Rush Limbaugh Program - January 5, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:44

January 5, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes, America's Anchorman returns tomorrow.
	Rush will be back tomorrow, but in the meantime, this is your undocumented anchor man, Mark Stein sitting in.
	I flew into Newark uh artfully concealed in a pair of Yemeni underpants, uh and I'm here for the next couple of hours and rare in a go.
	And speaking of underwear, as we have been uh in recent days, this is from uh a British newspaper, underwear fetish mayor Ian Stafford faces prison.
	Ian Stafford sparked a climate of fear in his neighborhood after women reported bras, knickers and lingerie missing from their drawers.
	Now what is interesting about this uh is uh uh this guy is the mayor of this town in Lancashire, England.
	Uh he was caught when a woman whose underwear kept vanishing installed a a hidden camera uh in her home and uh eventually uh saw the kinky intruder, as uh as the newspaper puts it, uh sneaking into her house and stealing her Braun panties.
	And uh when she looked closer at the film, she realized it was in fact the mayor of her town.
	So the mayor had broke been bro breaking into houses and stealing uh women's underwear, and he's gonna go to prison for it.
	And I don't really see why, because this this guy might be just the the kind of guy he's got an interest in underwear, he might be the the kind of fellow we need uh to actually crack down on the spate of underwear bombers that uh that are going on now uh trying to get trying to blow up American airliners.
	So this is a good example of targeting.
	Instead of just imposing blanket bans on everybody, why not hire somebody who's already got a proven interest in the whole underwear area and uh get this mayor, this uh who likes breaking into his constituents' homes and stealing their brow and panties, get this mayor uh to install him at Amsterdam Airport, just have him prowling around seeing what kind of under underwear catches his eye.
	That's as likely to work uh as anything else that's uh that's being attempted.
	Uh Byron York has a fascinating piece on the whole psycho it's really on the psychology of supporters of the president.
	They're a dwindling band, but they're still out there.
	Supporters of the president uh and his coolness, coolness.
	A lot of people don't even want a cool president.
	I don't know whether you've seen this photograph that's out there, this one that they actually put up at the White House website, uh which they think makes Obama look like James Bond uh in in uh black tie leaning coolly against the wall, uh and everybody else uh seems to think he's like something out of the sopranos.
	Uh but the the idea of a cool president is a bit problematic when he's quite so cool about death and devastation.
	And uh Byron York in the Washington Examiner uh uh quotes Matthew Iglesias, who is a widely read blogger who writes for the Center for American Progress, which was founded and run by Obama insider John Podesta.
	And a few days after the Christmas Day attempted bombing, he wrote an article titled Not So Scary Terror.
	The Detroit plot was, quote, pretty unserious, Iglesias declared, quote, and even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first order national security threat, unquote.
	So what this guy is saying, and he he's this is an influential blogger.
	This isn't some fringe blogger.
	This this is uh relatively speaking, a big shot on the in in left-wing circles and pro-Obama circles.
	Matthew Iglesius is saying that let's just say that the panty bomber had blown up the plane and it had plunged to the ground uh over Detroit and had killed people on the ground, it would still be no big deal.
	Hardly a first order national security threat, unquote.
	The stupidity of this is uh is twofold, because it underestimates the appeal.
	Why do why do uh these jihadists try to uh destroy airliners in the first place?
	Because they are symbols of apart from anything else, of the great Satan's technological superiority.
	Nine eleven was just what they were looking for, Because you're flying a plane into a building.
	You've got m Mohammed Atta, uh, a guy takes goes to flight school, takes pilot training.
	He could be pulling down a six-figure salary anywhere in the world, but he tells the flight school guy, I don't need to know about landing the plane.
	Because he's only planning on making one flight one time through the office window of the World Trade Center.
	And the reason they the reason that so delighted the jihadist mindset, that you had all those people jumping up and down in the street, remember on the streets of Ramallah until uh uh until Yasser Arafat ordered them to cut the feed, they were all jumping up and down in the street passing out candy, oh Alahu Agbar, what a great day.
	Happy days uh here again.
	They loved it.
	They loved it uh because it it strikes at the heart, the symbolic heart of uh of uh America's technological superiority.
	The masters of modernity, the symbols of modernity, airliners and skyscrapers are brought down uh by men who have nothing but box cutters but are driven by faith.
