All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
December 31, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That is absolutely right, Johnny Donovan.
And once again, we're back and I'm substitute for Rush and Rush continues to rest uh very comfortably in a hospital in Honolulu.
It's uh this morning, I should say, because it's five hours earlier in Honolulu.
And uh Rush had uh a comfortable night and is getting the very best of medical attention.
He's aware and thankful for all the prayers and concerns and best wishes that have poured in by the time.
Uh yesterday, Wednesday, that's a little little background for those of you just tuning in to the show.
And you if you're just tuning in, you missed a dynamite first hour.
Uh yesterday Wednesday, uh he was taken to the hospital in Honolulu after experiencing chest pains.
While those pains can be an indicator of a cardiac event, uh the cause of uh Russia's discon uh discomfort cannot be confirmed at this time.
Uh obviously out of uh respect for Russia's uh medical privacy.
And we'll wait for him to provide detailed uh comment as to the cause.
So we'll keep everybody informed, and when there's information to share, we'll know this through Rush.
Just check uh Rushlimball.com and also uh check the show.
Uh uh once again, Russia's in good stable condition and as comfortable as one can be in a hospital while on vacation, but he's in good hands.
Uh what I'd like to do is welcome to the show, uh, my very very good friend and colleague, uh Dr. Thomas Sowell.
He is a uh he's the Rose and Milton Friedman, distinguished senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in uh California, in Northern California at Stanford University.
And uh Tom has just uh finished, uh he just completed his new book, Intellectuals and Society, and it's uh very very interesting tale about intellectuals.
Welcome to the show, Tom.
Well, good being here.
Also very good hearing about Rush.
I uh got up in the middle of the night to check the uh internet and they they said he was resting comfortably there.
Uh I this morning I discovered that Wikipedia is uh is uh falsely pronouncing him dead.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
It well may maybe maybe they just they just wish, but uh yeah.
Um let's start off with your book.
One of the one of the interesting things is uh your quote, I guess it's on page page eight from uh Eric Hoffer.
And he said, one of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free from they're free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation.
And he says the intellectuals who idolize Stalin while he is purging millions are still holding forth.
They still have uh they still have credibility.
You point out you go to point out that uh uh Ralph Nader, uh he became a major public figure in 1965 on the un uh on the publication of his book, Unsafe at Any Speed, which which is wrong.
Many of the things he's saying in there just plain wrong about the uh Corsair.
And then also the uh uh Paul Ehrlich.
Uh he said that we'd be starving to death.
But all these people, all these intellectuals, they somehow maintained respectability after they make some asinine statements and predictions.
Well, provided that the other kind of asinine predictions that advance the general uh vision that we uh that intellectuals have.
Uh on the other hand, you can be ruined by telling the truth uh if it doesn't fit their vision.
Uh that's absolutely right.
Such as uh many things that you've said, uh nobody's ruined us, and you that you and I have said about the minimum wage.
Uh that is uh uh the minimum wage has been destructive of young people, particularly black youngsters, but uh yet uh uh we're criticized, and the people who support a minimum wage, uh the intellectuals who support it, are are uh shown uh are shown to be uh compassionate and caring.
Uh that's right.
In fact, Mac the last year uh in which uh black unemployment was lower than white unemployment was the year before the first minimum wage law, which as you well know was the Davis Bacon Act.
Oh yes.
Oh yes.
And the day and for for those out there uh who don't know what the Davis Bacon Act, the Davis Bacon Act is a is a uh it's a law that says that on all federal construction projects the prevailing wage must be paid and the prevailing wage is always interpreted, I think illegally by the labor department as being the union wage or higher.
And the purpose actually, Tom, the the stated purpose of the Davis Bacon Act that was written in March 31st in 1931, the stated purpose was to protect white workers from uh construction workers from having to compete with uh uh lower wage uh black construction workers.
Oh, absolutely, and very similar things happened in uh Canada in the twenties when they passed minimum wage laws to keep uh white workers from having to uh compete against uh Japanese uh workers, uh and as you also well know in South Africa uh or earlier earlier in the in the uh century.
Oh, that's absolutely right.
Matter of fact, in South Africa, I wrote a book called South Africa's War Against Capitalism, and I give quotation after quotation of racist unions in South Africa uh being the major supporters of minimum wage laws for blacks.
