All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
December 22, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in.
No supporting paperwork whatsoever.
I'll be here tomorrow.
We're going to have Best of Rush on Christmas Eve and then for your Christmas Day listening pleasure, three hours of EIB approved Christmas music.
Tis the season.
Tis the season at EIB.
But even though it's Christmas, government goes on.
The lame duck session goes on.
Obama rebound analysis, as the Associated Press is calling it.
What is interesting about this, the so-called rebound analysis, is that this big signature thing of it is that Obama has signed on to the Bush tax cuts.
We've got the Bush tax cuts for another two years.
And by the way, we wouldn't otherwise be calling them the Bush tax cuts.
We would be calling them the Obama tax increases, the Obama tax increases.
So instead, we're going to keep the tax rates the same for two years.
And by the way, this is the insane level of debate in the United States of America at the moment.
Right now, the economy is moribund.
Businesses are sitting on, by some estimates, $2 trillion worth of cash.
Why are they sitting on $2 trillion worth of cash?
Because they don't know what the economic climate is going to be in the United States because the rules are unclear.
And if you don't know what the rules are, you sit on your money because you never know when you're going to need a big chunk of change in a hurry.
You don't know if the tax rates are uncertain, if the regulatory environment is uncertain.
You sit on a big chunk of change because you never know when you're going to need it.
And so all this talk, all this talk months and end, oh, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts will be expiring.
Why do you think people don't want to grow the economy?
Why do you think people don't want to hire?
Why do you think people don't want to open new branch offices?
Because you don't know what the rules are.
People invest and do business in markets where they know what the rules are.
That's why nobody wants to open a store in southern Sudan because the Janjaweed will ride in and machete all your employees to death.
You want a stable business environment where you know what the rules are.
And the Obama administration has made the rules uncertain.
Now to add to all that, three people, three bureaucrats, unaccountable.
You can't go to any polling station and vote them out.
Three bureaucrats have decided that what this country needs is federal regulation of the internet.
The internet still seems to just about function, just about function.
So that's all the more reason to bring it under the control of the federal bureaucracy.
After all, if we can have federal regulation of grade school bake sales, why should you be able to open up your computer and send an email without that being federally regulated?
As I mentioned in the last hour, we're going to have federal regulation of apps.
Federal regulation of apps.
Do you realize how insane a pretty pass this country has come to when you cannot even get an app from the app store at Apple or wherever you get apps without that now coming under the control of federal bureaucrats?
People think there is no cost to this, but it already costs.
Federal regulation already costs 10% of America's GDP.
Almost everything you want to do now comes under the regulation of some bureaucrat.
In the immortal words of Pete Stark, one of the emirs of incumbent, returned to office on November the 2nd.
He's been there since 1973.
And he was asked while he was running for his 19th term in Congress whether there was anything that the federal government couldn't do.
And he responded that the federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.
And he's right.
He's right.
Because if the federal government can regulate your app, there is nothing that the federal government can't do.
And that's why these bills are 2,000 pages.
They're 2,000 pages because they're no longer laws.
A law is a relatively simple piece of legislation.
But when you are basically loosing up just a big bunch of federal bureaucrats to regulate different citizens in different ways according to different activities, then there is no law.
You're in a land beyond law.
And hyper-regulation is a form of tyranny.
So we do not need the FCC to regulate the internet.
We need to abolish the FCC.
People talk about how are we going to get out of this multi-trillion dollar hole.
A good way to start, a good way to start, would be to abolish every agency beginning with the letter F, because there is way too much federal regulation in the United States of America.
And all that means, by the way, is that laws are no longer made by lawmakers, but they're just made by people you don't know and people you can't vote out and people who are not accountable to the people's representatives.
Do you remember Charlie Wrangell at his press conference a couple of weeks ago and he was asked an interviewer pointed out that if an ordinary citizen had done what he'd done, they'd have thrown the book at that citizen.
If you're an ordinary citizen and you don't declare rental income on your rental property in the Dominican Republic, the IRS will throw the book at you.
But instead, he just gets off with a little bit of censure from his fellow congressmen.
And an interviewer asked him and said, if it had been any average American citizen, they'd have had the book thrown at them.
And he said, quote, I don't deal in average American citizens, unquote.
And I only wish that were true, because the reality is that our legislators don't deal in average citizens.
They leave it to the FCC and OSHA and every other of these alphabet soup acronyms to deal with American citizens in increasingly unequal ways.
Charlie Wrangell votes the bill and then doesn't care what's in it.
