All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
December 30, 2010, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchor man sitting in, Mark Stein.
Honored to be here.
No supporting paperwork, but under the terms of the DREAM Act, I do get to attend the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies at the in-state tuition rate.
We're coming to you live from Ice Station EIB, the newest EIB studio in far northern Grafton County, New Hampshire, the workhorse of the Granite States Northern Forest.
This is about as far as you can go and still be in the United States.
And if it works well, maybe for Monday we'll sneak across the border into the province of Quebec and perform an illegal hate crime by broadcasting the show live from the Dominion of Canada.
It all seemed to go well yesterday.
I mean, technically, of course, content-wise, I thought the show was pretty much a bust, but that's my fault.
But it was a technological marvel given that communications-wise, electrical-wise, telephonic-wise, Grafton County is pretty much like Baghdad outside the green zone.
So we're going to try and do as technologically efficient a program today.
Mr. Snerdley is at EIB Southern Command.
Mike is in Bloomberg-devastated New York, holding the entire operation together.
So if it all goes down, here's my disco mega mix version of Marshmallow World all fired up, ready to go in case we need to cut to music for an hour or three.
New York is like that film The Day After.
I don't know where that's what it was called.
I think The Day After with Randy Quaid, in which I don't want to give away any plot here, but a speech on climate change by Dick Cheney brings on flash freezing of the entire Western Hemisphere, including Manhattan.
And what happened to New York is like a variation on that, where basically a speech on trans fats by Nanny Bloomberg brought on the flash freezing of Manhattan and the outer boroughs.
And they've still got tremendous problems down there.
And an interesting glimpse of the difference between big government's ambitions and its capabilities.
So we'll get into a bit of that.
Tomorrow, by the way, a best of rush for New Year's Eve.
I'm going to be here Monday, and Rush returns live on Tuesday to kick off a brand new year of excellence in broadcasting.
But for our last live show of the year, we are offering an exciting new experimental format to guest host Thursday.
Not just one guest host, but two, because the great Walter E. Williams, the guest host of guest hosts, will join me later on today's show and we're going to talk about his new book, The Guest Host of Guest Hosts.
Walter E. Williams will join me later.
Exciting news: the White House is taking steps to prevent photos of a shirtless President Obama on vacation in Hawaii getting out to the outside world.
They can't provide Mr. Snerdley because, like, two years ago, they were thrilled by the pictures of the shirtless President Obama.
Do you remember that?
They were all on all the magazine covers.
His beautifully sculpted torso emerging from the Hawaiian surf like hitherto undiscovered Pacific atolls emerging from the seas after he'd fulfilled his promise to lower the ocean levels.
And at that time, Barack Obama shirtless was all over the magazine covers.
But now, apparently, it's the most serious thing.
It's far more serious than this WikiLeaks stuff, which Robert Gibbs says, you know, the global superpower, doesn't matter if you leak all our diplomatic and military secrets.
What's the big deal?
But you can't leak.
You're not allowed to leak any pictures of President Obama shirtless.
They don't want that.
Apparently, that's not the image they're trying to project of the president anymore.
No shirt, no shoes, no stimulus.
He's going to keep his shirt on.
America has lost its shirt, but Barack Obama still has his shirt.
And what's the bumper sticker say?
Shirt happens.
That's President Obama.
Shirt happens.
So he's going to be keeping his shirt on.
Speaking of fabulously hot, fabulously hot bodies, today is the start of the Saudi Arabian Most Beautiful Goat of the Year competition.
Oh, no, actually, yesterday it was.
I don't know why we were wasting our time dealing with snow-stricken New York when it was the first day of the Saudi Arabian Most Beautiful Goat of the Year competition beginning in Mecca.
The Fawzi Al-Subi says that over 170 goats are competing this year for the coveted title of Most Beautiful Goat of the Year.
I think I mentioned this last year, but my very favorite of the Saudi Arabian Most Beautiful Goat of the Year winners in recent years, my favorite is the 2008 Most Beautiful Goat Award, who was a Damascene goat.
Beautiful Damascene goat with really cute ears.
And the beautiful Reuters had a beautiful picture of this goat with all the Saudi men standing around, really, you know, admiring, looking at this goat the way the way Julian Assange looks at Swedish women, or the way Julian Assange used to look at Swedish women before they arrested him for whatever it was, not wearing a condom.
But anyway, this goat, this Damascene goat, these Saudi guys are certainly giving her the eye.
