All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 15, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
December 15, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha, how are you and welcome back.
I am Rush Limbaugh, a doctor of democracy, America's truth detector, doing everything I can to save the country and serve America and be happy at the same time.
Happy to have you with us.
The telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
And I was just back in Snerdley's office, and he started pounding me again here on how he feels sorry for Tiger.
And at some point, the sympathy is going to have to become a factor.
He said, look at Babe Ruth, Brush, for crying out loud.
Babe Ruth, he was married, and he makes Tiger look like a piker in the philandering department.
And I said, yeah, but you're missing the whole point.
Everybody knew it.
And Snerdley said, everybody knew it.
I said, that's the point.
Everybody knew it.
We love our racanteurs when we know they are racantours.
I said, if you want to make a correct analogy here, what you should say is if we've ever learned that Joe DiMaggio was living the life of Babe Ruth, that's the comparison because what we have here in Tiger is a perfectly carefully constructed image of perfection.
I mean, they even published Tiger's workout schedule.
I even remember a couple of media people, when the first story broke that he had wrecked a car at 2.30 in the morning on the Friday after Thanksgiving, there were actually some sports groupy media types.
He probably just had to do his workout.
The guy is a beast.
He's just incredibly devoted to his workout regimen.
And they published a workout regimen once.
It goes like this.
You wake up at 5 o'clock in the morning and you go work out for two hours, you play nine holes.
Then you go work out for two more hours and you have lunch, play nine more holes.
What they didn't tell us was that the holes were not golf holes.
But that's what it is.
People are just, they're stunned here with the reality of what they now know was just something they were totally lied to about.
They were presented essentially a hoax.
So now we got the 14th one.
14th woman and Dara Torres, the Olympic swimmer and Tiger, both said to have been treated by a doctor in Canada who's known to dispense performing enhances drugs, performance-enhancing drugs, and that ain't good.
Just the innuendo that's going to be associated with that is over the top.
All right, now that's enough of this.
Snerdley, you have to understand here that there may be some sympathy for Tiger at some point, but people are still in shock here over what the reality is compared to what they were told.
Just that simple.
All right, so let's move on to Al Gore from the UK Times.
Now, I have yet to see this story in any American state-controlled media.
I've yet to see it in any American media.
It is by Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Norton in Copenhagen, where, by the way, let's see, I think the record snowfall or some kind of snowfall is expected this week in Copenhagen.
These people can't even arrange a conference.
The Heritage Foundation has a hilarious story today about how these people at Copenhagen can't even run their conference.
People with passes are not being allowed in.
People are walking out.
There are boycotts.
All kinds of stuff.
Here's the UK Times story.
There are many kinds of truth.
Al Gore was pole-axed by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former U.S. vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement, unlikely, oh, well, never mind, was narrating the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change spin row or row.
Mr. Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen or Copenhagen, as Governor Schwarzenegger says, climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
This is what he said.
We have a brief soundbite of it from his remarks yesterday at Copenhagen.
There is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.
That, it turns out, is just an abject, bold-faced lie.
These figures are fresh, he said.
Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.
However, the climatologist whose work that Al Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast, Dr. Maslowski, said it's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at.
I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.
Mr. Gore's office later admitted that the 75% figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a ballpark figure several years ago in a conversation with Mr. Gore.
Perhaps Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve, but his speech was roundly criticized by members of the climate science community.
This is an exaggeration and opens the science up to criticism from skeptics, said Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.
Others said that even if quoted correctly, Dr. Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale.
Most climate scientists agree that a 20- to 30-year time scale is more likely for the near disappearance of sea ice, and they're full of it too.
Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb, said Professor Peter Waddams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.
Now, Dr. Maslowski, whose work Gore quoted incorrectly, works at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate Schruel in California.
He said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80% of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.
He added, I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions, not completely ice-free conditions in the Northern Ocean.
I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.
It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at based on the information I provided to Al Gore's office.
Richard Delinzen, a climate scientist at MIT, who does not believe in man-made global warmings, he's just extrapolated from 2007 when there was a big retreat and got zero.
So he just makes it up.
Now, this ought to make everybody question every other assertion that Al Gore has made.
There's an AP version of the story.
New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime, as nearly as 2014, said Al Gore Monday.