And they matter of fact, they call it the uh uh uh uh uh I let's see, I forget the the wage for the application.
Civilized uh whether the wage for civilized workers that's absolutely right.
And so uh they recognize that if they could raise the wage, uh contractors would hire white workers instead of uh black workers.
Yeah, i it's the the minimum wage law is essentially is very similar to uh uh a tariff, an international trade.
That is you uh the purpose of a tariff is to raise your competitors' prices uh to the point where you price them out of the market.
And that's exactly the same thing with the minimum wage, that uh you you wage you raise the uh the the price of low wage labor to the point where people won't hire them, and therefore the higher wage laborers uh benefit.
Yes, right.
And and you mean tell me uh, you know, there are other examples of this, that is uh uh American labor unions and as well uh intellectuals, uh they support environmental laws in India, environmental laws in many uh uh underdeveloped countries, and and and why?
To raise the cost of doing business with them.
Well, yes, and well of course they they're they're they're they are they uh they are non-discriminatory, they want to raise these costs uh everywhere they possibly can.
Uh the uh the the real problem is that they don't see these things in terms of trade-off.
They arbitrarily pick something that they call a good thing, uh and they pay no attention to the cost of that good thing, either in money or in terms of all the other good things that are going to be harmed by putting in whatever they happen to be in favor of.
That's right, that's right.
Now, d uh uh tell me something else, and uh and actually I'm I'm ashamed to say I have not fully read your book yet, but uh about halfway through.
Tell me this.
Why is it that if you when you look at college uh on college campuses, you find that Democrats uh outnumber Republicans in some departments like 40 to one, uh uh uh fifty to one, and it's only in certain fields like maybe uh uh economics where you find it might be three to one.
Yes, and so the dominance by uh I guess Democrat liberals on college campuses uh is i I mean it's kind of overwhelming.
And I'm trying to say, well, how can you explain it?
Well well, part of it is it depend depends upon uh the nature of the field.
If it's a field where there are there are objective criteria by which you can decl the uh the determine whether ideas are right or wrong, that is uh engineering, medicine.
I mean, you you may come up with a brilliant idea for medical procedures, but if people die after you put it in, uh that idea is not gonna last long.
Uh on the other hand, uh if you're in sociology or or you're an English and a deconstructionist, there's absolutely no test uh for for the ideas.
And so untested ideas have a free pass in uh many parts of uh of a college or university, but not at all.
Uh the the one area in which, for example, uh the there is no free pass whatever uh is in the athletics department.
I mean, no matter how brilliant your idea sounds, uh if you finish the season oh and twelve, uh, you know, uh that that's the end of that coach.
That's right.
And and matter of fact, if if you're an engineer and uh and you have uh an idea from let's say from a religious idea that Pi is equal to three point zero and you build a bridge based on pi being equal three point zero and the bridge collapses, well then uh pie being equaling three point zero is not going to have a very long life.
That's right.
But but it but it it doesn't matter how disastrous anything you advocate in some of the softer fields happens to be uh you are never discredited.
One of the classic is the Apple all the intellectuals in the nineteen thirties who were saying that the Soviet Union was just so much superior in terms of either efficiency or morality to the United States and so forth.
Uh at the very time that they were saying this there were literally millions of people starving to death and many other being others being sent off to slave labor camps.
But the but the facts did not ha harm harm their uh uh the their reputation.
Oh that's right and I think Paul Samuelson, a very great economist, uh he was one of the people uh saying this as well as John Kenneth Galbraith.
Well well uh Samuelson's uh famous textbook uh for a long time used to have uh lines showing how the Soviet uh uh Soviet Union's economic growth rate was higher than that in the United States and they would extend these lines out to show where at some point the Soviet Union would overtake the United States simply because of its higher growth rate.
And uh it was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union but more particularly the uh opening of the files of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev that people discovered that these growth rates of uh the Soviet economy were completely fictitious.
That's right that's right.
And and it's just amazing uh the the young minds that are are distorted with uh uh this kind of uh uh preaching that they that many college professors do.
That that's true and and they preach it not only in courses in political science or whatnot.
I mean you you could sign up for a course on accounting or chemistry and and get an earful of the professors uh views on foreign policy uh even though he has absolutely no qualifications for that and is wasting the students time.
But the big problem is not not the ideological problem I don't think the big problem is the educational problem.
