All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:42
July 19, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away, and this is your undocumented anchor man sitting in, the Rupert Murdoch.
The Rupert Murdoch hearing in the House of Commons is still is still going on.
This is this is like the uh the Jerry Lewis marathon.
It's uh uh no end to it in the uh in the House of Commons Murdoch testify Murdoch, he's uh the rapacious businessman.
Why his journalists tapped into telephones, you have to call him to account before the people's representatives What about uh what about uh you heard about this thing Operation Fast and Furious, Operation Fast and Furious, uh about which absolutely nothing is happening first and nobody's terribly furious.
Um the the um the official explanation as I understand it is that the federal government, see if you can follow me on this, use stimulus funding to buy guns from Arizona gun shops for known criminals to funnel to Mexican drug cartels.
That's the official explanation.
That's the official explanation.
Oh, absolutely, mister Mr. Snowdy wants to know what's wrong with that.
Of course, of course it makes perfect sense because the uh the the government, the IATF wanted to identify who were the high up gun traffickers.
But uh as it turned out the high-up gun traffickers were already known to the FBI and the DEA and the other federal acronyms, and in fact some of them were already on the payroll as paid informants of the other acronyms.
So what you got is one one wasteful federal agency uh gun running to Mexico in order to find out uh who are the paid informants of another federal agency.
Uh and i I I guess it, you know, would it wouldn't matter except a a real border patrol uh agent got gunned down and killed by one of these guns that essentially stimulus funding uh gave to a Mexican drug cartel.
There's a wonderful way it was put in an Investors Business Daily editorial.
Uh quote, the evidence suggests that border patrol agent Brian Terry's death was financed by the President's stimulus package with the full knowledge and support of Attorney General Holder, unquote.
The evidence suggests that Border Patrol agent Terry's death was financed by the President's stimulus package with the full knowledge and support of Attorney General Holder.
You think Eric Holder's gonna be hauled up to account uh the way uh Rupert Murdoch's being put through the paces in in the House of uh in the House Ooh no, because he's not a big scary businessman, so he doesn't have to be accountable.
He can run guns to the Mexican drug cartels, and if you don't care about Mexican drug cartels gunning down American border patrol agencies with stimulus funded weaponry, uh what about all the Mexican civilians, the Mexican drug cartels?
I thought I thought I thought the Democrat Party was all about helping the nice sweet people from the Third World.
Uh it turns out the uh we were talking yesterday, the guy was uh guy called up to know what about all these two million jobs uh that uh that oh Obama had supposedly created, and he couldn't figure out what they were, because he was in Ohio.
If you want to look at the jobs they're created, he's created a bunch of jobs in uh in the Mexican coffin industry for for for burying all the people gunned down uh by uh Mexican drug cartel m gang members uh with these thousands of guns paid for paid for, introduced, funneled to the Mexican drug cartels through the Obama stimulus.
That's great news.
But we don't have to worry.
He's not gonna be hauled up in front of uh a committee of the people's representatives like Rupert Murdoch, because he hasn't done anything as bad as employing a journalist who hacked into a phone.
No, sir, no, sir.
I'm always interested to see what liberals will defend.
Gary Jaffey, the Gary Jaffy writes to me from New York and says I was dead wrong about the conversation on the Bill Ma show last week.
The reason violent sex fantasies came up comically, by the way, is because both Michelle Buckman and Rick Samtorum have been publicly brutal and hateful about homosexuals.
So this was a comic way of getting at them.
Oh great.
Is that really true, Gary?
Can I have a violent sex fantasy about you?
Would you would you enjoy that?
Would you enjoy it if I had a violent sex fantasy about you?
Would liberals be cool with that?
He says I'm not cool, because I don't get the whole kind of violent sex fantasy thing.
Why can't you just have a regular sex fantasy?
That's what that's what they uh in the days when I still had sex fantasies.
Uh they weren't they weren't weren't violent.
Uh I had a after I saw um Diamonds Are Forever with Jill St. John running around Blofeld's boat in a little bikini.
She's got an audio cassette in there that's got the secret codes that are gonna blow up the world.
And uh she's running around on on bl it's an oil rig, actually.
Blo She's running around in this little bikini, and you can see in her cute little bottom the outline of the audio cassette of it.
I had uh I had fantasies uh uh uh about Gilson John, but they weren't rape fantasies.
