All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
April 23, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented Anchorman sitting in.
Rush uh returns on Monday.
I'm uh thrilled and honored uh 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.
Yes, 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.
1800-282-2882.
Uh this financial regulation, this new financial regulation regime.
Gangster government, gangster government is the phrase uh that Michael Barone uh is using to describe uh various activities from the Chrysler bailout to the uh SEC complaint against Goldman Sachs.
Um by the way, you know, this uh th this isn't a small story, uh, this uh SEC uh revelations about SEC guys just sitting around uh 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 put keeping it there and keeping it in the closet.
Um this is actually a very healthy development.
I would I would be in favor of all government employees having to actually sit down and watch large amounts of uh hardcore pornography all day long, uh, 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, uh, that uh that uh that was also Elliot Spitzer's uh beat that uh it's it's interesting to me that it's it seems financial regulation seems to seem to lead to hardcore pornography habits.
I'm just uh I'm not sure I've uh tested that with uh thorough statistical accuracy, but it does uh it's striking to me that there do seem to be these uh these ties uh bit between it.
Uh I mentioned the California Occupational Hell Safety and Health Standards Board, which has recently demanded uh that all pornographic film shoots uh within the state of California now uh submit to uh the same degree of hygiene regulation as your average California hospital.
This may become useful, by the way, after Obamacare's had five or six years to kick in.
You're wondering, oh, should I go for treatment?
Uh should I go to treatment uh to Sacramento General, or shall I just swing by the local pawn chute and maybe see if anyone there can help out?
It may it may actually come be a useful development that.
Uh but anyway, um that is the bureaucratization of porn.
If porn is bureaucratized, there is no area of American endeavor uh that isn't bureaucratized.
So this is not an insignificant story in what it tells us about about where we're uh where we're going.
Uh it's f it's fascinating to me the way uh I mentioned this earlier that conservatives uh and the American people generally need to get real about so-called regulation.
Uh when they say when they talk about Wall Street fat cats, uh everybody's thinking about the guy from the Monopoly Board.
You're thinking about a guy with a big top hat uh and a cane and a tailcoat and a monocle, uh, and he's your stereotypical Wall Street fat cat.
He's not affected by all this.
He's not affected by any of this.
Uh those when you when you're that fat, a fat cat, uh 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 uh the make the problem uh go away.
Uh the idea that Goldman Sachs, for example, is worried about uh anything that is gonna come out of this uh reform is ridiculous.
Um four of the five in-house lobbyists at Goldman Sachs were previously Democratic Party staffers.
Well while the one remaining law lobbyist, this uh this is uh from uh National Review Online uh fascinating, just uh straight just the facts, ma'am.
Uh look at who who's plugged in here.
So four of the five in-house lobbyists at at uh at Goldman Sachs were Democratic staffers.
The fifth lobbyist was a contributor To Hillary Clinton's uh presidential uh campaign.
Uh the guy who heads up Goldman Sachs's shop in Washington is Michael Pace, who was uh formerly a committee staffer for uh Barney Frank.
Uh one of his uh 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 uh by uh by this uh through this financial regulation is ridiculous.
All you're doing is you're allowing the big guys to enter into a cosy arrangement with government.
Again, I I'm I said to a caller earlier that if you happen to be a sinister foreigner, you've seen this kind of stuff uh all over the map, every everywhere else, uh everywhere else it's happened, that the established players in a market uh 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 uh and allow your domination to become a permanent fact of life.
What it does do is it makes it very difficult for for newcomers, new players, uh to enter in and get their first foot on the uh uh 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 uh congressmen who didn't have a clue what was in it or what they were passing, uh, but were responding to agitated uh cries from people that something needed to be done.
So they did something.
And all uh everything they did has been a huge benefit to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, uh, because it has made it a lot harder uh for anybody wanting to go public uh in the United States uh to get to the next level.
That simply 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 uh are now too high.
Uh 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 uh would be impossible because Apple wouldn't be able to go public in the way it did when it when it uh uh uh back in the back in the uh nineties.
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, uh the the thin cat who's trying to get a piece of that action, all it all you make it uh easier to do is for the big players uh to keep him out.
And that's that's the problem we got here in uh in the United States.