One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned that prediction is too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice camp.
So, and at the end of this AP story, on the other hand, leading NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said last year that the Arctic could be essentially ice-free within five to less than 10 years.
Meanwhile, what's happening to Greenland's ice sheet has really surprised us.
This scientist noted that one huge glacier in West Greenland that in recent years has doubled its rate of dumping ice into the sea, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They say that the biggest ice sheets, Greenland and West Antarctica, were already contributing one millimeter or inch, one quarter of an inch, well, not even a quarter of an inch, 0.4 of an inch a year to rising sea levels.
This could double within the next decade.
With global warming, we have awoken giants.
So you see, despite, despite even their own alarmist headline, according to AP, Gore's slip was just a slip of the tongue.
The AP is covering for him.
The UK Times is roasting him.
He made it up.
He's lying.
He was embarrassed.
AP, no, no.
He's just a slip of the tongue.
Besides, a lot of scientists agree with Gore's original statement anyway.
Oh, one anyway did.
He's a leading NASA ice scientist.
But note that now suddenly the thickness of the ice is different.
If you read all of this, isn't that convenient too?
The thickness.
And we know that's not true.
We know that that's been debunked.
So even if satellite photographs show that there is actually more ice in the Arctic and Greenland, which is what they actually show, there really is less because it's not as thick, they say.
Which is not science.
It's simply creative science.
Here's Al Gore citing the same lie during Senate testimony in January of this year.
75% chance the entire polar ice cap of the North Pole gone in the summertime.
Professor Vashlav Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey has calculated that there is an 80% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap will be completely and totally gone in summer months in less than five years.
So I think this is sort of pathological.
He gets this stuff in his head.
He believes that it's true because he believes it, runs around and reports it, does movies about it, embarrassing himself, scaring children, advancing lies, perpetuating a hoax, and then gets caught at it at the very conference that is slated to persuade even more people of man-made global warming.
And this is one of the leading players with his Oscar that he's got.
I know they never asked for Oscars back, but if I were Hollywood, I'd be embarrassed.
I'd want it back.
They gave their highest award to a documentary that is chocked full of lies, photoshopped pictures, and everything else.
That's who the left is.
The universe of lies.
Liberals, leftists must lie to advance their agenda.
Honestly, announcing it would kill their agenda before an audience of voters who are simple average Americans.
And we're back, El Rushbow, here at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We're going to go to the phones.
We'll start in Jacksonville, North Carolina.
This is Finley, and it's great to have you here.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, how you doing, brother?
Thank you, sir.
Very well.
Good.
Hey, I hope Ben Nelson and everybody else that votes for that healthcare stuff pays the price at the ballot box, but I don't think they will.
I think people are going to think they're getting something for free, and they're going to be grateful.
We're telling them this is what you can't have for very good reasons, in my opinion.
I'm with you.
But everybody else is saying this is what we're going to give you.
And people, I think people are going to say, gee, thanks.
Well, under normal circumstances, I would agree with you, but I'm looking at polling data and I can't find one poll anywhere in, well, there was, wait, there was a some time ago, a Washington Post poll, I forget which, showed 59% supported health care, but every other poll shows support for Obamacare barely at 40%.
I think it's different this time around.
I think you're right that there are plenty of people out there who think that their health care is going to be whatever they want for no cost because a couple of rich people are going to be paying for it via tax increases.
But I don't think that's a majority of people.
I think a majority of people actually know what's headed down the pike and they don't like it.
But something's going to get passed and people are going to, then they're going to be presented with, you know, this is what we did for you.
And my comment is on whether they're going to pay the price at the ballot box.
And I think once it's passed and something's going to get passed, unfortunately, then people are going to say, gee, thank you.
You did something for me and I'm entitled to it.
As much as I love this country, brother, I mean, I just think too many people think they're entitled to it.
And when the Democrats pass this, they're going to be aware of that.
Like I say, I know why you think that, because there's so many people that are not paying income taxes.
A lot of people think that they're getting something for free.
And a lot of people, we do all this for you.
But the problem is that whatever is going to be done for people will not start for four years.
The tax increases that are in this bill, and it's basically a tax increase bill, will start immediately.