	And that's why bringing down an American airliner is a hugely important symbolic act uh to these guys.
	Uh it's happened before, of course.
	Twenty years ago it happened with uh Pan Am uh over Lockerby in Scotland.
	But the difference then was that this wasn't part of a sustained campaign.
	So now uh if if I'm saying that to bring down an American airliner after this five hundred billion dollar uh money no object homeland security apparatus has been erected wouldn't be seen as a great victory,
	and you wouldn't have cheering in the streets of Ramallah uh and a lot of other places too, uh, over the over this symbolic victory is to misunderstand the importance of symbols.
	But there's another reason why this is an objectively disgusting thing, too.
	Because yes, there's three hundred million Americans, so if you few you lose a few hundred here or there, it's no big deal, because it's a tiny, tiny percentage.
	Uh but if you happen to be on that flight, on that Northwest flight, it's one hundred percent of you.
	Uh it's one if you're if you happen to be sitting in the next seat to the pandy bomber and that plane blows up, that's one hundred percent of Ugon.
	It's not a tiny peripheral percentage.
	Uh so the idea that this is something that the United States uh can uh can somehow withstand.
	I mean, there's a level of cynicism here.
	Uh the the British during the campaign uh waged against the RA, British civil servants used to use a phrase called, quote, acceptable level of violence, unquote, which meant that uh they accepted that occasionally little old ladies were going to have their legs blown off uh waiting for a bus, but that it was, quote, an acceptable level of violence.
	And that meant that people would die in shopping centers, people would die at bus stations, people would die just strolling in the park, uh, and someone happened to have a nail bomb and lots of people got killed.
	But we were talking, you know, in those days you were talking about a maybe a dozen people or a couple of dozen people.
	There's something very wrong.
	There's something very wrong when a guy is saying that uh symbolic targets of American prestige and power can be blown out of the sky and hundreds of people killed, and that it's no big deal.
	And the and the and the rationale here is uh entirely the same.
	It is to say that the war on terror died with Bush.
	It was a Bush concoction.
	It was something that Bush and Cheney and Rummy invented as a convenience to themselves and has no broader relevance to the modern world.
	And I think the problem here is that uh Obama is defying reality and and his apologists in the press uh are at odds with reality here.
	Uh it's it's it's it's the reason that this weakened the president in those days after Christmas.
	Uh little things, if this is a little thing, as Matthew Iglesia says, little things bec uh become big things because they illuminate a central truth about a person.
	Uh and and that's true of all minor little political events get blown out of proportion because they illuminate a central truth.
	That's why the bowing to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor uh became a big thing, because it seemed to indicate a view of America's place in the world as Obama saw it.
	And that's the same thing here.
	That Obama has spent the last year saying the war on terror is a Bush phenomenon.
	I'm outreach.
	I'm I'm going in for outreach to the Muslim world.
	I go and give a big speech in Cairo in which I say that it's outrageous that some women uh get disparaging looks because they want to wear the veil in Western countries, which is preposterous.
	The big the big problem in the United States and other Western countries is that young women who don't want to wear the veil, uh, who don't want to go all covered up, who don't want to wear the hijab and the burqa and all the rest of it, are getting honor killed.
	They're not getting honor killed in Yemen and Waziristan, they're getting honor killed in uh in Berlin and Stockholm and London and Toronto and Dallas, Texas.
	They're getting killed in the heart of the Western world.
	But Obama is part of his Islamo schmoozing.
	Uh he stands uh he goes there in Cairo and he says, Oh, you know, isn't it outrage, like uh this uh the the fourth wife of a nice, respectable imam.
	She likes to go strolling the street in her burqa and she gets disparaging looks.
	Well, that's not the American way.
	He's done a year of Islamo schmoozing, and uh and all we've seen, in fact, is an increase in terrorist attacks uh uh uh against the United States.
	And all we've seen from the administration is a denial.
	For example, Major Hood, uh Major Hassan at Fort Hood.
	He uh he he kills down he he he kills down all these kills all these people while shouting Alahu Akbar and oh, you know, just a rogue incident.
	Uh could have could happen to anyone, just woke up one day and he's something snapped and he kills all these people.
	And no, no, no.
	He'd been in contact with all with this radical Imam back in Yemen, and he'd had two uh terrorist uh uh anti-terrorist uh security uh teams watching him.