What are we going to do about it?
I think you uh I think you have to uh seriously uh uh fight this uh at all fronts.
Uh I'm not one of these people.
I accept that there are going to be squishy congressmen in some districts.
Uh here in New Hampshire, uh it looks like uh we will be returning uh what I mean we weren't even a purple state.
We flipped in 2006 from all red to all blue and nothing flat.
Uh it looks now, in November 2010, as if my fellow granite staters have have woken up to the insanity of electing these people to Congress and are going to return this state to the red camp.
Uh and yes, some of those congressmen are uh uh uh going to be pretty squishy and pretty unreliable on things, but it's still uh it's still necessary uh to 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 uh doing things I hardly ever do.
I'm giving a s uh I'm giving a speech in New Hampshire, which I hardly uh hardly ever do, because I like to lay low.
I'm like uh uh Osama bin Laden in the white mountains of Afghanistan.
I'm like that in the White Mountains of uh 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 I'm coming out of the cave, I'm giving a speech in New Hampshire.
It's incredibly important uh that everybody understands this is a critical election.
Uh if Obama survives with a a democratic majority after November, he is gonna 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.
Uh so this isn't this isn't just a regular midterm election here.
Uh this is a chance uh to act to uh to actually not just uh send a message that you're Punishing the Democrats uh f for declaring war on uh two hundred years of constitutional evolution uh in things like the uh individual mandate on the health care plan.
It's not just a chance to send a uh strong message, it's a chance to prevent what was done in with health care with being done on cap and trade uh and all kinds of other areas uh of American endeavor.
Uh 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.
Uh so when somebody does uh what the Democrats have done in the form they've done uh this time round, uh it's absolutely critically important uh 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 and do it yourself and to be part of this.
Uh 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 uh say, and I don't agree with a lot of people they invite sometimes to address their meetings and all the rest of it.
It's a very broad movement.
And uh a lot of the things they say are not uh you're not always going to agree with 100% of.
But what I think is admirable is that having been demonized quite despicably, uh, by uh not just the administration, but by this uh ghastly grotesque, failing American media, which is actually a model uh uh uh for for what happens uh when dynamic uh when a dynamic industry atrophies,
this dying American state-run media, uh 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.
Lorreen uh in uh Pennsylvania that I spoke to earlier, she pushed back.
She's not going to be take take being called a racist and a terrorist uh 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 uh of the nation as President Obama or Vice President Biden or President Clinton.
These guys are not our rulers.
Uh otherwise you might as well have stuck with George the Third.
President Obama is not George the Third.
Uh you can you can say what you like to the King.
You can express your opinion on what the King is doing.
Uh this uh idea that somehow uh Obama 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.
Uh and that's why it's important not just to uh wait and go to the polling booth in November, but to actually be part of the debate now, be go to the meetings now, uh 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 uh open line Friday, and uh that means that you can talk about whatever it is you want to talk about.
Rush uh was uh was writing in the Wall Street Journal today.
He's uh taking the day off uh on the radio, but he is in print, uh and he did a piece about uh liberals and the violence card.
And if you look at it uh from the Democrats' point of view, this is this has worked for them before.
I mean, they took Sarah Palin, who was hugely popular, had a smash success at that Democratic uh at that Democratic uh at the Republican convention in 2008, uh doing all her hockey mom stuff.
She was hugely popular, she uh 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 uh saying, well, you know, I mean, uh okay, Obama's app approval rating seem to bottomed out in the low forties.
We can live with that.
And the health care bill, all things considered, considered we like took a mallet and hammered it down uh the gullet of the American people against their their will.
Well, you know, even the health care bill, they maybe they're getting used to that.
Uh and from their point of view, all they have to do is turn a few moderate, squishy centrist accommodationists in the center, uh and flip them back into the Obamacamp.
The people we have to thank for the Obama Presidency and the Democratic Congress, by the way, uh the so-called uh independent moderate centrist types.
By definition, the these fellas are kind of unmoored.
So uh so they don't really want to be uh they 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, uh this is really the the whole Democrat uh 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 health care because we're uncomfortable with Barney Frank's sex sexuality.