But all the so-called freebies and all the people who don't have insurance getting insurance, it's not going to even start until 2013 or 2014.
And this bill is going to tax everybody.
People who are married, people who are not married.
At every income level, people are going to face added taxation long before whatever the benefits are.
Now, I realize the president's going to go out there and when this is the big signing ceremony, and he's going to go out there and he's going to look what we've done for you.
We have done for 40 years, 50 years.
Since FDR, we have been trying to, nobody got this done until I came here.
And this is massive.
We now are going to join the rest of the world in sophistication with our population being provided adequate health care at low charge, low cost.
They're going to say all of that.
But Obama's numbers are cratering too.
I think these people know they're going to lose seats.
Pelosi's counting on losing some seats.
She wants to get rid of the blue dogs in the House.
There aren't any moderate Democrats in the Senate.
You've got to understand.
This Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, so-called moderate Democrat.
They don't believe any of this.
The Senate is now radically left, not just Democrat.
Now, here is an interesting post today.
Ezra Klein is a young guy.
How best to describe this?
In inside the Biltway media circles, this guy is a rising star.
I don't know why.
I just know that he is.
He's 24 years old.
He's got a blog post at the Washington Post today explaining the timing of getting this done.
I want to read it to you.
The Obama administration wants to use the state of the union as a turning point.
Health care reform would be the shining first-year accomplishment, allowing the president to begin the election-year pivot to jobs and the economy and the deficit.
But if health care reform is to pass by, and there, by the way, is Finley's theory, Obama's State of the Union, look what we've done for you.
Here's what you're going to get.
We got this done.
No president's ever done it before.
And now we're going to fix the job market and everybody's going to be fine.
And so the fear is that there are a number of people, sufficiently number of people that are on entitlements in this country who are going to buy every lie here.
And the Democrats are not going to pay a price.
Trust me, they are.
So here's the timeline.
According to the rising star Ezra Klein, if health care reform is to pass by early next year so Obama can tout it in the State of the Union.
Harry Reid has to finish his bill by the end of next week.
Now, the end of next week, Friday is Christmas Day.
Moving to the manager's amendment, which the deal amendment as it is, will take a few days.
Voting to replace the underlying bill with the manager's amendment, which is the Medicare buy-in being taken out, public options coming out, will take a few days.
And then voting on the modified bill will take a few days because each step is delayed by the day or so required for a cloture vote to ripen and then the 30 hours of post-cloture debate on all these different things.
So an accelerated schedule would see the first cloture vote called next Thursday with the this coming third, like tomorrow, two days from today, with the vote to move to the manager's amendment this coming Saturday.
Cloture would then be called to actually vote on the manager's amendment on Sunday, and the manager's amendment would be approved the following Tuesday, the 22nd.
Cloacher would be called for the actual bill on Wednesday, the 23rd.
And then you've got to have debate after that.
The final vote coming at the earliest on Friday, December 25th, Christmas Day.
Now, this is not from the Senate.
This is just from a Washington Post blogger, Rising Star who everybody thinks hung the moon.
I don't know why.
I'm not saying he doesn't.
I just don't know what the reputation is here.
But the timeline, and this is with everything falling into place, like clockwork, would require the Senate to be in session on Christmas Day to vote.
Or maybe come back on Saturday the 26th and vote.
And we'll see how that all plays out.
Here's Gabe in Joplin, Missouri.
Gabe, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rash, I'm so happy you took my call.
I got a phone number.
I'm on my cell phone.
I don't want to get caught by the communists.
All right.
Hey, I wanted to thank you for all the work that you're doing on the health care bill.
Well, there's a lot of us trying to do this.
A lot of us are trying to.
Lousy phone line.
I'm kind of understanding what you're saying.
But I appreciate your thanks.
It's double downtime.
I mean, this is, you know, we're the only ones, folks.
We are the only ones standing in the way of this.
There are no elected officials in the Senate that are really standing in the way of it.
Susan Collins even went out there and said today, whoa, no, we're not just say no here, which is what they must be.
They must be just say no.
She actually went out there and said, I think Senator Lieberman has improved the bill.
I want a bill that lowers costs and expands access.
And if I can get that, I'll vote for it.
Then there's no way she can vote for it because this bill does just the exact opposite.