She is one smoking hot goat, a Damascene goat by the name of Car.
Car, Q A H R. Baby, you can drive my car, as the goat herds of Riyadh like to say.
So if we get any late-breaking developments on the Most Beautiful Goat of the Year competition in Saudi Arabia, we will certainly bring it to you.
There she is, Miss Beautiful Saudi Goat of the Year.
It's a far more wholesome competition than what we decadent infidels do, putting our ladies into swimsuits.
I don't know what they do for the talent round, actually.
I think certainly this Damascene goat could, I'm confident, would certainly be capable of twirling a bat on while tap dancing to what would she be, I don't know what she'd be tap dancing to out in Riyadh.
Probably Maca.
I don't think the goat has to do an essay contest, but I do think they have to twirl the baton and tap dance to MacArthur Park or whatever it is.
Anyway, we will keep you in touch with the goat competition.
Now, the snow, the snow story yesterday.
The New York Post has an incredible story today.
Yesterday, I was going on about the Bloomberg and the failed cleanup in New York.
How pathetic it was.
Not just pathetic, but a total failure of government.
We don't really need government to do 90% of the stuff it claims to do.
We don't need it to do 90% of the stuff it regulates, 90% of the stuff it sticks its nose into.
But it would be nice.
It would be nice when you get a big snowfall if they could just do a little bit of snow clearing so that you're capable of getting out of your house, driving to work, and doing your job and doing your bit to keep a first world economy functioning.
But they couldn't do that in New York City.
In Mayor Bloomberg's New York, they couldn't do that.
And there were a lot of excuses offered.
And I got email stuff after the show from various websites on the pansy left.
By the way, by the way, the pansy left, that's not a cheap insult.
That's a literary quotation.
George Orwell, the great George Orwell, used to call him the Pansy Left.
And so that's a literary quotation.
I mentioned that if you happen to be that guy on MSNBC who didn't know who C.S. Lewis was when Sarah Palin said she liked to read C.S. Lewis.
And who was the guy?
What was the guy's name?
Richard Wolfe on MSNBC was sneering at Sarah Palin because he had no idea that C.S. Lewis wrote anything other than those Narnia books.
So in other words, this is, by the way, is how the Pansy Left thinks.
The proof of Sarah Palin's stupidity is that she cites authors that they haven't read.
So ipso facto, Sarah Palin must be totally stupid if an esteemed commentator on MSNBC has never heard of the authors she cited.
That's how stupid Sarah Palin is.
This is the way the pansy left think.
Anyway, the pansy left were mocking me for what I was saying on the show yesterday.
Oh, this guy Stein on the Rush Limbaugh show was complaining because they hadn't cleared up the snow in New York on his time schedule.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
It turns out it's not that.
It turns out it's not that.
From the New York Post, the sanitation department's slow snow cleanup was a budget protest.
Selfish sanitation department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts, a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency service vehicles, the Post had learned.
Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and the city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions and budget cuts.
This is just so we understand what the New York Post is saying here, the sanitation department, the department that is supposed to remove the snow in the case of a snowfall in New York, deliberately sabotaged the snow removal.
This is your government public sector union at work here, folks.
They deliberately sabotage the snow removal to protest budget cuts and demotions in the department.
Oh, well, what's the big deal?
You know, there's no better time to hold a protest than when you have a big snowfall.
I mentioned this story yesterday.
A baby had to be delivered inside the lobby of a Brooklyn apartment building because despite repeated calls to 911, first responders, first responders couldn't get to her for nine hours.
The baby's mother is a 22-year-old college senior now recovering at hospital.
Her newborn baby was pronounced dead 10 hours after the first 911 call from what the New York Daily News describes as the bloody vestibule on Brooklyn Avenue in Crown Heights.
No one could get to her because Crown Heights was not plowed.
And we now learn that this was not because of meteorological devastation, but because a diseased, depraved, corrupt, decadent public sector union decided to use the snowfall to protest an attempted rollback at its disgusting, bloated, unaffordable, kleptocrat privileges.
In other words, this baby is dead because of the sanitation department of the city of New York.
Yvonne Freeman, 75, is dead because of the sanitation department of the city of New York.
She also woke up, having trouble breathing, called 911, but first responders couldn't get through because the sanitation department to protest that some of its perks and privileges were having to be rolled back because, in case they hadn't noticed, there's been a little itsy-bitsy bit of an economic downturn the last couple of years.