Everything can be left to the agency of this, the board of that, the commission of the other, all manned by millions and millions of bureaucrats whose role is to determine arbitrarily but authoritatively which of the multiple categories of unequal before the law, second class, third class, fourth class citizenship that you happen to fall into.
And this is an assault on popular sovereignty.
When the FCC can basically start regulating the internet to provide, to require different providers to provide more access for this or more access for that, they're not, as they say, preserving, preserving the internet or maintaining the neutrality of the internet.
They're distorting the internet from what has made it a success so far in that unlike the dying gatekeeper media, unlike the dying newspaper industry, unlike the dying network news TV shows,
this is something where The market speaks, you find an audience, you can reach your audience, the audience can find you, and the government doesn't interject itself between you and that audience and impose a vast regulatory cost on it.
So if you subscribe for your internet service provider, that's going to be going up.
Eventually, they'll be charging you for emails.
I mean, the way to look at this is to take any government bureaucracy and think, does it just stick to what it was set up to do?
Or does it metastasize and eventually expand and explode and regulate everything it can get its hands on?
In California, the health administration in the state of California, now this is a bankrupt state.
California used to be the golden state.
Now it's the Folden state.
It's going out of business.
California did this to itself.
Nobody can do business in California.
The costs are too high.
So businesses are fleeing California.
What business is still in California?
The pornography industry.
They still make pornographic movies in California.
I don't know why.
I guess they need good weather for the exterior shots or whatever it is.
So they're going to regulate pornography in California under health and safety at work.
So they're going to require that on California pornographic movie stats, they observe the same hygiene standards as hospitals.
Actually, just to go back, just to go back to what Steve from Oklahoma was saying in our last hour, I've been in a couple of hospitals in the province of Quebec that I wish would bring themselves up to the hygiene standards of the average California pornographic movie shoot, by the way.
Because if you look at the levels of disease of C. difficile and all these other infections they've got going around there, I would be very grateful if they had the pristine hygiene standards of a California porn shoot.
But anyway, in California, it's the other way around.
They're going to require California porn shoots to bring themselves up to the standard.
So I don't know what that means.
I don't know whether the participants are all going to be having to wear surgical masks.
They called in a porn movie star.
This is a bureaucratic agency in California.
They called in this big porn movie star to talk to her about the health situation on California pornographic movie shoots.
And she's describing some group sex scenes she put into.
She was part of.
There were like, I forget how many there were.
There were like 67 guys or whatever in the group sex scene.
And the bureaucrats, you can see the light bulbs go off in their head.
They're thinking, wow, maybe we could have a state regulation capping the maximum number of performers in a group sex scene.
You know, this is the Health and Safety Administration of California.
And they're thinking, who needs Debbie Does Dallas?
You know, maybe if we do Debbie Does the Sacramento branch of the OSHA office, it would make a much better movie.
This is the insanity.
State regulation of pornography, federal regulation of the internet.
America will die.
And that's not an exaggeration.
America will embalm itself in regulations.
The most important thing you could do for liberty in this society is start dismantling and putting these bureaucratic agencies out of business.
There is no need for an FCC.
And that is why they need to move on and annex new areas of your life to interfere in.
I think if the FCC want to have a fight on this, then we should have a showdown.
And the FCC is the issue here.
The issue is not the Internet.
The Internet works fine.
The FCC doesn't work fine.
So the Internet shouldn't be the issue.
The FCC is the issue.
And that's what conservatives, that's the ground conservatives should stand on.
It's the FCC that needs to justify itself, not the internet, which is one of the great success stories of the modern age.
Mark Stein, Infor Rush, Christmas at the EIB Network.
Lots more still to come.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein, in for Rush on the EIB network.
Let's go to Anna Marie in Noblesville, Indiana.
Anna Marie, thanks for waiting.
Where does Anna Marie come on Russia's list of favorite ladies' names?
Oh, Wayne of number one.
Oh, it's up in the top ten.
Anna Marie, I think you're at hit position number seven, somewhere like that on Russia's list of favorite female names.
That's good to know.
And that's Anna Marie, by the way.
Anna, just Anna and just Marie don't make it at all.
But Anna Marie.
It has to be Anna Marie.
My mother insisted on that.
Yeah, that is lovely.
Mellifluous name.
What a mellifluous name.
Thank you.
Thank you for.
And what a mellifluous town.
Nobelsville, Indiana.
The noble people.
Yeah, the noble people of Noblesville.
Great to have you with us, Anna Marie.
Thank you, and thanks for taking my call.