Uh um students who hear only one side of an argument and who are prompted to go out and take action and be get all worked up over that one side.
They are not being prepared for the real world because in the real world you're always gonna find two sides of these arguments of any arguments.
Uh and and if you haven't had any experience in how to deal with that you're just a setup for the first cle clever demagogue that comes along.
And and that can uh that can explain the uh the election of uh President uh Barack Obama insofar as anything can explain it the people have lost their reasoning skills.
Hey hold on Tom uh you uh we we're gonna come back with uh some calls and you can be on to talk with uh Tom Sol by calling eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two and we're talking about his new book Intellectuals and Society.
We're back and for those who've just tuning in uh Rush remains in stable condition and we'll give you updates at the Rushlimbaughom but right now we're on the phone with uh Dr. Thomas Sowell uh from the Hoover Institution uh based at s at the un at Stanford University in California and we're discussing his new book, uh Intellectuals and society.
And Tom there's uh th in chapter eight uh we talk you talk about intellectuals and war, colon repeating history.
Can you just uh explain a little bit what what you mean uh by repeating history?
Well uh after the from the nineteen sixties on uh intellectuals in United States, Britain and other parts of the Western uh democracies began to repeat arguments that had been used in the nineteen twenties and thirties and which were disastrous uh in their consequences.
One of these being that uh the way to have peace is to have disarmament.
Uh and and and they made it uh virtually impossible for the Western world to prepare militarily uh uh uh for the for the wars that were cu that were coming such as that with Germany and Japan and Italy um well they they thought peace treaties were going Oh yes you you signed peace treaties and especially disarmament treaties there was even a treaty uh in which uh various nations renounced war and there was b big hoopla over that.
I mean I I I find it hard to believe that adult human beings could have believed such a thing.
Uh but n not only were these adults, these were some of the internationally renowned intellectuals of the time uh including John Dewey, uh Bertrand Russell or you you name them, they were for this kind of stuff.
Well what that meant was that even though the the leaders of the Western world, say the Prime Minister of Britain and of France knew that the Germans were rearming in violation of treaties.
They dared not say anything because the the the the people who made armaments had been so demonized as the merchants of death and so on that you couldn't build up the armaments needed to deter.
I mean the armaments served two purposes.
One the most important purpose is they deter war because people realize if they attack you they're going to get slaughtered.
But uh even aside if that even if that fails you need to have the armaments in case they attack you anyway you have to be able to defend yourself.
That's right.
And and I believe that uh in nineteen thirty five or nineteen thirty four that France alone could have taken Hitler out.
Oh yes in nineteen nineteen thirty six in fact Hitler himself was scared to death that when he violated two treaties by sending troops into the Rhineland that the French would attack because the German generals have told him that if France attacks they don't have enough to hold France off for one day.
I'm and uh the and and and you know the the people who who had this vision of uh the intellectuals who had this vision of war and peace they they they are actually responsible for the death of sixty or so million people.
Oh absolutely I mean j just just as one small example uh you you you not only could you couldn't spend money to update your equipment so when the war actually came, uh both the Germans and the Japanese, for example, had battleships larger than anything in either the American or the British Navy.
During the Battle of Midway, uh eighty two Americans flew in in these obsolete torpedo planes which could barely do a hundred miles an hour.
The Japanese zero shot them out of the sky only thirteen out of the eighty two Americans came back alive.
Yeah and and all and all kinds of slaughter like this occurred around the world until about nineteen forty two before the Western side began began to win any victories.
Yeah right and and and to put this in in in today's perspective we have a president who says that he wants to eliminate nuclear weapons.
So that nobody would ever know how to make nuclear weapons I'd be all for it.
But the but the the real problem with both international disarmament treaties and and domestic lead gun laws it's easy to disarm people who don't mean any harm.
It is hard to disarm people who do.
That's right.
Yeah right and what that's what they mean when when we get rid of guns uh only criminals will have guns.
Yes.
Well well Britain ha Britain has gotten to that point.
In Britain you can't even use toy guns uh to defend yourself.
I mean one one guy who uh uh caught burglars and held him in his held him at gunpoint until the police arrived uh when the cops got there he told them that the gun was really just a toy gun which it was they arrested him anyway.
Uh P. Darren that that is that is ne that is near uh lunacy.