The sanitation department decided to use this snowfall as an opportunity to demonstrate its political muscle.
So they demonstrated their political muscle, and this newborn baby is dead in Brooklyn.
And Yvonne Freeman, 75, is dead.
And they're dead because of the New York City Sanitation Department.
This is a fascinating lesson, not just in the incompetence of big government, but in what happens when bloated, depraved public sector unions grow so big that not even the minimal civic decencies can be expected of them anymore.
We'll talk about that in the hours ahead.
It is also the last live show of the year.
And as I mentioned, Walter Williams will be joining us.
But we'll be looking back at some of the events of this year too.
But I also want to look ahead as to what we really need to do to address some of the big structural problems of which New York City and its incompetent mayor and its depraved sanitation department are such a fine example.
Some of the structural problems that the United States of America faces in the years ahead.
But we'll look back at 2010 and ahead to 2011.
And if you have some solutions for these structural problems, by the way, so it's not all doom and gloom as we ring out the old, but we also ring in the new with some optimistic, perky can-do solutions, because that's the American way before we got seized up by the New York City Sanitation Department.
If you've got some can-do solutions, we'll get to those two.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein in for rush on the last EIB live Rush Limbaugh Show of the Year.
Mark Stein in for rush, the last live Rush Limbaugh show of the year.
The year began with the amazing election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, which was just on the anniversary of the eve of Barack Obama's first anniversary in office.
And it ended with this so-called lame duck session in which Senator Brown went from being the hero of the Massachusetts election,
the man who snaffled away Ted Kennedy's seat from the Democratic Party, into a guy who morphed by the end of the year into the usual sort of reach across the aisle type and had passed a bunch of this stuff with the help of various other moderate Republicans to lard up the lame duck session and make it what the president called the most productive lame duck session in history.
And it's an interesting lesson that in the gray morning after the electoral hopes of the night before.
What I loved about the Scott Brown election, by the way, was the President Obama's speech.
Do you remember he flew in, I think it was the day before the election, to boost up Martha Coakley's campaign.
She was the party hack who was running for the Democrats in Massachusetts.
And in any other scenario, she would have just swept in and taken Ted Kennedy's seat and held it until, you know, Joseph Patrick, Patrick, Joseph Kennedy, Lawford Brown III had been eligible to take over Ted Kennedy's seat when he reached the age of 12, or however old you have to be to be a senator in Massachusetts.
And so Barack Obama flies in and he's mocking.
He's standing there next to John Kerry giving a speech to a private school in Massachusetts filled mainly with out-of-state students because by that point nobody in Massachusetts wanted to see Barack Obama.
And he's going, you know, forget the pickup truck.
Forget the ads.
Everybody can run ads, says President Obama.
Forget the truck.
Everybody can buy a truck.
What was fascinating about this was that he assumed Scott Brown's pickup truck was a prop.
You remember like the herd of cows that Al Gore rented to provide a pastoral backdrop when he launched his first presidential campaign back, what was it, 1992?
He rented a bunch of cows because like his Tennessee farm, he basically is a slum landlord there.
He doesn't do a lot of farming, but he wanted it to look like a working farm.
So he rented a herd of cows to stand beside him when he launched his presidential campaign.
And this is what Obama assumed that Scott Brown had done.
He just decided it would look good for him.
He'd look rugged if he campaigned in a pickup truck.
And so he just sort of acquired a pickup truck as a kind of prop, as an image.
In fact, it's his truck, and he had 200,000 miles on it.
And then, even better than that, there was what was that guy, Howard Feynman.
He was the, I think at that time, he was the chief political correspondent of Newsweek.
And he took it a step further.
He didn't think the truck was any old prop, but he thought it was a kind of racial code.
And he said, you know, oh, well, there are codes about these things.
And pickup trucks, there's a racial aspect to it one way or another.
So that Scott Brown having a pickup truck was his way of signaling to all the Ku Klux Klan supporters in Massachusetts, of which there were millions, that he's on their side.
And when he backs the truck up into his garage at night, he likes to get on the old Klan hood just like Robert C. Byrd did.
So these guys are saying, oh, it's not a truck he uses to get from A to B.
It's a racial, it's some kind of racial code he's signaling to notorious Massachusetts racist voters.
And this is really the difference in America now.
This is the administration we have ended up with.
The world is divided into two people.