I want to tell you how much I enjoy your commentary, especially the double entendres.
They are a riot.
I've been staying away from them.
I didn't do any money shot jokes in my little riff on the California pornographic movie industry being fair, being state-regulated.
I stayed away from all the double entendres.
Well, today, that's my opinion.
And I think you would make a great press secretary in 2012.
Oh, what fun.
Okay, I'll be, if I need a government job, I will bear that one in mind.
I hope so.
Mark, I would like to hear your thoughts on the $1 trillion Christmas gift the Republicans gave to Obama under the guise of unemployment compensation.
Well, this is the extension of the unemployment insurance, which I think in fairness is only going to call, this is the way people talk now.
They say it only costs an additional $160 billion.
Because when you're the brokest country in history, eventually you're liberated and you don't have to worry about little rinky-dink sums like $160 billion, because it doesn't make any difference.
In the context of the hole you're in, this is just some little new pimple that you've dug at the bottom of it.
But what's wrong about this is that this does nothing.
This does nothing for the economy.
All the evidence shows, and this is the tragedy of the United States, by the way, there's nothing new about any of this.
The Europeans did this stuff, and then even they figured it out that if you have one year of unemployment insurance or you have six months of unemployment insurance or you have two years of unemployment insurance, it doesn't make any difference.
People don't start looking for a job until they get the penultimate check.
So in effect, whether you've got six-month unemployment insurance, one-year unemployment insurance, two-year unemployment insurance, or now, as in the United States, three years, people don't start looking for work until the penultimate check.
And then in that last month, when they know the money's going to run out, they try to find a job.
And that's why the Europeans, who all had these, often had lavish, not as lavish as this, but a lot of them had two-year unemployment insurance stints, began reeling the mag.
The Scandinavians did, the Germans did, the British did.
All this stuff has been tried.
It's failed everywhere it's tried.
And perhaps the most stupid remark made in the last several weeks goes to Nancy Pelosi, who says that unemployment insurance is the way to stimulate the economy.
In that case, why don't they just wait till we're all unemployed and then give us unemployment insurance till our 137th birthday and the economy will be going gangbusters.
This was unnecessary.
It was wasteful, but the Republicans felt that in the bigger scheme of things, they might as well string along with this in return for that.
I don't know whether they should have done that.
I don't think I would have done that.
I think it damages people.
The big problem with welfare is not that it's a waste of money, but it's a waste of people.
When you've got healthy people sitting around just taking a government check for three years, it's the waste of money, yes, but it's also the waste of human lives that is the great tragedy of that system.
My mom was going to run out.
She had been on unemployment for two years, and she said, Oh my, I'll have to go out and see if I can get a part-time job.
Yeah, yeah, that's and that's that's the mentality.
Well, that's exactly the same.
Wherever it's been tried, wherever it's been tried, in the last month, just before it runs out, people start looking for work.
And the reason the economy, the reason we have this 10% unemployment here, is because the government is making the cost of hiring people expensive.
If we had less government, it wouldn't be so expensive to hire people.
Basically, when you take somebody who earns $40,000 a year and maybe has another $10,000 worth of benefits, so in other words, she gets about $50,000, but you have to pay maybe another $25,000 to the government for the privilege of giving Anna Marie or whoever a $50,000 job.
So the government, in effect, imposes like a 35% surcharge on the cost of hiring people.
So if we didn't have $160 billion unemployment programs, we'd have far fewer people unemployed.
The government makes the cost of hiring people too expensive.
That's one reason why we've got 30 million or whatever it is illegal immigrants in this country, because it's a lot cheaper to hire somebody illegally than it is to hire a law-abiding U.S. citizen once the government has increased the cost of hiring that person, Anna Marie.
It's a dilemma.
It's not a dilemma.
It's actually very easy.
If we had less of this stuff, we'd have lower unemployment and we'd have a much healthier economy.
But I hope your friend has better luck in the year ahead.
And by the way, it is the mentality, but you should encourage that friend of yours.
Just say it's a waste of time sitting around getting a government check for doing nothing.
You'll feel far better.
It corrodes the soul in the end.
It corrodes the integrity of a human being.
So you tell your friend to get out there and start looking for work that gives her life meaning and value rather than just taking the government check.
Thanks for your call, Anna Marie, and a very mellifluous Merry Christmas to somebody on the top 10 list of Russia's favorite female names.
1-800-282-2882, talking about rolling back the big government state.
That's the challenge when the 112th Congress breezes into town in January, rolling back the big government state in the United States of America.