And I I think I think w uh at least some of the motivation at at least in America about uh disarming is the idea of the so-called peace dividend during the uh uh the the n early nineteen nineties under the Clinton administration where we thought that we're gonna have all this money for social welfare programs instead of missiles and bombs.
Well th that was that was part of the th the re the reason uh during the nineteen twenties and thirties as well.
Uh in fact Chamberlain had was already to announce a new social program when he received the word that Hitler had just taken over all of Czechoslovakia in violation of a treaty.
Probably dark hey Tom uh we're coming I uh I know I asked you to say for a half hour can you can you uh come back for one segment after the break to take a few phone calls uh people want to talk to you.
Uh we're on with uh Dr. Thomas Sol and we're talking about his new book, Intellectuals and Society.
And uh and today's a rather rare day.
I'm sitting in for uh Rush and Russia's doing uh uh well.
And uh let me just kind of repeat it for people who just came who uh who joined lately.
Uh just um excuse me, let me repeat it for people who just joined the show.
Uh he's had a comfortable night.
He's uh he's resting and he's getting the very best of care in Honolulu.
Uh for those of you who just tuned in, uh he was taken to the hospital in Honolulu after experiencing chest pains.
Uh those uh he's gonna have a test today to find uh just what the chest pains are about, and we will keep you informed at Rush Limbaugh.com.
We're back uh Walter Williams sitting in for uh Rush, who is uh uh he's in the hospital and uh he's in stable condition, and we'll keep you updated uh and just check uh Rush Limbaugh.com.
But right now we're on the phone with uh Dr. Thomas Sowell, uh the Rose and Milton Friedman uh uh distinguished fellow at the uh Hoover Institution at University of Stanford, and we're talking about his latest book, uh Intellectuals and Society.
And you can probably get it on Amazon uh dot com.
And uh let's go to the phones.
Uh let's go to uh is it Gabriel?
Welcome to the show.
Uh, thank you very much.
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Yeah, um I just had a comment for uh Dr. Sowell earlier.
He was talking about the soft sciences um at the universities, and I think there's been a huge moniker associated with them being liberal, and I think, at least in our university now, the kind of undertone is being the conservative way is kind of like the rebelling against the norm.
And I think liberalism has become so mainstream in the universities that rebelling now is the conservative way to do things.
And I think it especially that's proving fact because people are looking at the hard sciences where you're either right or wrong, especially in the business school.
I mean, numbers don't lie, and I'm just noticing a trend.
I want to know if you're noticing it in your university at at uh Stanford 2 or if it's just maybe something my university is doing, we tend to be more conservative or uh uh I don't know.
Uh uh I'm I'm uh I I'm I don't I don't teach, I do research, and I do research at home about twenty miles from the university, which makes me very comfortable.
And and uh I if I might tell a story on my colleague uh uh I have a f a very long uh long-term relationship with the Hoover Institution, and they refer to uh Dr. Sowell as the Phantom Fellow.
It's better than some of the things I've been called.
Right.
Let's go to uh uh Danny and is that Cookborough, Tennessee?
Yes, sir.
Welcome to the show, you're talking with Dr. Thomas Sowell.
I've got a crystal ball question for you.
Um bit of background.
I live in a state that has done uh has actually changed the value of pie to 3.0, you know, probably back in the thirties.
But they've also starting in about the mid-50s, have been giving incentives to an industries to raid the rush belt, bring uh manufacturing jobs here to the state.
And what has happened over that fifty, fifty-five years or so, we're still losing three to four percent per year.
Now then what I want to know is some reason they're saying it's all gonna be different now, because we're gonna go get a green job.
Now, why would a green job be any more resistant to the economic forces that the manufacturing jobs are uh responding to.
Well, uh the other the quick answer is that uh the the green jobs are more resistant in the sense that it's spending the taxpayers' money and the job doesn't have to pay for itself.
So th so the green jobs will last.
The problem is uh uh when the government creates a job, it gets the money to support that job from the private sector.
So there's not a net creation of jobs.
Uh and that's that's why with with Obama, as with FDR in the thirties, uh you can create hundreds of thousands of jobs and the unemployment rate keeps going up.
Because uh you're telling you you're you're robbing Peter to pay Paul is what it comes down to.
That's right.