	Again, it's the money no object thing.
	Uh in any other country, it'd just be one anti-terrorism uh team would be monitoring him, but here you're two.
	And they read all his emails uh to the radical imam talking about the circumstances in which it was appropriate to kill American soldiers, and they report back that, quote, this is consistent with his research interests.
	Well, maybe when a guy's research interests are about how about the the proper circumstances in which you kill American soldiers, uh that should tip you off that this guy is not a a regular army psychiatrist.
	But no, no, no, he's just an isolated extremist.
	Then again, President Obama goes on TV after the pandemic bomber and says, Oh, don't worry, it's just an isolated extremist.
	No, he's part of the same network.
	He was in communication with the same imam as Major Hassan at Fort Hood.
	This is this is like uh this is uh a delusion of the administration.
	It's like all G had is local.
	Uh guy kills a bunch of people here, guy kills a bunch of people there.
	What could they possibly have in common?
	Just seems to uh a lot of people, the guy stands on a chair, shouts Alahu Akbar, kills a bunch of people, now guys on a plane.
	Well, they can't possibly be connected.
	One guy is killing people from a chair, the other person is killing people from his underpants.
	They've got nothing in common.
	Entirely isolated phenomena.
	And that is why uh this has stuck to President Obama, uh, because uh we're very fortunate that hundreds of people weren't killed, but they're the central reality of what happened on this plane is at odds with the official Obama fantasy, uh the official Janet Napolitano fantasy.
	Mark Stein in for Rush rushes back tomorrow, 1-800-282-2882.
	Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
	You know, this Washington Post story by Sally Quinn, the doed of the Washington social scene, who says time for accountability at the White House, and she's not calling for the firing of Janet Abolitado or no, she's calling for the firing of Desiree Rogers, who is the White House social secretary.
	This story gets funnier and funnier the deeper you read uh into it.
	Uh the third the third party crasher is the final straw for for Sally Quinn, who is like horrified that you go to these galaxies at the White House and you obsc uh uh you assume the obscure guy sitting across the table from you is like the Prime Minister of In India or the president of Uzbekistan or somebody, and it just turns out to be some no-name guy who's trying to get on a reality show.
	Uh so she's horrified.
	She thinks Obama needs to show he's really in control and command of his administration by firing his social secretary.
	That's that's the priority for uh Sally Quinn.
	She was horrified by this third gate crash with the party.
	Well, what kind of party is that?
	Every everybody who who who is uh everybody who wasn't anybody was there.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's outrageous.
	Let's go to uh Vinny in Brooklyn.
	Vinny, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	Great to have you with us.
	Hey, Mark, great to speak with you.
	Let me just uh premise with what I'm about to say is I I certainly wouldn't want this to happen in any way, shape, or form, but you almost think that to get their attention in Washington as to what's going on in regards with the war of terror, you almost think that something has to happen to someone beloved to them or so close to them, like a son or a daughter or or whomever you you wish to think of as as a loved one.
	I mean, um uh on a lesser extent uh what you just said about Sally Quinn.
	Look at her priorities.
	Okay, it took the twenty what'd you say, the twenty-eighth paragraph until she started talking about the panthe bomber.
	Yeah.
	Um I got this um from the from the uh brilliant call screen.
	He reminded me about Daniel Pearl uh when he was beheaded at the beginning of the war on terror, how the media stood up and really took notice that gee, this is really hitting home.
	Right.
	Okay, to a lesser extent, we can I can even do this with health care.
	Would Congress uh ever even consider going under a one-payer system like they're demanding the populace do.
	No, because they're elite and they're Congress and they're above it.
	So, yeah, if that plane would have blew up over Detroit, and thank God it didn't.
	Okay, the country and and and the elite and our and our elected elites in Washington would have took notice for a little while, like they did after 9-11.
	After that, it's business as usual.
	This is the way I'm feeling.
	I'm a little bitter about it, and in regards to that last idiot that called, we're back to connecting the dots again in this administration.
	But Bush did kind of straighten that out a bit.
	So I don't know what he's talking about.
	No, no.
	You're right, though, uh, that there's a th that if the elite feel excluded by this, in other words, if they can impose uh security procedures on us, and occasionally someone will take a plane, but they'll hijack it and and and blow up the plane over Cleveland or whatever, it's one thing.