What what's the what's the idea that the liberals it's okay now to make a comic rape fantasy?
This guy you're defending, Gary, by the way.
Dan Savage, the uh gay advice column, uh he's part of these guys who all tryna who all claiming that Michelle Buckman's uh husband is secretly gay, and they're making jokes about, oh, doesn't he have a bit of a lisp?
Uh and uh doesn't he have a mincing walk?
Well, you know, I'm foreign.
Uh don't I I mean don't don't you think my accent sounds a bit gay, Gary?
Maybe you could have a like a violent rape fantasy about me.
I love this I love this violent sex fantasies are okay, says Gary, but you didn't bother to mention the context.
Oh, okay, okay.
I'm gonna have a violent rape fantasy about Michelle Obama, Gary.
Uh wait, wait, wait, before you criticize me.
Don't you want to hear the context?
That's uh that's all that's the important thing, isn't it?
Oh, and Hillary Clinton's in there too.
I'm gonna have a violent rape fantasy about Hillary Clinton.
But don't worry, it's full of context.
It's full of context.
Mr Mr. Snerdley's gonna Mr. Snurley's gone over to the uh wastebasket in the corner now.
I haven't even got to the violent rape fantasy, Snerdly.
Come on, you gotta be mad enough.
You can't you're telling me you can't you you're not mad enough to hear my violent sex fantasy about Hillary C I don't.
Well, you're not cool either.
Gary in New York says everyone's cool with all the violent sex fantasies.
It's the new liberal thing.
What could be more impeccably liberal than making jokes about some guy who's got a lisp and a mincing gait?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Isn't that funny?
It's not in the least bit homophobic because I didn't mention the context.
It's okay in the context.
Good luck with that, Gary.
You're totally cool.
I think rape fantasies are really cool.
Bring it on, bring it on.
Let's uh let's uh let's have them.
What was the old uh I've I don't know, the vaudeville joke, I think, circa nineteen fifty-eight.
Uh the woman saying, Oh, I've just been graped.
And uh the guy goes, don't you mean raped?
And she goes, No, there was a bunch of them.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
That was the kind of joke they did back in Vaudeville, 1957.
Is it okay to do it if you do it about Michelle Buckman, Gary?
Is it suddenly cool?
Just because she says, as you put it, publicly brutal and hateful things about homosexuals.
You want to give an example about that, Gary?
Now, in the last hour we were talking about Peter Ferrara.
Uh uh good luck with this, by the way, uh in if you're if you're thinking this is your approach to the presidential candidacy, talking about which one you'd like to rape.
Good good luck running with that.
Um the we were talking about the uh impending bankruptcy of the United States, and uh in connection with Peter Ferrara's book.
I got a book that's uh that notches it on to the next stage.
Because I d I tend to agree with uh Peter.
It's uh it's coming out in i any moment now, but uh I I think this idea that decline, decline is sometimes attractive to liberals because they t take a vacation in, you know, France and they say, Oh, it all seems you driving through the French countryside, all seems terribly agreeable, the restaurants are nice.
Well, what's what's so wrong with decline?
Isn't it terrific to uh to to to be able to to to live in a world where you don't have to worry about invading third world countries you don't couldn't care less about and occupying them for years?
What what could be more pleasant than decline in a great power gently uh in a very genteel civilized way, uh just kind of sliding down little by little every year.
It can be very pleasant.
But America's decline, uh and this is uh I think an important point, is not gonna be like that.
The reason uh decline in Western Europe after the Second World War was so relatively civilized, uh is because America was there to guarantee world order.
Who is going to cushion America's decline the way America cushioned Europe's decline?
There is absolutely no good answer to that.
And that is why the Obama project is an existential threat to the United States.
Basically, Obama wants to spend twenty-five percent of American GDP uh on big government at the Washington level.
He doesn't not interested in, you know, municipal government, county government, state government.
Uh progressives, liberals want to do it all at the national level, because that way you got nowhere to go to.
Uh that You can't move from town to town, county to county, you got nowhere to go.
So they want to do it all at that level.
And he needs 25% of GDP to do that.
That's why he won't accept, he will not accept the principal point that Republicans and Conservatives are trying to make, that spending is too high.
Because if he concedes that point, then the Democrat project whereby this uh the the workers of America pony up twenty-five percent of the GDP of this country to fund big government at the Washington level.
