All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
April 23, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchor Man is away and this is your undocumented anchor man sitting in.
Rush returns on Monday.
I'm thrilled and honored to be here for the end of the week and you know what the end of the week means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday!
Guess Open Line Friday, 1-800-282-2882, Monday to Thursday.
This program is under the strict control of a highly trained broadcast specialist.
We couldn't get a highly trained broadcast specialist in today.
That's just me and what do I know?
So you can talk about anything you like.
1-800-282-2882.
This financial regulation, this new financial regulation regime, gangster government, gangster government is the phrase that Michael Barone is using to describe various activities from the Chrysler bailout to the SEC complaint against Goldman Sachs.
By the way, you know, this isn't a small story, this SEC revelations about SEC guys just sitting around watching hardcore pornography all day to the point where they fill up their computer.
They've got no room on the computer for anything they're meant to be looking at.
It's all porn on there.
So then they're obliged to get some CDs and DVDs and start keeping it there and keeping it in the closet.
This is actually a very healthy development.
I would be in favor of all government employees having to actually sit down and watch large amounts of hardcore pornography all day long because it's better than almost anything else they do, particularly at the SEC.
Actually, it's interesting, by the way, now I come to think about it, that that was also Elliot Spitzer's beat.
It's interesting to me that financial regulation seems to lead to hardcore pornography habits.
I'm not sure I've tested that with a thorough statistical accuracy, but it's striking to me that there do seem to be these ties between it.
I mentioned the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, which has recently demanded that all pornographic film shoots within the state of California now submit to the same degree of hygiene regulation as your average California hospital.
This may become useful, by the way, after Obamacare has had five or six years to kick in.
You're wondering, oh, should I go for treatment?
Should I go to treatment to Sacramento General or shall I just swing by the local porn chute and maybe see if anyone there can help out?
It may actually be a useful development there.
But anyway, that is the bureaucratization of porn.
If porn is bureaucratized, there is no area of American endeavor that isn't bureaucratized.
So this is not an insignificant story in what it tells us about where we're going.
It's fascinating to me the way I mentioned this earlier, that conservatives and the American people generally need to get real about so-called regulation.
When they talk about Wall Street fat cats, everybody's thinking about the guy from the Monopoly Board.
You're thinking about a guy with a big top hat and a cane and a tailcoat and a monocle, and he's your stereotypical Wall Street fat cat.
He's not affected by all this.
He's not affected by any of this.
When you're that fat, a fat cat, you know who to call.
You know who to call in Washington.
You're plugged in.
You know who to call to make the problem go away.
The idea that Goldman Sachs, for example, is worried about anything that is going to come out of this reform is ridiculous.
Four of the five in-house lobbyists at Goldman Sachs were previously Democratic Party staffers.
While the one remaining lobbyist, this is from National Review Online, and fascinating.
Just a straight, just the facts, ma'am, look at who's plugged in here.
So four of the five in-house lobbyists at Goldman Sachs were Democratic staffers.
The fifth lobbyist was a contributor to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
The guy who heads up Goldman Sachs's shop in Washington is Michael Pace, who was formerly a committee staffer for Barney Frank.
One of his deputies is Ken Connolly, who was formerly with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
So the idea that somehow you, the poor schlub working on Main Street, are going to be sticking it to the fat cat on Wall Street through this financial regulation is ridiculous.
All you're doing is you're allowing the big guys to enter into a cozy arrangement with government.
Again, I said to a caller earlier that if you happen to be a sinister foreigner, you've seen this kind of stuff all over the map, everywhere else it's happened.
That the established players in a market are always in favor of regulation because they're already there.
They're already big.
They're already dominant.
What regulation at that stage does is essentially freeze the scene and allow your domination to become a permanent fact of life.
What it does do is it makes it very difficult for newcomers, new players, to enter in and get their first foot on the first rung of the ladder.
And that is why established players like Goldman Sachs are always in favor of regulation.
And we see it all the time.
You know, Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, if you're an established company, this was brought in in the wake after Enron, one of these bills that was passed in 20 minutes by idiot congressmen who didn't have a clue what was in it or what they were passing, but were responding to agitated cries from people that something needed to be done.
So they did something.
And everything they did has been a huge benefit to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange because it has made it a lot harder for anybody wanting to go public in the United States to get to the next level.