There are people who think that a pickup truck is a useful vehicle for transporting heavy-duty goods from A to B, and there are those who think that a pickup truck is coded racism.
And unfortunately, the administration is full of people who think the latter.
And it gets to the heart of what's the problem with these guys.
They do nothing.
Words to them are just metaphors.
Words to them are abstractions.
Words to them are generalities.
Because this is an administration packed with men, starting with the president, starting with the Treasury Secretary, all the way down who have never actually done anything.
This is an administration that is desperately short of doers.
And that is why it is so disconnected from the men and women who drive the business growth of America.
Yeah, great to be with you for the last live Rush Show of the Year.
We'll have Best of Rush tomorrow.
Don't forget, Rush returns for another year of excellence in broadcasting this Tuesday, this Tuesday.
And just to pick up that point I was talking about, Barack Obama and these guys, everyone in his administration, they are not doers.
They are not doers.
They're thinkers.
They're people who like to sit around and talk and think.
Obama, Timothy Geidner, these guys, they come from the same world, the world of the Ivy Leagues, of so-called non-profit organizations, of government activism, where your progress is lubricated by your access to government.
And these people think of themselves, nobody in this administration has any experience of creating a dime of wealth in the private sector.
None of them.
And they've less experience in business than any American administration of the last century.
But what they are great at doing is like sitting around and thinking big thoughts, like whichever one it was in The Wizard of Oz who said, if I only had a brain.
Well, who was that?
Was the Tin Man, the Caddley Lion was the heart, Tin Man was the scarecrow, scarecrow.
That's it, the scarecrow.
They're all sitting around like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz with the thoughts, I'd be thinking I could be another Lincoln if I only had a brain.
These guys think they're Lincoln because they sit around thinking and they forget that Lincoln was the rail splitter.
He actually did stuff.
He did stuff.
He was a doer.
And Americans are doers.
Americans are doers.
But they have a ruling class that like to sit around like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz thinking big, important thoughts that aren't actually that big and important.
They think they're a meritocracy, by the way.
That's the words you hear all the time.
A meritocracy is actually worse than an aristocracy because aristocrats tend to at least somewhere deep down have a little bit of guilt because they know in some deeply problematic way that they inherited their greatness, whereas meritocrats think they deserve to rule and so they rule much more heavy-handedly.
You look at Bloomberg in New York or Obama.
These guys think they're geniuses.
They think they deserve to tell you what to do because they're actually better than you.
But they're not meritocrats.
Meritocracy, by the way, was this term invented by a British sociologist in the 1950s for a satire.
I think he wrote about 1958, Michael Young.
He wrote it as a satire on Britain in the future ruled by what he called meritocracy.
And he invented this word.
And like all these satirical parodic joke terms, the left took it up for real.
You know, brains trust that FDR introduced when FDR decided he was going to have government by brains trust.
He was going to get all the brainy people to form a brains trust, and they would tell us, make the decisions on how we should live.
That was another term invented by a joke in some guy writing for a newspaper in Marion, Ohio in the 1890s, the time all the trust busting was getting underway.
And he said, since everybody else is tending to trusts and monopolies, why don't we have a brains trust too?
And like everything else, like meritocracy, like brains trust, terms that were invented as satirical jokes, the left took up and applied them for real.
So now we have a government trust, a government brains trust, a monopoly of ideas formed by people who think they are meritocrats but are not.
Are actually a conformocrat, a conformocrat ruling class that has never actually done anything.
And it's killing the United States of America.
And what does it mean practically?
It means that all these guys sitting around like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz with the thoughts, I'd be thinking I could be another Lincoln, instead of actually getting on and doing anything like Lincoln did, these guys sit around issuing rules on trans fats and the amount of salt in food.
And then, when the snow falls, like Bloomberg, they can't clear the street because their depraved, decadent public sector work union that metastasized while they were having all their big important thoughts decides that a heavy snowfall is a great day to hold a public protest.
So our ruling class is not a meritocracy.
It's not a meritocracy.
It's people who are isolated from the rhythms of American life.
A guy like Timothy Geithner thinks he can govern a trillion dollar, a multi-trillion dollar economy.
What makes him think that?
This guy has never created a dime of wealth in his life.
The skill set required to run a million-dollar company is relatively rare.
But there are a lot of people in the United States and around the planet who can do it.
The skill set required to run a billion-dollar company is rarer still, and very, very few people manage to do that.
But the skill set required to organize, regulate, and centrally direct a multi-trillion dollar economy is unknown to human history.