Uh, you know, I think you can blame Barney Frank's sexuality for a whole ton of uh problems, but I don't think you can really say it accounts uh for uh massive uh nine trillion dollars of spending and all the other uh and all the other problems we have.
So uh I I'd give uh Barney Frank's sexuality uh a break on that front.
Although obviously as an unreconstructed uh right wing hater, I am uncomfortable with it.
Uh but I don't think it's to blame uh for the entire situation.
Uh they they play the race card, they play the gay card, now they're playing the terrorist card, now they're playing the terrorist card.
Uh 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.
Uh it's not government is the opposite of um uh uh of private enterprise.
Uh, you know, if somebody buys up a little uh little soda pop company in the middle of nowhere, if Coke buys it up, there will be economies of scale.
Uh Coca-Cola can impose economies of scale.
Uh Walmart can uh uh can impose economies of scale.
With government, there are no economies of scale.
When you have, as Laureen was talking about, a uh federal wood stove regulatory regime, uh managing wood stoves uh for a uh extraordinary number of different climates, from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to Florida, you think how cumbersome and bureaucratic that's gonna be.
When you have a federal tree oversight regime uh that is uh that is provided for in the cap and trade bill.
Uh when you have a federal lighting fixtures supervision regime.
Uh government, there's no economies of scale when government does that.
When government does that, it makes it uh it it makes everything more expensive.
That's why in the health care, uh in the healthcare situation, for example, uh Medicare costs are increasing.
Uh yes, it's outrageous the way costs are increasing fast in the private sector, but actually Medicare costs increase faster uh than private sector costs.
So now we've m Medicarized the entire system.
Where do you think costs are going to go?
There's uh just a report in the Associated Press today uh that predicts uh that, for example, uh the uh increased cost of uh of this will uh will be uh at least three hundred and eleven billion dollars.
This was now remember, this was supposed to save money.
The whole uh deal was that America spends too much on health care, 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.
Uh okay, well, why worry about that?
We haven't really even begun yet.
We haven't even begun yet.
That's going to be chump change.
That's going to be a rounding error uh by the time they're through by the time they're through with this thing.
So this is this is actually a big issue that the Tea Parties are concerned about.
Because it gets to a fundamental view uh 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 uh 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 uh the US market.
Because the US is a genuine dynamic economy.
Uh uh Amer uh America uh, in a sense, the uh 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 uh that will that will come down uh the line.
And for 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.
Uh no, that's you'll you'll still have all those problems because as 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 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 uh President Clinton despicably tries to connect them to Timothy McVeigh.
He did it with Rush.
That was disgusting.
He's revived it 15 years on, and that's disgusting too.
Mark Stein Inforush on Open Line Friday, and uh we will talk about that and lots more as we take your calls.
1-800-282-2882.
Hey, great to 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 the poor boobs who's chosen to stick it out in the uh in the private sector as a guest host for the Excellence in Broadcasting uh Network, uh, and I'm here today.
And Rush returns on Monday.
Open line Friday, 1-800-282-2882.
A lot of uh interesting uh things going on.
I mentioned when we were talking about Rush's uh piece in the Wall Street Journal today, uh South Park, not South Park, the creators are f steaming mad about this, but uh Comedy Central getting cold feet after they got uh death threats and a caving in and censoring the South Park episode and censoring uh getting so intimidated, by the way, uh that they even uh 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 uh these guys had a rather cute, mild, modest joke about Mohammed in the show.
They make jokes about Jesus, they make jokes about everybody, uh, but they made a Mohammed joke, they immediately get death threats, and Comedy Central decides to censor the whole thing.
Uh interestingly, um ABC News has uh has uh the art reports that the army has disinvited Franklin Graham from speaking at the Pentagon's uh National Day of Prayer service.
Um I wonder how far we can go on uh on this sort of thing.
This is really the flip side, the flip side of of the demonization of the Tea Parties.
Uh that w well uh that uh uh in Comedy Central, the guys who congratulate themselves all the time on their on their bold, brave, transgressive comedy, they get a death threat, boom, they cave.
That's it.
Uh, everybody else just puts up with it.
If you write a play uh as uh 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 uh Catholics standing there with placards protesting the play.
Would he write a play about a gay Mohammed?