Simply put, the costs imposed by the federal government when you want to go to the next stage and go public in the United States are now too high.
And by some readings, it would be impossible, for example.
Somebody was telling me this the other day.
The idea of creating, for example, a company like Apple today would be impossible because Apple wouldn't be able to go public in the way it did back in the 90s.
So all you're doing when you have this, oh, we need to stick it to the fat cats, all you're ensuring is the fat cats' dominance of their particular strand of the market will be preserved forever.
And it's the thin cats, the guy inventing something new, starting a new company, growing a company, the thin cat who's trying to get a piece of that action, all you make it easier to do is for the big players to keep him out.
And that's the problem we got here in the United States.
What are we going to do about it?
I think you have to seriously fight this at all fronts.
I'm not one of these people.
I accept that there are going to be squishy congressmen in some districts.
Here in New Hampshire, it looks like we will be returning what, I mean, we weren't even a purple state.
We flipped in 2006 from all red to all blue and nothing flat.
It looks now in November 2010 as if my fellow granite staters have woken up to the insanity of electing these people to Congress and are going to return this state to the Red Camp.
And yes, some of those congressmen are going to be pretty squishy and pretty unreliable on things, but it's still necessary to punish the Democrats for doing something that if they'd run on in 2006 or 2008, they would never have been elected.
I'm reduced to doing things I hardly ever do.
I'm giving a speech in New Hampshire, which I hardly ever do because I like to lay low.
I'm like Osama bin Laden in the White Mountains of Afghanistan.
I'm like that in the White Mountains of New Hampshire.
I like to stay in my cave and not bother people.
But it's really important, everyone, to get in the game.
I'm coming out of the cave.
I'm giving a speech in New Hampshire.
It's incredibly important that everybody understands this is a critical election.
If Obama survives with a Democratic majority after November, he is going to ram all kinds of stuff through the way he rammed health care through.
And he won't care about the approval ratings.
He doesn't need to worry about those.
So this isn't just a regular midterm election here.
This is a chance to actually not just send a message that you're punishing the Democrats for declaring war on 200 years of constitutional evolution in things like the individual mandate on the healthcare plan.
It's not just a chance to send a strong message.
It's a chance to prevent what was done with healthcare with being done on cap and trade and all kinds of other areas of American endeavor.
Because this guy is serious.
He means business.
And a lot of the times we elect guys who don't mean business and who don't mean it.
So when somebody does what the Democrats have done in the form they've done this time round, it's absolutely critically important not just to leave it to your neighbor to vote, not just to leave it to your neighbor to attend the town hall meeting or the Tea Party, but to get out there and do it yourself and to be part of this.
And what I think is admirable, by the way, about the Tea Party is I don't agree with a lot of stuff of the Tea Parties say and I don't agree with a lot of the people they invite sometimes to address their meetings and all the rest of it.
It's a very broad movement and a lot of the things they say are not, you're not always going to agree with 100% of.
But what I think is admirable is that having been demonized quite despicably by not just the administration, but by this ghastly, grotesque, failing American media, which is actually a model for what happens when a dynamic industry atrophies, this dying American state-run media, the war it's waged on the Tea Party movement.
And unlike some squishy Republican congressmen and senators we all name, these guys haven't taken it.
They've pushed back.
Lorine in Pennsylvania that I spoke to earlier, she pushed back.
She's not going to take being called a racist and a terrorist by President Obama and President Clinton.
These are American citizens.
These are American citizens who have as much right to express an opinion on the direction of the nations of the nation as President Obama or Vice President Biden or President Clinton.
These guys are not our rulers.
Otherwise, you might as well have stuck with George III.
President Obama is not George III.
You can say what you like to the king.
You can express your opinion on what the king is doing.
This idea that somehow the Obama administration must be beyond criticism, there's a name for states where the regimes are beyond criticism.
They're called one-party states, and America isn't a one-party state.
And that's why it's important not just to wait and go to the polling booth in November, but to actually be part of the debate now.
Go to the meetings now.
Go to the rallies now and make sure your voice is heard.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for rush on Open Line Friday.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
1-800-282-2882.
Open Line Friday.
And that means that you can talk about whatever it is you want to talk about.
Rush was writing in the Wall Street Journal today.
He's taking the day off on the radio, but he is in print.
And he did a piece about liberals and the violence card.
And if you look at it from the Democrats' point of view, this has worked for them before.