Mark Stein, Infra Rush on the EIB network.
Great to be with you this Christmas season.
I'll be here tomorrow, and then we will have a best of Rush on Christmas Eve.
And don't forget, if you go to rushlimbore.com, you can keep in touch with all Russia's The Best Bits of Rush and Rush 24-7 and all the other stuff.
It'll almost be like as if he's here.
And you don't have to put up with the lame duck sessions from various guest hosts.
And don't forget, you can also get the new Rush Limbaugh app for your iPhone and iPad.
It was released 24 hours ago, and it's already listed as the number one most popular app in Apple's news category.
CNN is second, Fox News is third, and the New York Times is fourth.
How about that for actually a hip?
I should have done that in reverse order.
New York Times is number four, Fox News is third, CNN is second, and here comes America's most popular app in the news category, and that is the new Rush Limbaugh app after just 24 hours.
And with it, you can watch Rush live on the DittoCam from your iPhone or your iPad.
You can see Rush deliver his morning update in video and see a lot of other videos that are posted on RushLimbaugh.com.
As far as I know, is this right?
You can actually, you can also see the clips from Rush's TV show in the 90s via the Rush Limbaugh app on your iPhone and iPad.
I think that's true as well, isn't it?
I don't want to get into too many of the technicalities here, but I believe that is the case.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
It's been instantly confirmed.
You can also listen to audio live or on demand.
You can read transcripts.
You can email Rush.
You can do everything you can do at Rush Limbaugh 24-7, but you can now do it on your iPhone or your iPad.
So just go to rushlimbaugh.com or go to the Apple store and search for Rush, and you can download Apple's number one news app, the Rush Limbaugh app, direct from Apple or get more information at rushlimbaugh.com.
I mentioned this Mignon Clyburn, who's one of the three people, three people who decided in defiance of a court and defiance of congressional elected representatives that they were going to regulate the internet.
And I'd said I didn't know who this Mignon Clyburn was.
And it turns out she's the daughter of a Congressman Jim Clyburn, who we got into trouble for when Rush was doing all his driving Miss Nancy stuff.
So I'm now reviving just for Sheila, a little Christmas card for Sheila Jackson Lee.
If you're out there, Sheila, Merry Christmas.
We're digging up the most racist, racist, racist controversy of the year just for you because we're not just doing jokes about Jim Clyburn now.
We've moved on to do jokes about his daughter.
That's how racist we are.
Mignon Clyburn is Jim Clyburn's daughter.
It's like the House of Lords of bureaucrats now.
That's what this country's come down to.
And Commissioner Clyburn, not to be confused with Congressman Clyburn, I'm going from the official biography here.
Commissioner Clyburn has a long history of public service and dedication to the public interest.
Do you know what that means?
Dedication to the public interest?
It means you've been paying for this woman all your life.
Miss Clyburn, this is the years of expertise she brings to regulating your internet and to regulating your brand new Rush Limbaugh app, which will be a federally regulated app unless this nonsense is thrown out.
Miss Clyburn, this is the years of experience she brings to her job.
Miss Clyburn served as the chair of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
There's so many regulatory utility commissioners.
They have a national association.
I don't know what they do.
Do they go to Florida and play golf?
Do they like take a big annual convention in Vegas?
Do they go to the Virgin Islands?
Do they go and meet the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners from Fiji or Papua New Guinea?
And they have an international convention of regulatory commissioners.
And that's right.
The breakout session, the breakout session at the National Convention of Regulatory Commissioners.
And before that, by the way, oh, she served on the audit committee of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners Commission.
And Commissioner Clyburn is also a former chair of the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commission.
So they don't just have a national association, they have regional associations as well.
She worked her way up.
She probably just started as a former chair of the Municipal Association of Regulatory Commissioners, but she soon worked her way up to a state-to-state association, then the regional association, and then the chair of the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners.
And by the way, who regulates the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners?
What regulatory agency does the regulatory commissioners come under?
But anyway, now she is one of the three people in the United States of America who has decided that it is time to regulate the internet.
Well, her experience with communications is that she doesn't need experience with communications.
She's experienced at regulating.
If you regulate one thing, you can regulate something else.
If you regulate California, Mr. Snadley is looking at this the wrong way.
He thinks that you need to demonstrate some insight into the industry you're regulating.
No, no, no.
You need to understand how to regulate.
If you can regulate bait sales, if you can regulate California porn movie shoots, if you can regulate anything else in this country, you're certainly capable of regulating the internet.
What matters is experience in regulation.