I sit here, I actually feel like I'm in the twilight zone listening to these people talk about the contents of the bill and the debate and all this sort of stuff.
So it's us.
I have some thoughts on strategery, by the way, when we come back.
So sit tight.
Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882.
Here's what Olympia Snow and Susan Collins don't realize.
And this, again, this goes back to what do we call these people?
Dunts, ignorant, or what have you.
What they don't realize is that they are being played as suckers.
The purpose of, and they are, by the way, focusing on both of them, as we knew they would.
The Democrats are not just going to be content to try to round up 60 in their own party in the Senate.
They're going to focus on Olympia Snow and Susan Collins.
And their purpose, their sole purpose, as far as Harry Reid's concerned, is to give one or two Democrats a chance to vote against this to keep their seats.
Believe me, if they could get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins to vote for this, then they'll give Ben Nelson an out and he won't have to vote for it.
And if they could save Blanche Lincoln doing the same thing by getting the other one, they'd do that too.
And with these two, with Collins and Snow, you just never know.
Well, you do know, I have to say, the odds are pretty good at the end of the day where they're going to be.
Well, I'm just not going to just say no.
I want a better bill.
I think Fenner Lieberman has improved the bill.
I have talked to the president and his chief of staff, and they have assured me that it will lower costs and provide greater access.
I am not just saying no.
We can't be that.
So get ready.
And that's, believe me, if Reed could pull that off, if he could pull that off and save Nelson and save Blanche Lincoln, he'd do it in a minute.
And then it would be even worse because they could run around and then say it was bipartisan, the greatest expansion of health care reform in American history, a bipartisan bill secured by the wondrous Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.
Now, the conservative movement is the only thing that can stop what is occurring.
And this is important to note.
Our moderates, the people who tell us the era of Reagan is over, the people who tell us that we need to expand our outreach to get that group or this group or get the Hispanic voter, whatever it is, these people have no plan to fight any of this.
And they don't have any real plan to attract voters.
They don't even offer a positive alternative.
We are it, folks.
We are the only answer to it.
The people showing up at the protest in Washington today, this is the 15th, the Code Red thing.
And we will be heard next November.
And no one is going to stop us from being heard next November.
There are no moderate Democrats left in the Senate.
There are leftists and pretenders.
And that needs to be put to bed once and for all.
This notion that there are moderate Democrats in the House, moderate Democrats.
If there are moderates, the people that run both places are going to get rid of them if they can't.
They don't want moderates in their party.
These are leftist radicals.
We are the only ones that can stop them.
We have to have a plan B in case this thing passes.
And that plan must be to fight every single effort to increase taxes or expand the bureaucracy to accommodate this disaster.
We need to find out whatever the rules of Congress are to fight them every step of the way.
And if we can make significant gains in November, it'll give us a much better chance to do it.
Well, you proceed on the assumption Obama's going to get something to sign.
He's going to be touting it in the State of the Union Address.
Keep in mind that all the benefits here, all the wondrous new access, all the cheaper health care, blah, which is nothing but a hoax, that's not going to start for four years.
But the tax increases, wham, bam, thank you, ma'am, lickety split in a tiger wood second.
Those tax increases are going to hit.
That will be an opportunity to awaken people who still remain befuddled and fooled by this.
It's never over.
Now, we don't want to, you know, hold out at some great plan.
We didn't specify what it is, but we need to keep the heat on now.
But we need to just, you know, this piece of legislation is actually thousands of little pieces amalgamated into one collective disaster.
It needs to be broken down into those thousand little pieces and explained to people.
Now, I also think that this Medicare expansion was a ruse from the start.
In negotiations, if you've ever been any involving, say, your compensation or representing a company or something, you always, in preparing for negotiations, you put in what are called throwaways.
Things that you demand be included in the deal that you secretly will throw away or give away in order to get a final deal.
And both sides do this, except our side.
We don't do anything but accept the premise and needle whip it around the margins.
And I think that this Medicare expansion was a throwaway from the get-go.
I don't think they were ever serious about this, and I'll tell you why.
Simple logic.
There's no way in a bill that cuts Medicare $500 billion, you can expand it to cover people down to 55 years of age.
The two just don't go together.