	Uh but uh i i i it's a n it's an entirely different thing if they were uh if they were flying a plane into every senator's favorite restaurant inside the beltway.
	That there's that that i i i i in uh in fact Sally Quinn does betray uh a uh betray the right attitude that what matters is what the A listers uh uh uh are in danger of, what's in danger of happening to the A-listers.
	And she's got and she's got that right.
	But but you know where you're right to go back to um that previous call and to talk about connecting the dots.
	I think we I think we look stupid while the other guys look relatively smart.
	I mean, they take a a highly educated, westernized Muslim man from a very respectable background, and they recruit him, and then they fly him to Yemen to get his explosives, and then they uh and then they take him to Amsterdam to get him on the plane,
	they get him on the plane where his in the seat where his bomb will do the most damage, whatever it was, row nineteen, uh, and they train him to blow it up uh just when he's over the city.
	That's actually a quite a sophistic for a bunch of losers in in a basket case in the middle of nowhere, that's actually quite a sophisticated operation.
	And our elites by comparison don't seem to be the least sophisticated about this.
	Well, they're certainly not serious about it, that's for sure, when you literally, you know, planes are almost falling out of the sky.
	So what's it what's it gonna take?
	And I guess that's what I'm where I'm coming from.
	What is it really going to take until this country and the people that run it take take a serious stance on terrorism and fight it as if they're fighting for their very lives, because I can tell you out here in the sticks with the rest of us who make the country work, we really feel it's a fight for our lives.
	Well, I don't I would say that that is uh most unlikely to happen because I think the thinking of this administration is that yes, bad things will happen, like at Fort Hood.
	Basically uh fourteen people, including the unborn baby.
	Fourteen people died at Fort Hood because of political correctness.
	This guy was basically had spent the previous years going around with a big neon sign on his head saying Jihad Boy flashing at everybody, and nobody wanted to do anything about it.
	Nobody wanted to do anything about it.
	Uh at the hospital where he trained, where he was uh he he he th you give lectures.
	This guy gives everybody has to give a lecture.
	And normally you do a lecture on a medical theme.
	So you'll be giving a lecture uh uh about uh hip replacements or hernia's or something.
	This guy gave a lecture about jihad, and everybody's sitting there sort of nervously glancing at each other, uh thinking, well, you know maybe if I if I report this, uh if I report this guy, it'll turn up on my record and I might not get promoted.
	It would look bad.
	They wanted to kick him out because he was trying to convert patients at the hospital to Islam and they w and they thought about uh somebody m complained and they said, Well, we can't kick him out, he's a Muslim, it'll look bad.
	So fourteen people died because of political correctness.
	And to go back to that phrase I used from the IRA campaign, the acceptable level of violence.
	I think I think uh in a very cynical way, people have concluded that that is an acceptable level of violence.
	The people will die, but it will just be people on the fringes of the map and in the dozens or maybe the hundreds every now and then, but there is no war and there is no strategy for taking this war to the enemy and throttling the ideology, which is the only way you'll win this war.
	Mark Stein, InfoRush on the EIB network.
	Don't forget, Rush returns to the golden EIB microphone tomorrow.
	Don't miss it.
	Great to be with you.
	Rush returns tomorrow, but in the meantime, your undocumented anchor man sitting in.
	Have you seen this thing out of New York?
	Um Nanny Bloomberg, who won't let you won't let you smoke uh any where can you smoke in the city of New York, uh, HR now?
	Where you're not uh not aware of any you can't because you can't the the thing where people used to stand on the sidewalks you can still stand on the sidewalks and smoke.
	Okay.
	And but not near a door.
	But you could stand on a rotting wharf uh sticking out into the East River and have a cigarette.
	Why doesn't he clamp down on that, that guy?
	That Nanny Bloomberg, he's supposed to be so concerned about people's health is people lighting up cigarettes on rotten wharfs sticking out into the East River.
	That's the problem.
	But on the other hand, Nanny Bloomberg has issued this leaflet uh uh th uh uh to teach to teach heroin users how to shoot up correctly.
	So you can't have a cigarette, can't have a cigarette in New York, but the city of New York will send you this.
	If you're a heroine user and you don't know how to do it properly, because let's face it, it's like pretty complicated.