It's it's very similar to uh uh a colleague of mine at uh at George Mason University, uh Russell Roberts, he was explaining the uh the stimulus package, and he said that uh you could have uh confidence in the stimulus package if you believed if a per if you saw a person uh with a swimming pool taking water out of the deep taking buckets of water out of the deep end and putting it in the shallow end in the hopes of raising the level at the shallow end.
And that's the same that I'm sorry, that's the same story uh with government.
That is the o the government has no resources of its very own, and the only way it can create a job is to first destroy a job through taxing somebody.
That is whatever the person would have spent that money on, he no longer has the money, and so it's a reduction of employment in one area to raise the employment in another area.
But for the politicians, the people the the uh the victims of p of many of these policies are invisible and the beneficiaries are visible.
Oh, yes.
I mean, see there are people who uh eternally grateful to FDR for having given them a job in the middle of the of the Great Depression, uh unmindful of the fact that his policies are what kept the depression going so long.
That that's absolutely right.
Let's uh take one more call before Tom has to go from uh Ted in Humboldt uh Nebraska.
Good day and and uh Ditto for Rush.
We'll all be thinking about him.
Uh what I want to know is free trade.
You were talking about free trade earlier.
Uh if Nation A has trade barriers or other unfair trade practices, is it even remotely possible for Nation B to have free trade with Nation A?
Well that that's a semantic question rather than an economic question.
Uh I mean you uh uh uh what you what what you're trying to get at is whether uh the a country with higher wages can uh compete with a country with lower wages.
The answer from history is that's been happening for centuries.
Uh when the Dutch were the leading traders in the Western world, uh Dutch uh wages were much higher than wages in the in the other countries, and when Britain took over that role, uh its wages were much higher than the wages in other countries.
Uh and yet uh both both of these became major traders.
I mean it's it's uh it's a uh wage rates per unit of time are not the same as labor cost per unit of output.
That's that's the that's the thing that creates uh so much fa so many fallacies.
That's right.
As as a result of if I might uh explain Tom a little bit, as a as a result in the United States, as a result of hiring one worker, well the the output of shoes may go up by a hundred uh a hundred pairs of shoes, and that worker may be paid uh twenty dollars an hour.
But in some other place where the worker is less productive and hiring him, you only get ten shoes, but you're only paying him uh three dollars an hour.
Well, the labor costs are higher in the latter country than the former country.
Uh absolutely.
Yeah, that's it.
Hey.
Okay, uh let's go to uh to Pat in uh Columbia, South Carolina.
Hey, how are you guys doing?
Okay.
You're on with Thomas Sowell.
Yeah, um when I teach uh my classes and I talk to my students and I say, what's the most productive country in the world?
The U.S. is always the last answer they come to.
Unfortunately, even though we are the most productive country in the world.
It's interesting that as we move towards a recovery or even towards a recovery, the productivity rate that we're seeing or the productivity increase that we're seeing in this country is making it more and more difficult for people to get back into the job force because with productivity growing at greater than three percent, the economy has to grow faster than that for people to be hired.
That's that's certainly true.
Uh another factor is that when you put all these mandates on businesses to pay for various worker benefits, then it pays the businesses to do one of two things.
Either work their existing uh workforce longer hours rather than hiring new people, uh or to uh hire uh um uh temporary workers who are not entitled to these mandates.
And so uh even though there may be a great increase in demand, there may be more man hours of work done, uh there will still be uh that will still not absorb the people who are unemployed because uh uh the the employers are reluctant to take on these people because of the mandates.
And that's absolutely right.
Um, uh thank you very much for coming on.
It's it's been a delight and uh and I and uh the uh intellectuals and uh so society is uh really masterpiece, and I'd like to congratulate you on it.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thanks a lot.
Uh folks, that was uh Tom Sowell, and we'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, and it's uh Walt Williams sitting in for Rush, and Rush continues to rest uh very comfortably in a hospital in Honolulu this uh this morning.
It's still morning out there, it's uh five hours earlier in Honolulu.
Uh Russia had a comfortable night.
Uh rest is getting the very best medical attention.
He's aware and thoughtful for the prayers and concerns and best wishes that have just poured in uh uh hundreds and thousands.
Uh yesterday Wednesday, see why he is in the hospital.
Uh yesterday Wednesday, he was taken to the hospital in Honolulu after experiencing chest pains.
Uh while those pains can be an indicator of a cardiac event for those in in uh Rio limbo, it means heart attack.