I mean, they took Sarah Palin, who was hugely popular, had a smash success at that Democratic, at the Republican convention in 2008, doing all her hockey mom stuff.
She was hugely popular.
She renewed the McCain campaign.
They went to town on her and they turned her into a divisive, controversial figure.
And all they have to do here, they're looking at the electoral map, the Democrats, and they're saying, well, you know, I mean, okay, Obama's approval ratings seem to have bottomed out in the low 40s.
We're going to live with that.
And the healthcare bill, all things considered, considered we like took a mallet and hammered it down the gullet of the American people against their will.
Well, you know, even the health care bill, maybe they're getting used to that.
And from their point of view, all they have to do is turn a few moderate, squishy, centrist accommodationists in the center and flip them back into the Obama camp.
The people we have to thank for the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congress, by the way, the so-called independent moderate centrist types.
By definition, these fellas are kind of unmoored.
So they don't really want to be, they're kind of soft, they go with the flow.
They don't want to really be mixed up with anything controversial.
If you can make the Tea Parties controversial and unrespectable, if you can denormalize them, this is really the whole Democrat strategy.
That is why they always want to play the race card.
That is why Frank Rich, who's a slightly more evolved form of Democrat in the New York Times, likes to play the gay card.
He thinks we're all upset about healthcare because we're uncomfortable with Barney Frank's sexuality.
You know, I think you can blame Barney Frank's sexuality for a whole ton of problems, but I don't think you can really say it accounts for massive $9 trillion of spending and all the other problems we have.
So I'd give Barney Frank's sexuality a break on that front.
Although, obviously, as an unreconstructed right-wing hater, I am uncomfortable with it.
But I don't think it's to blame for the entire situation.
They play the race card, they play the gay card, now they're playing the terrorist card, now they're playing the terrorist card.
If you were a real terrorist, they'd leave you alone on this.
But it's the fact that you're not.
It's the fact that you're making a very well-behaved, civilized argument about the size of government and about the effectiveness of government.
Government is the opposite of private enterprise.
You know, if somebody buys up a little soda pop company in the middle of nowhere, if Coke buys it up, there will be economies of scale.
Coca-Cola can impose economies of scale.
Walmart can impose economies of scale.
With government, there are no economies of scale.
When you have, as Lorraine was talking about, a federal wood stove regulatory regime managing wood stoves for an extraordinary number of different climates, from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to Florida.
You think how cumbersome and bureaucratic that's going to be.
When you have a federal tree oversight regime that is provided for in the cap and trade bill, when you have a federal lighting fixtures supervision regime, government, there's no economies of scale when government does that.
When government does that, it makes everything more expensive.
That's why in the healthcare, in the healthcare situation, for example, Medicare costs are increasing.
Yes, it's outrageous the way costs are increasing fast in the private sector, but actually Medicare costs increase faster than private sector costs.
So now we've Medicareized the entire system.
Where do you think costs are going to go?
There's just a report in the Associated Press today that predicts that, for example, the increased cost of this will be at least $311 billion.
Now remember, this was supposed to save money.
The whole deal was that America spends too much on healthcare, so let's governmentalize it and then we'll save money.
We can't leave it to you to make your own health care arrangements because it's costing too much money.
So we'll governmentalize it and then we'll save money.
Well, right now, right now, it's already projected to cost a third of a trillion dollars more.
Okay, well, why worry about that?
We haven't even begun yet.
We haven't even begun yet.
That's going to be chump change.
That's going to be a rounding error by the time they're through with this thing.
So this is actually a big issue that the Tea Parties are concerned about because it gets to a fundamental view of what distinguishes the United States from other countries in the Western world that have gone down this path.
And what they find is that it actually changes the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
It destroys the economic energy.
In part, that's been ameliorated because successful companies, the guy who invented BlackBerry up in Canada, was able to access the U.S. market.
Because the U.S. is a genuine dynamic economy.
In a sense, the rest of the Western world has been able to tap into that.
But when America joins the rest of the Western world in this club, there are going to be catastrophic consequences that will come down the line.
And this country will feel them harder than ever.
And the idea that you can just sort of retreat from the world and the Iranian nukes and all the rest of it won't matter.
No, you'll still have all those problems because as Britain well knows, you know, imperial resentments linger long after imperial splendor has faded.
And that will be true in the United States case too.