	It's not like having a cigarette and just sticking it in your mouth.
	You gotta get this needle, you've got to find the vein.
	Uh the uh the New York City, uh New York City, Nanny Bloomberg has now provided this attractive illustrated leaflet on how to shoot up correctly.
	Uh don't blunt your needle by poking a hole in your sterile water container.
	Warm your body, jump up and down to show your veins.
	That's great, isn't it?
	So you can have a nice warm body if you're a if you're a if you're a New York City heroin user, they tell you how to warm your body, jump up.
	Actually, that's what you do with the cigarette, isn't it?
	Uh if you're having a cigarette out on the streets of New York in the last couple of days, jump jump up and down to avoid freezing your butt off.
	But uh uh when you're a heroin user, you jump up and down to show your veins.
	Yes.
	That's right.
	And then it says uh the next tip is find the vein before you try to inject.
	Because otherwise you could just be uh randomly jabbing it in anywhere, couldn't it?
	You know.
	No, no.
	I know it.
	I hate it when you know, I I hate it when you're when you're in New York City and you're trying to shoot up heroin and you just jab the needle into your eyeball because you've forgotten instruction number seven, yeah.
	Try and find a vein before you jab the needle randomly into body parts.
	Because uh uh so so that and uh don't always inject in the same spot.
	So the city that banned smoking in bars and and nightclubs has the highest cigarette tax in the United States, but for heroin users, the city will spend taxpayers' money teaching you how to shoot up uh correctly.
	That's that's wonderful wonderful news.
	Thank you very much, uh Nanny Bloomberg.
	Uh and that's there's an important lesson in that, by the way.
	Because a libertarian would make the argument that whether you want to uh smoke a cigarette or whether you want to shoot heroin, you should be allowed to do uh both.
	The radical libertarian would say you you should be free to make your own decisions on either of those things.
	But the point about big government uh and big government uh is that and the and the nanny state in particular, the soft totalitarianism of people like Nanny Bloomberg, is that uh tyranny is always whimsical.
	There's never any logic uh there's never any logic to it.
	So uh cigarettes, oh Nanny Bloomberg can't have that.
	Nanny Bloomberg can't have that.
	You you can't uh be seen smoking uh anywhere near an open doorway.
	Uh but on the other hand, heroin, heroin, that's something he feels differently about.
	So he'll provide leaflets, illustrated leaflets showing you how to shoot up correctly.
	Uh where is this gonna take us?
	Uh Mike Bloomberg, he doesn't I don't think he actually is a Republican anymore.
	Didn't he run as an independent?
	He I think in the last election wasn't he wasn't he's he he was I think he might just run as both.
	He was a Republican and an independent.
	But how can that be?
	Because I thought if you're an independent, you're independent of political parties.
	So how can you be an independent because isn't that right running as an independent and a dependent?
	I mean, what uh what's what's the deal with that?
	Uh H.R. says he thinks he ran as an independent and a Republican.
	Uh but we don't know.
	Anyway, he's he's semi-detached from the Republican Party, he's on the way out the door, if he's still if he's still there at all.
	How are things going to be looking this November?
	Um according to David Brooks in the uh in in the um New York Times, David Brooks is the is the token conservative in the New York Times.
	Uh and his basic point today is that the Tea Party people are uh basically knuckle-dragging morons, uh, but they're but they're having an impact.
	Uh they're at war with the educated class, as he calls it.
	Uh and uh the most interesting point about this is actually a statistic uh that the the according to a Rasmussen poll of uh of independent voters asking whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican, and a Tea Party candidate, the Tea Party candidate won with thirty-three percent of the vote.
	Uh so he's saying the Tea Party is a real phenomenon and its dissatisfactions are real, and as he sees it, it's at war against the elite.
	As he puts it, quote, the educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise.
	The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them.
	The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
	Uh his thing is that the uh is that the educated class has to put up now, has to take account of these knuckle-dragging morons out there who happen to have the impertinence to disagree with this.
	I wouldn't mind this particularly if uh so many of these brilliantly ingenious educated uh people that he's been praising uh since uh he first was smitten by Barack Obama haven't proved uh so pathetically stupid uh in practice.
	And by the way, a lot of these educated people don't sound that smart when you get right uh right down to it.