No, because he'd have a fine entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.
So this is like selective courage uh from from uh from the bold opinion makers uh in in uh in the United States.
How does the media report these things?
Now remember, every time there's like uh elephant dung smeared over the Virgin Mary or somebody with their crucifix in uh uh floating in a boulder year, and we're told that this is, you know, we 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 uh Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.
In other words, they uh 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.
Uh so again, it's this selective courage.
And the media uh like Comedy Central.
You know, they congratulate John Stewart speaks truth to power.
Uh and he's Mr. Big, bold, uh brave uh and all the rest of it.
Is John Stewart gonna do anything about his own network?
Uh his own network caving into explicit threats of murder and violence?
John Stewart, Mr. the guy from whom everybody, every young person in America gets his news, is he gonna deal with this?
His own networks craven uh wimpification in caving into an explicit threat of violence, or is he gonna do like the New York Times did?
Where you show how big and brave and bold you are uh by uh in instead of showing the Muslim scene, you show the Virgin Mary covered uh covered in elephant dung.
Uh I mean, this is this is uh the the in the Soviet era there was an old joke uh where the guy goes uh uh the guy goes uh the American says to the Russian guy, well, in the United States uh everybody is free to criticize our president.
Uh and the guy, the Russian guy says, Oh, it's the same uh here.
In the Soviet Union, everybody is free to criticize your president.
Uh that's now what we have uh in in uh in the media, at Comedy Central and in our newspapers, that everybody is free to criticize Christianity, Jews, and all the rest uh and that and that uh Islam is out of bounds, and that even in a story about Islamic censorship, uh you'll only get uh uh illustrations uh showing Christian type censorship.
This retreat, this cowardice, actually, is which is what it is, this explicit cowardice in the in the face of a real threat, uh, combined with the phony, the totally phony uh outrage over people who are not in the least bit violent,
uh, who in fact are doing like those Catholic protesters uh 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 uh the U.S. electorate, uh I do not know.
But the lesson of what happened at Kelmodi Central is don't look to these cardboard warriors to stand up for your real liberties, because they'll trade your liberties.
Uh if they're if they're getting a death threat, they'll trade your liberties for uh for the the transient security of a quiet life every time.
Uh so don't look to them to save real liberties.
The people actually who understand this are the ones at the Tea Parties, who understand that this relentless expansion of government is a threat to liberty.
Uh you cannot have a system where the government expands to the point where it can uh uh the the a guy in Washington can send an inspector to your cabin uh in in in in northern Maine and come in and look at what kind of lighting fixtures you have.
Uh you cannot have that level of expansion of government without a shrinkage of freedom.
Uh and that's the big point that the the Tea Party crowd get, that there is a price to be paid.
Uh 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 uh in uh European countries already.
America tops the list of individual charitable donations.
Um why?
Because obviously, when government expands to the point that it has in certain European countries, people don't have enough disposable income uh to make their own decisions about who they're gonna give to.
So they stop giving to charity or they decrease their contributions to charity.
But it goes beyond that as well, because uh effectively, once government reaches a certain size, you um reduce the space for private charities.
Uh so for example, if government does anything, why do we need why do we need charities?
So you see it already in the in the kind of government regulation of um, for example, adoption procedures.
So if uh if certain charities say, well, for religious reasons we'd be uncomfortable with uh recommending uh that um 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 off out of the adoption business, as has happened to the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom.
Uh and what that means then is that there's nothing left.
Uh 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 individuals not just individual liberty, uh, but for alternative sources of power and energy in society.
Uh and that is that is a serious business.
Uh it's not 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 if some federal employee wants to sit around the SEC office watching hardcore pornography all day.
But the way to look at big government uh versus small government is that it's really about uh small liberty versus big liberty.
And what could be more basic to society?
What could be more important than talking about that?
You David Brooks, David Brooks in the New York Times today, is yawning.
You say, Oh, I'm so weary by uh I'm so exhausted.
I I have I 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 ball.
He's fighting vainly the old ennui.
There is nothing more important.
There's nothing more fundamental to society, uh, than the size of the state.
Because the size of the state determines what's left for you.
