolutionary War.
And this is what he said to me.
He said, the things that our founding fathers considered tyranny wouldn't rate a quarter page in a newspaper today.
That the tyranny that we live under in this country already dwarfs the kind of tyranny that caused this country to be founded or inspired it to be founded in the first place.
Now the left, I look at them as the occupiers, they have labeled the word dissent to racism.
Dissent is now racism to try to quash any dissent whatsoever.
Protest has been labeled tea-bagging.
So in addition to without firing a shot being taken over financially, economically, politically, and scientifically, the language is being reset.
Individual wealth is set to be taxed away.
Schools are teaching the words of the left, the occupier.
And we're given bread and circus distractions, Tiger Woods, the White House party crashers to keep us entertained while the occupation goes on.
But sometimes occupation schemes break down.
And when that happens, the occupier has to do what all occupiers do, and that's restore order.
And I'll tell you this, this health care bill, people do not understand.
The people in Washington do not understand.
And the polls will not tell them of the intensity here.
And of course, the state-controlled media doesn't get it either.
People do not understand the outrage that is effervescing all over this country for everything, Democrat Party and Obama that's going on right now.
And it's going to have a tipping point.
And that's why I like Obama over there with all these people in Oslo and their torchlight vigil and him acting like royalty and he's the savior of the world.
And so let him go ahead and live that delusion.
Ignore reality that he faces when he comes home.
Jeff, in Maineville, Ohio, we start on the phones with you today.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Rush, it's an honor and a pleasure.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, longtime listener, all the way back to February of 2009, you had asked to give you 60, 90 days, and here I am.
Long time listener, February 2009 this year.
Well, I'm glad that you spent the three months because sometimes it can take that.
It is, and it's been worth every minute.
Yesterday, you had posed the question about Harry Reid of why he is doing this.
And, you know, in this administration, we've always been, we're learning day to day to always watch the other hand.
And in Monday's speech that he gave his verbal manure about delay tactics and slavery and everything, it was actually the first thing that he actually said, and that is not being on the wrong side of history.
And I contend that him and his cohorts are just trying to put their names in the history books for later in life.
He knows he's not going to get reelected.
And, you know, so he's just trying to put himself in history with all of this.
You mean by comparing Republican efforts to stop health care bill to people that wanted to sustain slavery, Harry Reid is trying to get himself in the history books with that?
No, not with just trying to pass this legislation.
You had asked, why is he trying to move forward with his health care?
And it's to put himself in history, like you say, about building monuments.
Maybe so, but I don't think that Harry Reid intends to lose re-election.
I don't think if I heard you right, it sounds like Harry Reid knows he's going to lose, so he's going to go down here fighting with his name on a monument or something.
Ain't going to fly because it ain't going to be long before this health care bill, if it ever passes, is going to be looked at as the worst aspect of the worst presidency in the history of the United States of America.
There's going to be nothing redeeming or historic in a positive way about anything happening during the Obama administration.
There's just no way.
If they're that delusional, but I still don't believe Reed intends to lose.
He's got Acorn.
He's got money.
He's going to run the state.
We'll see.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network serving humanity.
Back to the Fawns.
This is Godfrey in Austin, Texas.
Hi, Godfrey.
Nice to have you with us.
Yeah, thanks for letting me be on your show.
I'm a Democrat.
And I was just looking up some information here.
The Congressional Research Service says the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to cost us over $1 trillion.
And President Bush started those wars.
Instead of asking the public to make sacrifices, he cut taxes.
Wait a minute.
Bush didn't start the wars.
Al-Qaeda started the wars.
We were attacked, and for repeated times, that was the tail end of our being attacked.
We finally got some guts and did something about it.
Saddam Hussein had violated 14 U.N. resolutions to disarm and stop his weapons of mass destruction program.
But we didn't start any wars.
I've forgotten that we were attacked.
By the way, that number, the trillion dollars, that's a jimmy number.
So that Obama's health care number of $898 billion can magically be said to cost less than these two unjust wars that Bush started and didn't ask any sacrifice for.
What kind of sacrifice were you prepared to make, sir?
Well, that information actually was published by Bruce Bartlett, who was an advisor to the Republican Party and Bush.
So he's one of your people that stated that.
And that's, like I said, the fact of the matter is, you know, cutting taxes at a time of war has never been done in American history.
And the idiocy of the Republican Party is instead of you're screaming around, screaming and talking about a president that's trying to spend money on a decent health care program, that to me is where the idiocy is, sir.
That to me is where it is.
Yeah, I really don't blame you for thinking the way you think, as corrupted as your mind has become by whoever has been responsible for educating you.
Well, I'll just give you information from your Republican source here, Bruce Bartlett.
He's one of your people.
You can go to Forbes.com.
I don't have people.
Bruce might be one of mine, but I'm not one of his.