	Um this is the guy, uh uh David Brooks in the New York Times, who as I mentioned when I was here a few months ago.
	The New Republic ran a story, a profile of David Brooks, uh and on the bromance, which I think is what isn't that the word they use now, bromance.
	Broman what is that?
	That's some metrosexual to that's brotherla.
	Yeah, they make movies about it.
	These new Hollywood guys, they make uh they make uh movies about bromances and things.
	I don't know.
	I don't think, you know, n a real movie star like Gary Cooper wouldn't go in for a bromance, would he?
	I can't I can't see that happening.
	But uh but these new guys, they do all these things about bromances.
	And and so the New Republic ran a feature on the bromance between David Brooks and Barack Obama.
	If I'd been David Brooks's publicist, that's a story I would have wanted to kill.
	You know, I d I wouldn't I don't know whether that's uh that that would be something I'd want there.
	But the the opening image the opening paragraph is fantastic begins, that first encounter is still vivid in David Brooks's mind.
	I remember distinctly an image.
	We were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg at his perfectly creased pant, Brooks says.
	And I'm thinking, A, he's going to be president, and B, he'll be a very good president, unquote.
	Because David Brooks was sitting there and looking at Barack Obama's quote perfect I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant.
	This is now but if I'd been if I was Barack Ob maybe I'm kind of just uh uptight, I'm insecure about my sexuality or whatever, but if I call if I'm giving an interview to a New York Times guy and he's staring at my pant leg, I would I'm not sure I'd be entirely comfortable with that.
	Now, you know I said I was suggesting earlier that this mayor in uh in Lancashire, England, who's just been convicted of breaking into his constituents' homes and stealing ladies' underwear, that he should be the new underwear uh controlling all the homeland security underwear at airports.
	I'm now revising that, and I think that actually David Brooks should be the guy manning the uh the check-in line at uh at airports and looking for that perfectly creased pant.
	Here's a guy with an eye for a perfectly creased pant, and clearly if uh uh if you've got like uh the clutch bomber, if you've got like some uh some explosives there, the chances are it might dimple your crease a bit, and a guy, a guy who knows a perfectly creased pant leg like David Brooks would be the guy to spot it.
	Uh so anyway Yeah, boy, oh boy.
	We're not we're not we're not uh we're not letting you on board the plane.
	You're gonna have to go over and get those pressed before we uh we see to you on Conan Endel.
	So anyway, uh David Brooks is the guy who was smitten by uh by Barack Obama, or at any rate his trousers, and it's now is now saying that the Tea Party crowd is real.
	The Tea Party phenomenon is crazy.
	They're a ghastly bunch of people, they're knuckle-dragging morons, uh in uncreased trousers, uh properly kno th the pant legs are atrocious, but they do represent something real.
	He says it's an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership.
	But several Brighton policians like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico unofficially competing to become its de facto leader.
	Um, the Tea Party movement has passion.
	Think back on the recent decades of American history, the way the hippies defined the 1960s, the feminists the 1970s, the Christian conservatives the 1980s.
	American history is often driven by passionate outsiders who force themselves into the center of American life.
	And I think this is actually in a very important point he's making.
	Uh that the wind doesn't blow with the majority.
	The majority can just be shuffling along, ambling along, not particularly interested, not particularly interested in this or that or whatever.
	Uh if you have passion and you have intensity, uh you can make the running.
	This is th this goes back in a way to what we were talking about earlier.
	If you look at Islam, people keep talking about moderate Muslims.
	But the reality is that moderate Muslims are basically quiescent Muslims, and the running in that particular demographic strand is made by the radicals.
	Uh and so they often wind up getting what they want, they wind up getting laws uh that go their way, they uh wind up getting very favorable accommodations by governments they put pressure on simply because they're the noisiest.
	And that's why it's important to have a protest movement that has passion and and intensity and that is prepared to take to the streets.
	Uh not because they necessarily represent 51% of the people in very particular, uh, but because they can often you you need people who are noisy and passionate uh demanding uh that stuff be dragged uh 38% in their direction.
	You need people making that much noise just to persuade the moderate squishy people in the center to drag things two percent in your direction.
	So I think I think the story from last year, the Tea Parties and that movement is actually critically important uh to the to the year ahead.
	People have got to stay on the streets, people have got to go to the town meetings, and people have got to stay up to date and up to speed on that.