So what they do, they raise the Medicare expansion as an issue at the last minute when Dingy Harry's having problems.
And then they kill it a few days later on the desires of Lieberman.
So they then go out to say this gives them cover to get Lieberman on their side.
And then others say it's now okay to vote for this.
So they got rid of the Medicare expansion.
As I say, I think it was a ruse from day one.
It was a strategy.
You put out a false option.
You have a senator object to it.
A senator who is thought to be a moderate Lieberman with an independent party label instead of Democrat.
And he says, I can't vote for this.
There's no way I'm going to vote for them.
I'm not going to vote for this with a public option in it either.
So you give in.
You give in to Lieberman.
You give in to the so-called moderates.
You claim there's no Medicare expansion and no public option, and you get your 60 votes.
And you look like you're compromising when you're not compromising at all because you never intended the Medicare expansion to be real in the first place.
It was just designed to get Lieberman in there.
So, and it looks like it works.
I don't pretend to know the inside and the ins and outs of how Congress works.
But whatever works, nothing off the table, amendments, spending bills, gridlock, what government shutdown if we have to.
It's that serious.
This will destroy the U.S. private sector.
This will destroy the opportunity for individuals to amass wealth.
This will destroy because of the taxes and because of the regulation on behavior.
Every aspect of human life will be regulated by the federal government under the pretense that they're saving money and costs on health care.
The more confrontational, and I'm talking about our plan B strategery here, the more confrontational it becomes, including shutting down the government for some period of time, over government-run healthcare, all the better.
The more confrontational, the better.
It crystallizes it for us.
And they are forced to keep defending a bill that the public hates.
The tendency is going to be to just throw in the towel and give in if Obama signs something.
No, no, no.
Plan B, we don't give up.
We're trying to save America for our kids and grandkids, are we not?
We want them to have the same opportunities that we had.
We want them to live in freedom.
We want them to continue to be able to make this the greatest country on earth.
If we have to shut down the government, which is in the process of destroying the private sector of this country, it's damn well worth it.
It's damn well worth the confrontation.
It's damn well worth the crystallization of issues here.
Now, as for whether our side, as currently constituted, is strong enough, this is why we need a big election in November.
An election based on reversing government-run healthcare.
I hear people say, I've even said it myself, that I know of no entitlement that's been stricken.
I know no of entitlement that's been rolled back out of existence.
But there's always a first time.
The strategy, nationalize every House race in 2010, nationalize every Senate race in 2010, just as those elections were nationalized in 1994.
And by nationalize them, I mean, very simply, most House elections are local.
You've heard the old phrase, Tip O'Neill said it, all politics is local.
Meaning, a congressman or congresswoman will be elected or re-elected based on how much bacon they bring home to the district.
So if they get a new hospital built, if they get a new federal courthouse built, if they get a new old Holtz house built, if they get a new bridge built or whatever, they run around and they tout that.
Look what I did for you.
Look what I brought back to the district.
I secured blah, blah, blah.
I'll tell you a little story.
I'm going to get smacked down if I do this.
Nope, I'm going to tell it.
What the hell?
This is important.
Brand new federal courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, named after my grandfather.
And we went in there.
Have I told you this before?
All right, not in the air.
We go in for the dedication of the building and the grand opening.
And my cousin Steve is the federal judge working out of this brand new building.
It's a tremendous honor for our family.
It was just something that this doesn't happen much.
A federal building named after a citizen, a prominent citizen, but local nevertheless, in a town of 30,000 people.
So I'm gathered there, and I've shared my thoughts with my family on this.
It was just instructive to me.
We're gathered at the dedication, and a lot of people from the government who got the building built.
What's the federal agency?
Maybe it's good that I can't remember it.
I don't remember the agency, but it's the agency that the money is authorized from and the budget, and then they allocate which projects will be funded and which won't.
And this one got funded.
Folks, my memory is correct.
75% of the dedication was one government official after another coming up praising himself and his colleagues and their government agency for the hard work they put in getting the building built.
And I thought the dedication was going to be about my grandfather.
It was these people.
And look, it's their job.
And they were all nice.
And when we had dinner with them, I sat and talked to them.
They're proud of what they did.
They're proud of what they did.
But the vast majority of it was the government basically patting itself on the back.