That's why, uh that's why uh the um the United States uh 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 uh 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 exha uh introduced last week, the right to vacations, the right to foreign vacations, the right to room service.
Uh apparently they're going to have government paid vacations uh for for the elderly, the disabled, for young people between eighteen and twenty-five, because having a foreign vacation is now a human right.
No, those are not human rights.
Uh real human rights documents, whether you're talking about Magna Carta or the United States Constitution, are about restraining the state uh 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 uh in society uh today.
Uh 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 how are you?
What are you doing?
Lounging around uh your office watching uh watching hardcore pornography like uh healthy federal workers do all day long.
No, I 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 uh if I had a nice government job, that would work okay.
Oh, well, don't worry, they'll be governmentalizing the pornography interesty soon, and we'll all be able to get workers extras in their uh what they call it, small parts or whatever.
Anyway, uh K Kent, uh, you're not sitting around, you're in the private sector, and uh you you don't get to sit around watching porn.
No, no, we uh the interesting thing is if you're in the private sector and you do something like that.
Now I read in the article that uh one of these people has faced a two-week suspension.
Oh my.
Well, that gives him gives him more time at home to watch all that pornography.
Works out uh works out great for him.
Yeah, and but I think, you know, government workers, uh 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, uh 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 the insurance package.
Well, you know, you know, it's uh I have to be a bit cautious here because the 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 uh whatever uh deportment process or whatever, which takes fifteen years or whatever.
But so I have to be a bit cautious here about not fomenting armed insurrection against the government of the United States.
But you know, uh Joan Byers and Co back in the 60s like to uh deduct from their tax bill what they thought was going to fund the war, um the great uh war machine in Vietnam.
I certainly think it is not unreasonable for citizens of the United States to deduct uh to deduct the cost of all those uh taxpayer-funded computers and taxpayer-funded CDs that government workers use to watch hardcore pornography all day.
Because if you get a If if if hardcore pornography can't be left to the private sector, nothing, 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, uh, Kent, they have a situation where my website, for example, is blocked.
Ooh, as a hate site at certain companies.
Rush's website is blocked as ooh, that's a hate site at certain companies.
So 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 Rush Limbaugh.com, Rush Limbaugh.com, because it turned out that uh that congressional workers are going on Rush's website and checking it out every uh every ten minutes uh during the day.
Uh it's not like the SEC.
They the SEC they've no interest in keeping up with Rush, but they're uh they're they're watching the pawn instead.
But private uh private sector companies think nothing about imposing constraints on what you're allowed to see.
And 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 the most lurid of them.
Yeah, and then we get uh uh we get a supervisor, isn't that 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 you you should be grateful.
In the regulatory state, they will have supervisors in in the actual porn movie.
You'll be you'll be there'll be there'll be the porn star will be writhing around doing it, whatever it is porn stars do with multiple uh porn supporting extras, and there'll be a federal regulator standing over her, uh, 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.
Uh government if they're lucky, they could have a break every now and then like in the like at the uh 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, pack two.
You're going to 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, give the actors a 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 uh in just a moment.
Hey, let's quickly take Nadsey in Fort College, Colorado.
Uh 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 US Constitution, since they seem to have no regard for it.
I've done a little homework and I'm finding the answer's no.
I haven't completely validated their answer yet, but Well well, you know what it is, Nancy.
They've boiled down the United States Constitution to exactly uh basically one line.
They boiled it down to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which they argue uh justifies everything they're doing.
And and until uh the Supreme Court reigns in uh the Commerce Clause, because if the Commerce Clause can penalize supposedly freeborn US citizens for not buying a government uh not 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 the third.
Uh so if the Commerce Clause can do that, it can do anything.
The Commerce Clause becomes, in effect, a one-sentence Soviet Union.
Uh and uh and there's no point to that at all.
Mark Stein in Farush, Mordecan.
Mark Stein in uh Farush.
Hey, I mentioned I was speaking in Ulster County, New York, even though I'm in non-compliance with the New York State Border Compliance, and I got all these emails saying, Well, where are you speaking?
And I don't I don't know to be honest, but uh but look for the SWAT team staked ra uh around the perimeter.
That'll be the giveaway.
And also people asked where I was speaking in New Hampshire, uh 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 uh 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