But you're setting yourself up for a future here that is unsustainable and that will impact the next generation.
And that is what the Tea Party guys are concerned about.
And that is why we need to stand up for them and fight back and push back when President Clinton despicably tries to connect them to Timothy McVay.
He did it with Rush.
That was disgusting.
He's revived it 15 years on and that's disgusting too.
Mark Stein in for Rush on Open Line Friday and we will talk about that and lots more as we take your calls.
1-800-282-2882.
Hey, great to be with you.
I could have a government job.
I could join the SEC and be watching hardcore pornography at taxpayer expense all day.
But instead, I'm one of the poor boobs who's chosen to stick it out in the private sector as a guest host for the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And I'm here today.
And Rush returns on Monday.
Openline Friday, 1-800-282-2882.
A lot of interesting things going on.
I mentioned when we talk about Russia's piece in the Wall Street Journal today, South Park, not South Park, the creators are steaming mad about this, but Comedy Central getting cold feet after they got death threats and caving in and censoring the South Park episode and censoring, getting so intimidated, by the way. that they even censored the final speech of the show in which one character says it's very important not to give in to intimidation.
This is where these guys had a rather cute, mild, modest joke about Mohammed in the show.
They make jokes about Jesus.
They make jokes about everybody.
But they made a Muhammad joke.
They immediately get death threats and Comedy Central decides to censor the whole thing.
Interestingly, ABC News reports that the Army has disinvited Franklin Graham from speaking at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer service.
I wonder how far we can go on this sort of thing.
This is really the flip side, the flip side of the demonization of the Tea Parties.
That, well, that in Comedy Central, the guys who congratulate themselves all the time on their bold, brave, transgressive comedy, they get a death threat, boom, they cave.
That's it.
Everybody else just puts up with it.
If you write a play as Terence McNally did on Broadway a couple of years ago, he wrote a play about a gay Jesus who has an affair with Judas Iscariot.
And what does he get?
He gets on the sidewalk Catholics standing there with placards protesting the play.
Would he write a play about a gay Mohammed?
No, because he'd have a finer, an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.
So this is like selective courage from the bold opinion makers in the United States.
How does the media report these things?
Now, remember, every time there's like elephant dung smeared over the Virgin Mary or somebody with their crucifix floating in a bowl a year, and we're told that this is, you know, you have to give artists their freedom.
And New York Times reports it, gives them rave reviews.
When the Danish cartoons crisis came up, they illustrated the story, not with the cartoons, but with the picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.
In other words, they're so terrified of insulting Muslims, even in a story about Muslim censorship, they'd rather insult Christians even in the story about Muslims.
So again, it's this selective courage.
And the media are like Comedy Central.
You know, they congratulate...
Jon Stewart speaks truth to power.
And he's Mr. Big, Bold, Brave, and all the rest of it.
Is Jon Stewart going to do anything about his own network, his own network caving into explicit threats of murder and violence?
Jon Stewart, the guy from whom everybody, every young person in America gets his news, is he going to deal with this?
His own network's craven wimpification in caving into an explicit threat of violence?
Or is he going to do like the New York Times did?
Where you show how big and brave and bold you are by, instead of showing the Muslim scene, you show the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.
I mean, this is, in the Soviet era, there was an old joke where the guy goes, the guy goes, the American says to the Russian guy, well, in the United States, everybody is free to criticize our president.
And the guy, the Russian guy, says, oh, it's the same here.
In the Soviet Union, everybody is free to criticize your president.
That's now what we have in the media at Comedy Central and in our newspapers that everybody is free to criticize Christianity, Jews and all the rest, and that Islam is out of bounds and that even in a story about Islamic censorship, you'll only get illustrations showing Christian type censorship.
This retreat, this cowardice actually, which is what it is, this explicit cowardice in the face of a real threat, combined with the phony, the totally phony outrage over people who are not in the least bit violent, who in fact are doing like those Catholic protesters about the gay Jesus play, who are just basically going to meetings, standing on the sidewalk, holding placards,
behaving very well, and yet the President of the United States and a former President of the United States have chosen to demonize these people and the media have gone along with it.
Now I don't know.
I take my hat off to the Democrats because they're masters at the politics of personal destruction.
But whether they can get away with demonizing half the U.S. electorate, I do not know.
But the lesson of what happened at Kelmedy Central is don't look to these cardboard warriors to stand up for your real liberties, because they'll trade your liberties.