He cannot afford to concede that, because everything about his plan rests on that.
Uh this can't be done.
This can't be done.
There simply are not enough rich people to fund this level of government.
There's not enough people anywhere on the planet.
Uh one of the uh one of the problems uh at the wor uh of the world at the moment is that we're running up against the real debt ceiling, which is the willingness of the planet, the rest of the planet, to bankroll what's going on in Washington.
And it doesn't lead anywhere good.
Uh, because great convulsive changes in big power relationships and big power dominance are n are usually never smooth.
You know what the smoothest transfer of power in history was?
And I think this is why we're complacent about it.
The smoothest transfer of power happened in the early 1940s, one month.
Uh in in the previous month, uh America had more uh Britain had more men under arms than the United States.
The following month the United States had more men under arms than Britain.
And in that moment, that little moment, the baton of global dominance was passed.
Uh and it happened so smoothly people don't even notice it, because it was the smoothest transfer of global power in the history of the world, uh, where it uh went from one dominant English speaking power to its uh to its prodigal son.
Another English-speaking power spoke the same language, uh had the same legal tradition, and broadly speaking the same set of ideas uh about uh liberty and democracy.
Uh the baton was passed and life went on.
So you notice uh, for example, in British colony in Bermuda, I was in Bermuda a couple of days ago.
Uh Bermuda was a royal naval base for centuries, and then as part of the deal for supporting Britain in the war, Roosevelt insisted on an American military base uh on in Bermuda.
Uh Britain's ties with its uh empire uh were replaced by uh ties with Washington.
So uh Australia, which normally won uh the priority was to get a hearing in London, Australia and New Zealand became part of the Anzus Military Alliance with Washington.
Uh Canada, its big thing was to get a hearing in London, you wanted to talk to the Imperial metropolitan superpower in London, then now it's part of NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain, uh where they're uh providing jointly for North America.
So this was the smoothest transfer of global dominance in history.
Do you think it's likely to go that smoothly next time round?
Do you think it's likely to go that smoothly when China is the dominant economic power on the planet, which the IMF now predicts will happen within five years?
I mean, we we are so complacent because we are coming to the end of a two-century anglophone dominance of global order.
Uh and what is coming next, if America doesn't correct, is gonna be absolutely startling, it's gonna be stunning, and it's not gonna be the kind of genteel decline they have in bucolic French villages where you're sitting at the sidewalk cafe having your cafe au lait and your croissant and watching the world go by and saying if this is decline, bring it on, let's have more of it.
It's not gonna be like that at all.
It's gonna be something far more catastrophic, far more devastating, far more convulsing.
Uh one-eight hundred-two eight two-282, Mark Stein for Rush.
Oh, things are afoot in Washington.
The bipartisan gang of six is gaining momentum in the Senate.
They have a plan, an ambitious new deficit reduction plan, ambitious new.
By the way, this ambitious new plan uh supposedly cuts three point seven trillion dollars over the next ten years.
In other words, it cuts uh over the course of ten years, it cuts about twice of what this year's budget deficit is a loan.
And this is what ambitious means in Washington.
Uh th this ambitious plan cuts basically takes ten years to cut uh uh uh essentially two years budget deficit by twenty twenty.
That's if it we stick to this stuff in twenty twenty.
Now, Obama is uh hailing this deficit reduction plan.
He says it's broadly consistent with the approach he's advocated.
That's great news.
Uh so it's apparently gadiged.
We may have a bipartisan decay.
Bailey Hutchinson is on board with it.
It's a fair compromise, she says.
Uh we've gone from a gang of six to a mob of fifty, uh says uh West Virginia's uh Democrat Senator.
So there we may have movement of foot, movement afoot in Washington, a bipartisan deficit reduction plan.
It may be time to uh head for the hills and take all the canned food and ammunition you can keep in your bag.
Let's go to Ace in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.
Ace, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Thanks for waiting.
Mark, how are you doing?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
Great.
I love your commentary and your sense of humor and your accent.
I I wanted to comment about the government workers.
Right.
And uh I'm I'm a retired civil servant, federal.
And I'm also uh I spent uh twelve years active duty in the military.
And it seems like there's a double standard between the uh uh defense department government and the rest of government.
Because in the Defense Department, we've had many people uh get either released or let go due to uh reductions in force or uh unethical behavior.
Um of course guys in the military have gone to gone to um you know the jail for things that they've done.