I'm sure you can take a master's degree in regulation.
People, I'm sure, I'm sure I don't want to make it sound as if the woman is totally unqualified.
I'm sure she's got a bachelor's in regulatory regulation from some eminent educational institution.
But Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner Clyburn, is the daughter of Congressman Clyburn.
It's the House of Lords of Bureaucrats.
That's what the Republic has come down to after two and a quarter centuries.
It ought to embarrass America.
The only regulatory agency is the one that I suggested to a listener when I was here a couple of weeks ago, the ANC, which is not the African National Congress anymore.
It's the Alliance of Non-Compliance.
When I was here back in the fall of the summer, and I was stunned because I'd received the notification from the New York State Bureau of Compliance that told me I was in non-compliance with the Bureau of Compliance.
And the fine for that is $14,000.
The fine said at $14,000.
So we wrote back and said, what exactly did we do to be in non-compliance?
And they sat on our letter for like seven weeks and then wrote back and said, we'll look into that.
But in the meantime, in the seven weeks it's taken us to respond to you, the interest on your $14,000 fine for being in non-compliance with the Bureau of Compliance now means you owe us $27,000.
So that's the skill you need.
This is what I'm sure Mignon Clyburn, when she's going to be regulating all these internet service providers, will be able to provide that level of scrutiny.
But this is the death of the Republic, actually, this micro-regulatory state.
It's a tragedy.
It's a tragedy because it means every industry, no matter how dynamic it is when it starts, eventually seizes up.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, said it and said it best.
Quote, there was a time in Europe in which the law, as well as the consent of the people, clothed kings with a power almost without limits.
But almost never did it happen that they made use of it, unquote.
And he's right, he's right, because the king was an absolute tyrant in theory, but in practice, he was in his palace hundreds of miles away.
And, you know, once in a while, he might send some pantaloon flunky prancing into your dooryard every half decade or so to give you a hard time.
But for the most part, you just got on with your life relatively unscathed.
And then Tocqueville added this.
He said, quote, although the entire government of the empire was concentrated in the hands of the emperor alone, the details of social life and of individual existence escaped his control.
But what would happen, said Tocqueville, if administrative capability were to evolve to make it possible to subject all the king's subjects to the details of a uniform set of regulations?
And that has happened now.
Thanks to computer technology and a lot of other things, it's easier than ever to subject all the king's subjects to a uniform set of regulations.
And that's what Minon Clyburn and the other courtiers of the vast micro-regulatory state are planning to do to you.
This is a bridge too far.
We ought to be standing up and saying if they're going to have to prize the internet from our cold-dead mouse pad before we surrender federal regulation over the internet, over apps, over email, over one of the last dynamic sectors in what used to be a thriving capitalist economy.
So this is not a minor thing.
We'll talk about that and we'll talk about the new census and where people are moving to and the Obama rebound, the alleged Obama rebound.
We'll get into all that and lots more and your calls.
Straight ahead, 1-800-282-2882-Mark Stein infraus.
Santa Claus is coming to town.
Christmas on the EIB network.
Let's go to Jeff in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Jeff, great to have you on the show with us.
Oh, Jeff, Jeff isn't there.
Let's go to Brent then in London, Ontario.
Ooh, I wonder if this is going to be one of these savage Canadian Rottweilers.
Chairman.
Absolutely not, Mark.
Absolutely not.
What a pleasure.
Oh, pleasure to have you.
I was in London last month, in fact.
So I did miss you.
I heard you were coming to town, and I got snowed in.
Oh, you missed a great show.
In fact, you couldn't get, you said you were snowed in, you couldn't get to see me.
A lady came to see me from Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, California.
She took a plane from Santa Barbara to LAX, a plane from LAX to Detroit, and then she drove all the way from Detroit, got a rental car and drove all the way from Detroit to London.
And you lived three blocks away and you couldn't come and see her.
Yeah, too busy shoveling.
So nuts to you.
Okay, what's your book?
Yeah, okay.
Merry Christmas to you too, Brent.
Well, I listen every day.
I have been for many, many years, and that guy, that's Steve from Toronto, just prompted me to call.
I just have to make a plea to all Americans to fight Obamacare with your last breath.
Right.
You buy into this.
Now, that poor guy, third generation propagandist.
You grow up through the Canadian healthcare or the education system and then put the CBC when you're sitting around the dinner table.
And this just in.
America sucks.
Breaking news.
Canada's healthcare is great.
Right.
That was one of the leaked WikiLeak cables.