Uh the cause of Russia's uh discomfort uh cannot be confirmed at this time.
Uh out of respect for Russia's uh medical privacy, we'll wait for him to provide detailed comment as to the cause, as to the cause.
Uh today uh Russia will have a complete uh physical examination and will know more and will keep everybody informed when there's information to share.
Uh just know that uh Russia's in good stable condition, comfortable as comfortable as one can be in a hospital while on vacation, and he's in very good hands, and you're in very good hands with the show, with Walter E. Williams pushing back the frontiers of ignorance uh for Rush.
And uh speaking of that, before we go to the phones, one of the things in the health care debate and the cap and trade debate and everything, or one of the things if you look back at the history of our country, you look back at the founders, did they trust the United States Congress?
They didn't both say no.
And here's the evidence.
I mean, just look at the language of the Constitution.
It says the language says Congress shall not infringe, Congress shall not disparage, Congress shall not prohibit, Congress shall not deprive.
Now, with that kind of language, does that sound as if the framers of the United States Constitution trusted Congress?
No, it didn't.
It doesn't they they did not trust Congress, but here you and I do.
Why do we trust these people to control our lives?
In the name of helping us.
And I'll tell you, look, when you die, when you go to your next destination, if at your next destination you see anything like a Bill of Rights, you know where you are?
You're in hell.
Because a bill of rights in heaven would be an affront.
It would be an insult to God.
And so the framers of our nation recognize that that government is inherently evil.
Why?
Why is government inherently evil?
Because government consists of force.
Of force.
And so, yes, the the framers of our country, they recognize that we do need some government.
And what should be the role of government in a free society?
They should protect people from injuring the property of another person.
The government should not be in the business of initiating force against someone who himself has not initiated force.
Now look at look at the kind of look, if I now here With this health bill, they're proposing to initiate force against me just because I don't want to buy a health insurance policy.
That is that I mean to do that is evil.
There's no other way to explain it.
That's just plain evil.
But this is the lesson that Americans uh have lost down through the ages.
Another thing that we've lost as well is that, you know, James Madison, James Madison is the acknowledged father of the United States Constitution.
So James Madison should know what's in the Constitution, shouldn't he?
Well, in 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 to help some French refugees.
James Madison stood on the floor of the House irate, and he said, and I'm quoting him right now, and these quotes are available at my website, Walter E. Williams.com.
James Madison said, quote, I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending on the objects of benevolence the money of their constituents.
Now, if you look at the federal budget today, two-thirds or three quarters is for the purposes of benevolence.
Now, you'll get some jackass Congressman that will tell you, well, the Constitution says that we ought to promote or sometimes they'll say provide for the general welfare.
Here's another quote by James Madison.
It's a short quote.
With respect to the words general welfare, I've always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there's a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators.
Thomas Jefferson said, quote, Congress does not have unlimited powers to promote the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated, only those specifically listed.
And just one final quote, because see, you people, I mean you you you've gone to public schools and you don't get educated.
Let me just give you one more.
Because if I don't tell you these things, you're going to spend your life living not knowing them.
So I feel obliged to tell you, in Federalist Paper 45, and the Federalist Papers were written by John J. Hamilton and Madison trying to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution.
And they were saying, well, what's in this Constitution that we're going to ratify?
Well, John Hamilton and Madison said, the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined and restricted mostly to external affairs.
Those left with the people and the states are indefinite and numerous.
Now, if you turn that upside down, you have what we have now today.
The powers of the federal government are indefinite and numerous, and those left with the people and the states are well defined, or rich restricted and well defined.
So but you people let Congress get away with this.
Matter of fact, here's a tragedy for our country.
It is a sad commentary on the American people.
If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were running for the presidency today, what would you people do?
You would run them out of town on the rail.
You would you you would you you might turn feather and lynch them because you have today's Americans have contempt for the values of the founders of our great nation.
I think that's safe.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We went a bit long in that uh segment.
Uh, for the next hour, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will be on with us.
She's senator from uh Texas.
And I'm gonna ask a couple questions about uh health care and whether we're doing enough about uh terrorism.
And also for those of our just tuning in, and that's a mistake on your part, uh, because it's been a dynamite show.
Rush continues to rest very comfortably in a hospital in Honolulu.
▲
Export Selection