If they're getting a death threat, they'll trade your liberties for the transient security of a quiet life every time.
So don't look to them to save real liberties.
The people actually who understand this are the ones of the Tea Parties, who understand that this relentless expansion of government is a threat to liberty.
You cannot have a system where the government expands to the point where it can...
A guy in Washington can send an inspector to your cabin in northern Maine and come in and look at what kind of lighting fixtures you have.
You cannot have that level of expansion of government without a shrinkage of freedom.
And that's the big point that the Tea Party crowd get, that there is a price to be paid.
Government doesn't expand in a vacuum.
Government expands and takes up the space in society where individual liberty resides.
And you can see that in European countries already.
America tops the list of individual charitable donations.
Why?
Because obviously when government expands to the point that it has in certain European countries, people don't have enough disposable income to make their own decisions about who they're going to give to.
So they stop giving to charity or they decrease their contributions to charity.
But it goes beyond that as well, because effectively, once government reaches a certain size, you reduce the space for private charities.
So for example, if government does anything, why do we need charities?
So you see it already in the kind of government regulation of, for example, adoption procedures.
So if certain charities say, well, for religious reasons, we'd be uncomfortable with recommending that a child be adopted by a gay couple, for example, just not because they hate the gay couple, but just because that happens to be their religious belief, they get hounded up out of the adoption business, as has happened to the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom.
And what that means then is that there's nothing left.
Eventually, all the other alternative institutions in society shrivel away and all you've got left is a big, all-powerful government that takes up the space left for individual, not just individual liberty, but for alternative sources of power and energy in society.
And that is a serious business.
It's not something minor and peripheral.
David Brooks in the New York Times today bemoans the way we are once again in the big government small government war.
What is more fundamental to fight about?
It's not really fighting about the size of government.
In the end, I don't care.
It's not a big deal to me if some federal employee wants to sit around the SEC office watching hardcore pornography all day.
But the way to look at big government versus small government is that it's really about small liberty versus big liberty.
And what could be more basic to society?
What could be more important than talking about that?
Yeah, David Brooks, David Brooks, in the New York Times today is yawning.
He's saying, oh, I'm so weary.
I'm so exhausted.
I thought when we elected Obama that all these dreary societal disputes would be over and now these tedious disputes about big government and small government, it's such a bore.
He's fighting vainly the old ennui.
There is nothing more important.
There's nothing more fundamental to society than the size of the state.
Because the size of the state determines what's left for you.
That's why the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights means by rights, it means not rights that are given to you by government, but restraints that are placed upon the government.
And that's why all genuine human rights are not about rights conferred upon you by the government like they have in these European countries where you have these stupid things like the right to affordable housing or this thing that the European Union introduced last week, the right to vacations, the right to foreign vacations, the right to room service.
Apparently, they're going to have government-paid vacations for the elderly, the disabled, for young people between 18 and 25, because having a foreign vacation is now a human right.
No, those are not human rights.
Real human rights documents, whether you're talking about Magna Carta or the United States Constitution, are about restraining the state in terms of what it can do to the citizenry.
So I'm sorry David Brooks is bored and weary and fighting vainly the old ennui, but this is the most fundamental issue in society today, because the more space that is taken up by the state, the less there is for you.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Great to be with you.
Let us go to Kent in Perry, Iowa.
Kent, great to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Good afternoon, Mark.
How are you doing?
I'm doing, I'm doing good.
How are you?
What are you doing?
Lounging around your office watching hardcore pornography like healthy federal workers do all day long?
No, I would, except I have to make the money for a living and I don't have time for that.
You know how that is.
And if I had a nice government job, that would work okay.
Oh, well, don't worry.
They'll be governmentalizing the pornography industry soon and we'll all be able to get workers extras in their, well, they call it small parts or whatever.
Anyway, Kent, so you're not sitting around.
You're in the private sector and you don't get to sit around watching porn.
No, no.
The interesting thing is if you're in the private sector and you do something like that, now I read in the article that one of these people has faced a two-week suspension.
Oh my.
Well, that gives him more time at home to watch all that pornography.
Works out great for him.
Yeah, but I think, you know, government workers, if you're in private industry and you're caught doing something like that because there are specific policies written for that kind of stuff, it's called Your Butt is Fired.
And I think these people should be terminated.
It was taxpayer dollars that they were wasting.