Look what we did for you.
That's how local House races are conducted.
The candidate comes back, look what I did for you.
These elections in November have to be nationalized.
And the way they were nationalized in 1994, Contract with America, was look at what your Democrat member of the House of Representatives is going to mean to national security.
Look at what your member is going to mean to corruption and scandal, House Bank, House Post Office.
Look at what your Democrat member of Congress is going to mean to deficit spending out of control.
Look at what your member of Congress is going to mean to the destruction of the American culture.
This man, this woman supports gay marriage or whatever cultural issue, condoms in schools, whatever it is.
Tell that about them.
Position these people as nationwide leftist radicals with their impact not just in the district, but throughout the country.
That worked magic in 1994.
That's part of the strategy next November.
That's going to have to be done.
I don't know if they do a new contract with America, but I think one of the elements that the Republicans could run on is this out-of-control spending, whether it's health care, cap and trade, or any other Obama agenda item.
The simple fact of the matter is everybody knows, enough people know, that this administration and the Democrat Party are spending the income of kids and grandkids not yet born.
They know that we are bankrupt.
They know that the CHICOMs are propping us up by buying our debt.
They know the precarious position we are in.
Every family knows what debt means.
Debt, being in debt, is the single greatest threat to freedom you can have.
If you're in debt, your choices are really limited.
You have obligations that you have to take care of first.
It's no different for a nation.
It's no different for a country.
And so nationalizing these races on the irresponsible, out-of-control spending and then identifying what the spending is for, what its real purpose is, is to keep Democrats in power in perpetuity, that this spending is creating wards of the state, that it is creating people who will be forever dependent on Democrats for their breakfast, lunch, and dinner and other essentials.
And that that's a purpose.
That it is not compassion.
That Democrat spending and Democrat politics are destroying individual initiative, destroying the concept of self-worth on purpose.
All of this must be part of the strategy.
Now, I'm way long here.
The next segment's going to be way short.
But it was worth not interrupting this monologue.
And I'm not through with it still.
And we are back.
El Rushboat keeping people glued to their radios.
People who have wanted to leave their chairs for the last hour have been unable to do so.
And in about an hour and eight minutes, you will be free to go.
As for whether our side is strong enough, folks, to pull this off, this is why we need a big election.
And the people that we elect need to have backbone spine.
No more rhinos.
No more reaching out to moderates.
No more excuses for who we are.
No more running around apologizing for our party.
We don't need to act like Barack Obama apologizing for America around the world.
We have too many people in our party run around apologize for us.
Well, yes, we have been racist in the past, but we've been on the wrong side of certain things.
We will not balance the budget on the back of the poor, all that rot gut.
No more.
This moderate Republican crap is why we are where we are.
There aren't any moderate Democrats, and the independents are fleeing them in droves.
Imagine how many more independents would flee if they actually were leaving because they supported something rather than opposing Obama.
And they're fleeing in droves because they've learned and they don't like what they're seeing.
They're going to the Republicans because it's the next stop.
Imagine if there were a national political leader articulating the philosophies of the founding of this country and how that's what we represent.
Talking about freedom, individual liberty, rolling back this spending, rolling back the tax increases, rolling back this hoax that we're fixing health care.
You know, we could set up a charity.
We could set up a charitable foundation and everybody on their income tax ref form could simply say, yep, give me, I'll check the box here and put a dollar into the insurance plan for people who don't have insurance.
How many taxpayers do we have?
We could do this for $30 billion a year.
That's what it would take to insure the genuine 12 million who are uninsured who want health insurance.
It's not 30 million.
The number of people who really want insurance but don't have it, can't get it, is 12 million.
You could do that.
We've run the numbers, $30 billion a year.
You think we could raise $30 billion with a $1 checkoff on an income tax return?
We're a charitable people.
We don't need 2,000 pages and over $2.5 trillion in order to fix something that we're not fixing.
We're making it worse.
An election based on strengthening the private sector, creating jobs and opportunities, creating wealth.
An election based on returning to all of us becoming Americans in America again.
The Heritage Foundation telecall at a teletown hall meeting you can phone in if you remember just said today that there are ways to get parts of the health care bill repealed if we win control in 2010.
▲
Export Selection