Some guy at the U.S. Embassy at Ottawa saying, ooh, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a little bit anti-American.
What do you need a professional diplomat to tell that?
You know, you walk into any hospital in Ontario and there's baked sales and they're selling quilted jeans and patches on your jeans trying to raise money to replace the 25-year-old X-ray machine.
So yeah, we're just great up here.
Yeah, the problem with the Canadian, as you say, is that people have been brainwashed.
This is the only way.
The affairs, Mark, they need the blue pill.
Exactly.
And unfortunately, the blue pill, there's a two-year wait list for that to get it up in Canada.
Well, he was talking about anecdotal evidence.
Unfortunately, every Canadian family has tragic anecdotal evidence of a family member who waited.
Now, hey, we may have the best hospice care in the world.
We will get you pumped up and you'll be comfortable, but we won't treat you.
No, and you make a good point, by the way, about anecdotal evidence, because actually medical care is anecdotal.
Absolutely.
If my son's sick, I care about my son.
I don't want statistics showing a life expectancy for this and life expectancy for that.
Healthcare is anecdotal.
It's my body.
If I've got a problem in my kidney, my kidney isn't an anecdote.
My kidney is 100% of the story as far as I'm concerned.
It's against the law in Canada to try to save your own life.
Right.
People need to understand that.
This is draconian what we have up here.
It's not civilized.
No.
You can go pick out 100 different cereals, but when it comes to living or dying, that's it.
And if you recall, during the Vancouver Olympics, the government of British Columbia announced that it would be putting all elective health procedures on hold during the Olympics because they didn't want a big-time skier from Germany or Russia or whatever being taken sick and being put on a Canadian wait list.
So the only way they would have been able to treat people during the Vancouver Olympics is if they told all the taxpayers of British Columbia who pay for this system, sorry, your elective operations are going to have to wait.
You can elect to have the operation, but we're not going to elect to give it to you.
And that is at the heart of the Canadian system, that you're accepting.
And this is why Sarah Palin is right about death panels, because you're accepting the right of a government bureaucrat to have jurisdiction over your body parts.
And that is what is at the heart of that problem, Brent.
So I know there are good doctors and nurses in London, Ontario, but I also know that when you're told you're going to have to wait six months to see a specialist, then the best thing to do is to hit the highway and drive across to Port Huron or down to Detroit or wherever you can go, where if you walk into a hospital, the thing they tell you is not that a bureaucrat has ruled that there's an 18-month wait for that.
Thank you very much for your call, Brent, in London, Ontario.
A different perspective.
You know, this is important, by the way.
I get very worried when I hear Republicans saying maybe we can work with Obamacare.
Maybe if we amend it at the margins and all the rest of it.
No, you drive a stake through the heart of it.
This is the bureaucratization of healthcare isn't even like the bureaucratization of the California porn movie industry or the bureaucratization of the grade school bake sale and all the other nonsense we're seeing.
This is the line that when you cross this, it's very difficult to have genuinely conservative government ever again because you change a citizen into a subject.
When a man has a medical problem, like these poor Quebecers that I mentioned here last year who have go into the toilet 12 times a night and they're told they have to keep going to the toilet 12 times a night rather than have a simple 20 minute procedure.
They've got to keep going to the toilet 12 times a night for three years because a government bureaucrat has told them that's the way it's going to be.
When a man accepts the bureaucracy's jurisdiction over his bladder, he is not a citizen but a subject.
And that lesson should have been settled in 1776.
And that is why Obamacare is fundamentally incompatible with the American idea.
Mark Stein, InforRush, Christmas at the EIB network.
More to come.
Mark Stein at the EIB network, sitting in for Rush.
What happened to the Christmas music?
That's non-seasonal.
That's totally non-seasonal.
That's completely nonsense.
Oh, here we go.
That's more like it.
This is appropriate.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proclaimed a state of emergency in six California counties.
A state of seasonal emergency in six California counties.
I don't know why.
Is that the unregulated pornography shoots rampaging out of control?
I don't know.
It's the unregulated rain.
That's the point.
As soon as we get the climate change regulated, then we won't be having to have these states of emergency anymore.
By the way, I got an email saying I'd dissed the porn star who testified to the Safety and Health Standards Board.
I just sort of implied she was some nickel and dime porn actress, but in fact, she's one of the most eminent pornography actresses, Madeline Hernandez.
And she testified that she had done a group sex scene with 75 men.
And you could see all the bureaucrats thinking, should we cap the number of group sex scene participants at 60 men?
You know, which I think would be helpful.
▲
Export Selection