Oh, okay.
That's how this works.
Now, every movement has its, or every group of people has its people that deviate from whatever the perceived norm is.
But you say that taxes have never been cut during time of war.
In American history, sir, look it up in the record book.
That's not my question for you.
Okay.
My question for you is, why, what is you, I don't want to know you personally.
What is your knee-jerk reaction that causes opposition to tax cuts?
What is the problem you have with tax cuts?
And how is the second question, how can you look at this abomination of a health care bill and think it's actually about compassionately providing health insurance for people who don't have it?
It's not what it's about.
I don't know how I don't understand people who hear tax cuts and get mad.
I just don't, I don't understand it.
Well, the fact of the way it is, you got to have a way to finance a war.
That's a fact.
And you guys didn't have a way to finance the wars when you got us into it.
That's the Republican Party's cross the bear, and that will go down in history.
Well, would you agree with the concept that you cut taxes in a recession if you don't like cutting taxes in a war?
Would I agree with that concept?
Well, the fact of the matter is here we are $1 trillion later, and you guys are screaming about money now on somebody that's going to try and develop a health care program.
I'm a cancer survivor.
I'm a cancer survivor.
Congratulations.
Yeah, and all I did was move from one state to another.
Obama is seeking to destroy the American health care system and the American private sector.
President Obama has spent more in one year than George Bush deficits added up over all eight.
Now, those are facts.
We had a budget surplus before Bush came into office.
No, we did not.
Again, that was a massaged figure from the Clinton Commerce Department.
There was no surplus.
There was no, what was the term they had for it sturdily?
The peace dividend.
There was no peace dividend.
The federal budget has never been smaller one year than it was the year before.
The national debt has never gone down.
And if there was a surplus anywhere, it's been spent ten times over.
Look, you and I are going to be at loggerheads all over the place because you have Bush derangement syndrome.
And you have the belief that the only bad money spent by government is money spent to defend the country after it's been attacked.
You seem to be in favor of all kinds of wasteful, redundant social spending, and you fall prey to the well-articulated crap put out by the left that it's all for compassion.
So you're just, you know, you're a citizen, and you sound like a good guy, but we can't count on you.
You're lost.
You're gone.
So people like me will try to save the country for you because left to your own devices, you would help facilitate its destruction, at least as we know it.
But we'll try to save it for you, sir, whether you ever thank us or not.
Neil in Fairmont, Minnesota.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yeah, good morning.
And Ditto's from Cold Minnesota was minus nine here this morning.
Longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you, sir.
I want to point out something that hasn't been talked about yet in the health care bill.
Hidden in the health care bill is a marriage penalty that will devastate the middle-class American family as we know it.
The way it works is that it's based on the poverty levels.
And two people living together, two people living together, both making $30,000 a year, their combined income, now they're just living together, not married, will be $60,000.
They will pay, according to the plan, $1,320 a year for the two of them for insurance.
If they were to get married, that same couple making $60,000 a year gets married, they will pay $12,000.
That's a huge discrepancy.
And the other thing that, so why get married?
Or why not, if you are married, why not get a divorce?
Well, what does this tell you that the purpose of the bill is?
Well, there's a couple things that it's doing.
It's hitting the middle-class married family.
The other thing is it also advances their socialist agenda because it's going to keep people from making more money.
Why would you want to make more money?
Exactly.
You've finally hit on it.
There are many, many purposes of this bill before you ever get to health or health insurance or treatment.
A, it is a tax bill, T-A-X.
Part of that subset of A is the redistribution of wealth.
And that leads to B, which is the effort to prevent the acquisition of wealth.
But you have to understand Obama and the radical left that run the country to understand why that would be the case.
Most people grow up in the country and they think the American dream owning a house and getting educated, working hard and enjoying prosperity, and that's what all Americans want.
No, no, no, it's not what all Americans want.
There are many Americans, and occluded among them are the president of the United States who think that system is totally unfair and unjust because it leads to too big a gap in income levels between achievers and lesser and unachievers.
And it's just not right.
It's not fair.
It's not fair.
It's not equal.
And the left, and I've said this constantly, the left looks at income inequality or wealth inequality.
And rather than adopt policies that would elevate those at the bottom and increase their wealth, what they do is get mad at the achievers and hate the achievers and say, we're going to take what they've got and we're going to redistribute it with us being in charge so that all those people who are not rich will end up appreciating us for making it possible for them to live decent lives and vote for us forever.
And then we will be able to control their lives because we will own them.
And I have always just been amazed that people will look at the Democrat Party and the left as the party of compassion when they are the party of punishment.
And the thing is that everybody ends up being punished when the left gets its way with nobody to stop them.
Brief time out.
We'll be back.
Sit tight.
Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal has another great piece, and I want to excert it.
And it reminded me, and I say this in all due respect to Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal.