Plus, we're giving them their health care and all their benefits.
And I didn't think pornography really was a benefit in the insurance package.
Well, you know, you know, I have to be a bit cautious here because it's a condition of my green card that I don't foment armed insurrection against the government of the United States.
Otherwise, they can embark on a department process or whatever, which takes 15 years or whatever.
So I have to be a bit cautious here about not fomenting armed insurrection against the government of the United States.
But, you know, Joan Byers and Co. back in the 60s liked to deduct from their tax bill what they thought was going to fund the war, the great war machine in Vietnam.
I certainly think it is not unreasonable for citizens of the United States to deduct, to deduct the cost of all those taxpayer-funded computers and taxpayer-funded CDs that government workers use to watch hardcore pornography all day.
Because if hardcore pornography can't be left to the private sector, nothing can, Kent.
So you're right to be annoyed about it.
And I don't know what it's like in your office, but in a lot of offices, Kent, they have a situation where my website, for example, is blocked as a hate site at certain companies.
Rush's website is blocked as, ooh, that's a hate site at certain companies.
So the private sector is not shy.
And I'd be interested to know, by the way, whether you can even log on to Rush.
Oh, yes, you can log into Rushlimbo.com, RushLimbor.com, because it turned out that congressional workers are going on Rush's website and checking it out every 10 minutes during the day.
It's not like the SEC.
The SEC, they have no interest in keeping up with Rush, but they're watching the porn instead.
But private sector companies think nothing about imposing constraints on what you're allowed to see.
And it gets to the heart of it, which is that the huge difference today is between the state worker and the private worker.
And the state worker enjoys all these perks that you, Kent, in your business, will never enjoy.
And hardcore pornography is just the most lurid of them.
Yeah, and then we get a supervisor.
Don't we have to remove the title of that person as supervisor?
Because I think we've gone past that.
I don't think they were supervising a whole heck of a lot there.
Oh, you should be grateful.
In the regulatory state, they will have supervisors in the actual porn movie.
There'll be the porn star will be writhing around doing whatever it is porn stars do with multiple porn supporting extras, and there'll be a federal regulator standing over her, making sure that she's indulging in her pornographic acts in full compliance with government regulation.
So you should be thankful that they haven't yet put the supervisors directly into the porn movies themselves, Kent.
If they're lucky, they could have a break every now and then, like at the intermission in the movie and have a little thing flip up on the screen that says, should you do some work now?
And we'll be back in five minutes to continue.
That's right.
Okay.
You've got to go and get popcorn, try and do your job for a little bit, and then come back and we'll resume here where we're at.
You know, after the break a little bit.
I think that's right.
Don't forget to visit the concession stand in your SEC movie theater, and we will resume in just a moment.
Hey, let's quickly take Nancy at Fort Collins, Colorado.
Nancy, what's your point?
Yes, I've been trying to find out if Congress has to take any kind of education classes on the U.S. Constitution since they seem to have no regard for it.
I've done a little homework and I'm finding the answer is no.
I haven't completely validated that answer yet.
Well, you know what it is, Nancy?
They've boiled down the United States Constitution to exactly basically one line.
They've boiled it down to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which they argue justifies everything they're doing.
And until the Supreme Court reins in the Commerce Clause, because if the Commerce Clause can penalize supposedly freeborn U.S. citizens for not buying a government, not making their health care arrangements in compliance with the United States government, then the Commerce Clause can do anything.
And you guys wasted your time throwing off George III.
So if the Commerce Clause can do that, it can do anything.
The Commerce Clause becomes, in effect, a one-sentence Soviet Union.
And there's no point to that at all.
Mark Stein in Farush, more to come.
Mark Stein in Farush.
Hey, I mentioned I was speaking in Ulster County, New York, even though I'm in non-compliance with the New York State Board of Compliance.
And I got all these emails saying, Well, where are you speaking?
And I don't know, to be honest, but look for the SWAT team staked around the perimeter.
That'll be the giveaway.
And also, people asked why I was speaking in New Hampshire, and I think that's down in Bedford, New Hampshire.
But again, I'm not terribly, I'm not really up to speed.
It's on a need-to-know basis, and I don't need to know.
Had a great time.
Don't forget, Rush will be back on Monday.
And if you haven't yet read it, check out his terrific editorial in today's Wall Street Journal.
▲
Export Selection