And yet Timothy Geithner, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, people who have never done anything, never created a dime of wealth.
John Kerry, a man whose only business experience was a sleeping partner in a donut stand in Boston for about six months.
These people think they are capable of centrally directing a multi-trillion dollar economy.
No such skill set is known to man, but a complacent conformocrat ruling class that now straddles the American economy, that in fact has the American economy under its boot, thinks that it can do that.
And until they get out of the way, this economy isn't going to recover.
Let us go to Bob in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Bob, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
It is great to have you with us.
Hi, Mark.
How you doing?
I'm doing good, all things considered.
How are you?
Looking forward to 2011?
Well, yeah, it's got to be better in 2010.
I was thinking.
Don't say that.
It doesn't have to be better than 2010.
It could be way worse.
Oh, I hope not.
You're talking about that poor baby that died in New York.
And I guess an old lady died also.
Yes, that's right.
Well, I was thinking, the New York City Sanitation Department is merely just the forefront of Obamacare.
Because it seems to me, unborn babies and old people don't have a lot of sway in the new system.
So you reckon the New York City Department of Sanitation is basically just the forerunner of the Obamacare death panel.
It's like the pilot program for the Obamacare death panel.
Very late-term abortion and end-of-life termination.
They kind of skip the count point.
That's right.
That's true.
Basically, the guys in the sanitation department decided that this baby didn't need to live.
It may not be a woman's right to choose, but it's the sanitation department's right to choose.
And likewise, this 75-year-old woman who died.
Yeah, okay, that's great.
It's the Obamacare Death Panel Pilot Program.
That's a good way of looking at it, Bob.
Hey, thanks for your call.
Yeah, yeah.
And best of luck with 2011, because when you say it can't be worse than 2010, oh, yes, it can.
Let's go to Sherry, also in Florida, calling from Jacksonville.
Sherry, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
I have a cheery solution.
Why don't we take the Tea Party movement or some organization of that sort and take all these unemployed people, put them together with people who have skills, exchange skills, and start from the ground up, sort of cottage industry and rebuild our economy?
I don't know about you, but I am so tired of buying this crap that it's destroyed in less than six months.
I'm wasting money.
I need some American-made, decent, solid products.
You're absolutely right on that.
One of the problems with the structural deformity of the American economy is that we spend too much money diverting people into entirely worthless occupations, of which the first couple are a very good example of that.
The president was the beneficiary of a million-dollar education.
He went to an elite Hawaiian prep school.
He went to Occidental.
He went to Columbia.
He went to Harvard Law.
And in the end, he becomes a community organizer.
His wife had a similarly privileged education and became a $350,000 a year diversity consultant at the University of Chicago Hospital, a job so necessary that when she resigned to become first lady, they didn't even bother replacing her.
And there's too much of that.
Until we actually get back to creating and making and creating our economy.
The more human capital we divert into these wasteful, nothing occupations, the more we're just basically causing the whole country to seize up.
Well, I see everyone's waiting to get a job.
Well, if you keep waiting, there may not be a job.
I think we have to actually take it by the horns and make jobs.
You're right, Sherry, but I would add this caution, that it is very difficult.
New York, which we were talking about yesterday, is a good example of this, but so is California, so is Illinois, so is Maryland, so is almost any blue state.
It's very difficult to just say, hey, hey, I'm unemployed, so now I can sit around in my living room and finally start the small business, home business that I've always wanted to do, because the amount of regulation that states impose on you in somewhere like New York and in a lot of other states is so huge that every little thing, if you think of the most basic,
simple thing you want to do, everyone's always said, hey, you make a great homemade mustard.
So maybe you'll go and buy 200 jars and you'll put mustard in the jars and sell them or whatever.
Everything you want to do, everything a self-reliant citizen wants to do, a depraved government staffed by people, the same kind of people who staff the New York City Sanitation Department, throws a ton of regulatory burdens on you to prevent you doing it.
So you're right, Sherry, that people should do that.
But the reality is that in a lot of states, you can only do that in the black market now.
You can't do it in the clean light of day because the government will just regulate the hell out of you.
So I think you're right there.
But at the same time, you've got to go to City Hall and tell these people, stop regulating the hell out of everything I want to do.
That's necessary for your solution to work, Sherry.
I agree with that because I have several companies.
One of them is a cosmetic manufacturing company, and we're regulated to death.
But it can be done.