	And then that and that passion and that enthusiasm has got to ride all the way to November, so that all those people, whoever they're voting for, uh but that Tea Party movement uh and uh that town and those town hall meeting guys are there in the voting booths in November.
	So we'll talk about that straight ahead.
	1800-282-2882, Mark Stein in for Rush, don't forget, Rush is back Wednesday.
	Mark Stein Infrarush.
	Uh looking at the year ahead, uh this health care bill that was passed in the Senate.
	Uh the interesting thing about this is what Mr. Transparency, Mr. Reach Across the Isle, Mr. Postpartisan the Healer, this is what it boils down to in practice.
	There's not going to be an open conference uh or debate on merging the House and Senate health care bills.
	They both pass these monstrosities, but they're kind of slightly incompatible monstrosities, and normally that's resolved in Congress in conference.
	Uh but they want to prevent Republicans from delaying the bill as they see it.
	So instead of having the traditional uh conference committee, they're going to have talks in private between the leaders of both the House and the Senate.
	That that means Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry and their cronies.
	So if you don't know what's in the bill now, you can imagine what you're not gonna know what's in it by the time these people have cooked it up in in private.
	So what they're doing here is uh they're turning, in effect, open parliamentary debate into a sham.
	It's a circus.
	Uh what will happen is they'll co cook it up in private and then they'll undergo sham votes and sham debates after everything's been decided.
	So much for transparency and so much for uh Barack Obama's uh as as he sold himself to David Brooks uh admiring his pant leg, uh as he sold himself to David Brooks as a a post-partisan healer who would be governing from the center.
	Not at all governing from the center.
	They've they've frosted out uh the Republican Party entirely.
	So if you don't think you know what's in the Senate bill or the House bill, you're really not gonna know what's in the bill they can cock together uh by the time they're through with it.
	Interestingly, health spending uh grew at the slowest pace in forty-eight years uh in two thousand and eight.
	In other words, until we decided this was the crisis that we have to address, uh normal market forces, in fact, uh reigned back the the so-called explosive growth of health costs to their lowest in half a century.
	The growth of health spending slowed uh to the uh slowest pace in half a century in 2008.
	In the private sector, that is.
	Uh as usual, government, federal government spending on health care searched.
	Uh federal federal Medicaid spending increased 8.4 percent, the highest rate of growth since 2003, uh, while uh national health care spending grew only four point four percent.
	In other words, federal Medicaid spending grew at twice the rate of private uh health care spending.
	Now what uh what does this tell you about the way it's likely to go once it's all governmentalized?
	Uh you're gonna have more government health care, so you're gonna have more health care spending increasing at the rate of federal Medicaid spending and less private health care.
	Health care costs are gonna explode uh under this scenario.
	Uh and this is a very good example of how if you just let market forces do their work, market forces will respond to changes in the environment.
	Two thousand and eight, certainly the last part of it, wasn't a great year.
	And so uh the health care spending, health care spending uh uh declined to reflect that.
	But the government spending, whoa, that was way up.
	And that's the way it's gonna go.
	We'll talk more about that uh and about the Democrats' plans to uh rush these big two thousand page uh bills through in the dead of night in the heart of darkness, and lots more straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Mark Stein Inforush, don't forget Rush, will be back uh tomorrow.
	And you can go to rushlimbore.com and see the video of his press conference if you if you haven't seen it yet.
	I've just seen this.
	This actually uh stunned me.
	Uh Michael Yon, who is a terrific uh blogger who's been embedded with the troops out in Iraq and Afghanistan, does great military blogging uh from out in the field in these combat areas.
	He was uh arrested at the airport at Seattle for refusing to say how much money he made.
	He was handcuffed.
	They handcuffed the guy for refusing to tell a border guard from the United States how much money he made.
	That is, I wouldn't answer that question.
	If I if I landed at JFK or if I landed at LAX and the guy asked me how much money I earn, I'd say that's between me and the IRS.
	Uh it is uh we have to resist these outrageous uh intrusions uh on liberty and stand up to them.
	This is nothing to do with national security.
	This is an incompetent bureaucracy that just takes delight in bullying uh people who are no security threat whatsoever for the sake of it.
	And it should be resisted every time it happens.
	It's a disgrace.

▲