It reminded me of my piece from almost a year ago and things that I've said and explained for a long time on the Limbaugh bipartisan stimulus plan that I offered since President Obama at the time last January, November, February said he was open to all ideas.
So I wrote that op-ed and presented my idea.
So here's the I think it's appropriate here.
My proposal was written for the first porculus bill, and Henninger here is writing his reaction to the proposed second stimulus bill, the taking of $200 billion unspent TARP money.
I'm not trying to embarrass Mr. Henninger.
I'm trying to praise him here.
He writes a terrific column.
It does stand on its own.
I just find it interesting to compare it to mine.
Here we go.
Here's Henniger.
Every serious person should welcome the president's proposals to lift the dormant economy and reduce unemployment.
Not because every serious person would agree with them, but because they are a clear test of how far a left-wing government would run the American economy and how they would do it.
If this works, hats off to them and we become France.
If not, Americans may finally dump left-wing economics into the ash heap of history starting next November and then in the next presidential election, which can't come soon enough.
No Democrat president, though, can say, I'm doing this to save the Pelosi majority and to protect the state and local jobs of Andy Stern's dues payers and his union members and party regulars in the service employees in a national union.
In other words, Henninger's saying the Democrats cannot be honest about what their objectives really are here.
Mr. Obama's saving grace is that no matter how political his initiatives, the reasons he offers for what he's doing generally do describe what's at stake.
At the job summit, Obama said, I want to hear from CEOs what's holding back our business investment.
Really?
How about the world's highest corporate tax rate?
How about the 5.4% health care surtax on top of the expiring Bush tax cuts, which will push the top marginal individual rate paid at the outset by many entrepreneurs well over 40%?
Now, that was the purpose of the Limbaugh plan.
Here's what I wrote.
There's a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession.
The average recession will last five to 11 months.
The average recovery will last six years.
Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone.
What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Obama has proposed.
I don't believe his is a stimulus plan at all.
I don't think it stimulates anything but the Democrat Party.
This porculus bill is designed to repair the Democrat Party's power losses from the 90s forward and to cement the party's majority power for decades.
In this new era of responsibility, let's use both Keynesian and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy.
And if elements of both work, so much the better.
As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, 54% of the $900 billion will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama, the Democrats.
46% will be directed toward tax cuts as determined by me.
And then we compare.
We see which stimulus actually works.
This would be bipartisanship.
It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note, and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say cut the U.S. corporate tax rate at 35% among the highest of all industrialized nations, cut it in half, suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%, and then get out of the way.
But Ref, did you hear if President Obama did suspend the capital gains tax for small bits of the three year?
I saw that, but two things about that.
First off, what is a capital gains tax?
You have to sell an asset at a gain before there's a tax involved.
What small business has gains that they're selling?
Meanwhile, the House came out and said, screw it.
They proposed legislation to double it or triple it.
I'll get the details in a moment.
Anyway, Daniel Henninger says, look, every serious person ought to welcome this.
I've heard this argument expressed in many different ways.
Hey, get out of the way.
Let the left do what they're going to do.
And people will find out how rotten it is.
And then they'll never vote for it again.
Doesn't work that way.
By the same token, because if it did, if it worked that way, then no Democrat would have ever been elected after Ronald Reagan.
Would not have happened.
Because the 80s were the most prosperous decade that led to prosperity all the way through the late 90s with a couple minor little economic slowdowns in the late, well, the early 90s during the campaign of 1992.
It doesn't work that way, especially in this case.
If we just sit idly by and let Obama get all this stuff done, we're cooked.
Because this is not just standard left-wing politics.
This is radical left-wing Marxist socialism, fascism, whatever you want to call it.
This is designed to forever remake the United States and to destroy the prosperity-generating capitalist system and private sector.
So it's hard to sit by and let that happen for people to say, oh, my God, this is horrible.
We're not going to vote for this again.
Well, I've never heard of an entitlement being rolled back once they get it, like this healthcare bill.
This has to be stopped.
Cap and trade has to be stopped.
The EPA somehow, there has to be pressure mounted to see that they do not, by fiat, unilaterally implement cap and trade.
This is serious stuff.
We're beyond the point.
I think people already are seeing the flight of the independents away from Obama, his cratering in the approval polls, cratering in the approval of healthcare.
But we're already seeing.
We don't need the stuff to pass and get signed into law before people understand what a disaster it is.
And I think, actually, it's kind of uplifting in a way that even before it is passed and with no attention being paid to the truth of what these pieces of legislation are from the mainstream media, still a majority of Americans want no part of any of it.
And we have a little soundbite.
Here we got it.
Listen to this.
Number 29.
We squeeze this in before this.
It speaks for itself.
Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.
That is an out-and-out historical revisionist lie.
Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika improved relations with the Soviet Union.
We defeated the Soviet Union.
▲
Export Selection