It's just 50 hoops and hurdles.
And if you have several people and they want to maybe pull the money to get through it, you can get through it.
We've got to start producing.
You cannot buy a decent product.
It's disheartening.
And I would pay more for something that would last for more than a year.
But it isn't available.
Even if you search online, it just isn't out there.
So maybe if the government wants to do something productive, they can help small businesses actually be productive instead of trying to tear us apart.
Well, I wish you well with that, Sherry.
But don't start saying things.
I disagree with you to this extent.
Don't start saying things, I'd be prepared to pay more for this and I'd be prepared to pay more for that.
Only reason that people have to be prepared to pay more for American products is because of the burden that the United States government and state governments and in many cases city governments impose on the cost of employing people and creating wealth in this country.
Somebody sent me an email yesterday saying, oh, well, you know, oh well, you know, you had that congressman on yesterday, and he said with American corporation tax that it imposes a 35%, it's equivalent to putting a 35% tariff on our own goods.
This was Congressman Gomert's point.
And this guy says, well, the 35% tax only applies to profits.
So it's not really a 35% tariff on our own goods.
But no, no, no, let's look at this in first principles.
Congressman Gomert was saying that you get taxed 35% on profits in the United States of America.
That's three times as high as many countries that we think of as socialist basket cases.
As I said yesterday, it's 12.5% in Ireland.
So we tax corporations 35% on profits.
What's the upshot of that?
What's the upshot of that?
It's that no corporation wants to make any profit.
Small corporations, small corporations spend in their final meetings with their accountants every year and their lawyers every year, starting, you know, September, October, November, they all sit around figuring out how to reduce their profits by buying this or doing that so they don't have to give 35% of their profits to the United States government.
In other words, they're making business decisions not on what's necessary to grow their business or in the interest of the broader economy, but in avoiding the punitive taxation of government.
Government massively distorts economic activity in this country.
And until it stops doing that, our economy is going to remain mired in this trough.
So you're right.
We need to just get together, use skills, create wealth, but we also need to give we need to sock government in the jaw and get it out the way because we're propping up too big, too big, too bloated a government that is actually choking the arteries of wealth creation in this country.
Mark Stein, infra rush, more in a moment.
Mark Stein, infra-rush, infra-rush on the EIB network.
Talking about, you know, the structural problems that afflict America in the United States.
Here's the view from the left.
The liberal radio host Tom Hartman, I think I was on his show when my book came out.
I don't think we sold a lot of copies.
I think we sold two copies and one guy returned them.
The other one was from a public library, I think.
But he's got this new theory that Ritalin is turning our children into conservatives.
This would be beautiful if it was true.
That his theory is that the schools, by medicating so many American children by diagnosing them with ADD and pumping them full of Ritalin, are turning them into conservatives.
That Ritalin, medicating children with Ritalin, turns them into conservatives.
His thing is that the dopamine receptor gene is the so-called liberal gene, which he calls the Thomas Edison gene, by the way, because he thinks this is the gene that stimulates creativity and thinking outside the box and everything.
And what I find interesting about that is that Thomas Edison, of course, invented the incandescent light bulb, the great iconic American invention of the 19th century.
And what did liberals do to Edison's great invention?
They banned it in favor of the stupid thing you see now sticking out from the bottom of your every chandelier, the twirly, environmentally friendly light bulb that looks like yogurt-coated curly fries and cause you all the kinds of health problems and give that spectral gloom to see by.
So you can't read any, like you say, maybe I'll sit up in bed tonight and read a nice right-wing book by a guy like Mark Stein.
And you can't see because of the spectral gloom.
Because the liberals, instead of defending their so-called Thomas Edison liberal gene, actually banned Edison's iconic invention.
But Tom Hartman is now saying that the reason we have a shortage, a shortage of dynamism, Edison-type dynamism, is because we're medicating our kids into conformist conservatives by pumping them full of Ritalin.
You know, that's an interesting theory, Tom.
That's a fascinating theory.
Who runs the American school system?
Who has presided over this vast industrial-scale medication system?
Who medicates all these kids?
Liberals do.
Mark Stein in Farush, more in a moment.
The New York City Sanitation Department that didn't clear the streets, so the baby died and the old lady died.
They managed to clear the street in front of the home of their head guy, John Doherty, in Staten Island, New York.
He got plowed.
The baby died.
The old lady died because they decided to stage an industrial protest.
▲
Export Selection