So uh I just wanted to say that in the case of the Defense Department government, it's a little different, it seems, than the rest of the um uh federal government.
Well, you know, that might be because uh the defense of the nation is actually a core national responsibility.
So in a sense, uh those guys are doing a real job that has uh real measurable objectives and real goals.
But if if for example you're at the National Institute of Health, where you're just shoveling out, say grants, uh they they uh spend a hundred and fifty thousand dollars asking American citizens to mail in their toenails uh to find out the difference between how much uh toenail nicotine is present versus uh swabbing for saliva nicotine.
Uh and they spent basically the the uh people at the National Institutes of Health spent a hundred and fifty-four dollars and fifty cents on each set of toenails.
This is just regular folks' toenails.
It's not like Elvis Presley's toenails that they go hunting for in the broadloom of the jungle room at uh Graceland.
This is just regular folks, not Elvis toenails, 154 and fifty cents uh on each examining toenails for the nicotine content of toenails.
Now there's nothing about that in the Constitution, Ace.
And I think I think it's difficult with some of these agencies are just so pointless, it'd be hard to know whether you were doing the job well or badly anyway, because essentially the it's uh just one giant kind of make work racket.
And I think I think the lesson here, if if what you say is correct, is is that uh the your best shot at effective government is if government sticks to its core responsibilities.
When you have small lean government, it will do stuff better uh than big government will.
Big government by definition will be profoundly stupid.
Well, thanks for taking my call.
I really appreciate that.
Um this is my first time getting through, and I I was really amazed I got through.
Well, well, I'm very glad you got through.
Ace is a great name, by the way.
Is that what your your parents uh christened you with that name?
Actually, my my first name is Horace.
Oh, oh, so it's an abbreviation of Horace.
It's the coolest abbreviation of horror.
And no disrespect, but Horace I don't think is quite as c cool a name as Ace.
But if you've uh this is a useful Tip, folks, if you've learned nothing else from this show today, if your parents, if your parents are so cruel and abusive that they christen you Horace, uh remember to shorten it to Ace, and you will be the coolest in town.
Uh thanks, uh thanks a lot for your call, Horace.
Howard, do be do any does anybody still call you Horace?
Yeah, oh yeah.
Yeah, that's Oh okay, okay.
Well, thanks for your thanks for your call, Hor Horace.
That's otherwise known as Horace uh from Cab Hill, Pennsylvania.
That's uh that's uh that's fantastic.
Uh that that that that is a real contrast between the formal name and uh and the nickname.
Uh by the way, that he that that is an important point here that when once at a certain level, once you've got so much government, it's just going to be doing all kinds of stupid things.
I mean, for example, this 3.7 trillion deficit reduction from the gang of six.
Uh that does nothing for eliminating, you know, the hundred and fifty thousand dollars of taxpayer money spent on toenail clippings.
The toenail clipping expenditures are still going to be there under this plan.
Yes, Russia's back tomorrow with all American, natural born excellence in broadcasting, but until then, highly ineligible, cheap foreign knockoff excellence in broadcasting.
Uh we got money for uh we got money for everything in in this country.
We got money to uh to to supply uh Mexican drug cartels to reduce the cost of them buying their weaponry.
We've got money to pay Americans to mail their toenail clippings to federal agencies.
Did you know you can do that?
You'll get 154 and fifty cents if you mail your toenail clippings to the National Institutes of Health.
Terrific.
John in Baldwin, Missouri.
Uh John, it's great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Thank you, Mark.
Great to be with you.
Look, my uh contentious debate over the death ceiling.
Uh the Republicans are demanding that they an article to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget.
Now, well, this sounds good in principle, but track looking at Congress and abiding by limitations set forth in the Constitution.
Hey, it's not exemplary.
To make my point about the balanced budget amendment, you have to go back and look at how the 27th Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted.
Now, the 27th Amendment requires that Congress stand for election before they take a pay raise.
So what they did uh that and by the way, that uh was ratified in 1992.
But in 1991, uh to circumvent what I consider the the compensation uh requirement of the 27th Amendment they passed and get this the Ethics Reform Act.
Now I'm divided for an annual cost and living allowance of co-a-right.
Now the caller so what happens now is Congress does not take a pay raise.
It's not a pay raise when they get a call.
Even though they have more money in their paycheck, they call it uh they call it a co-a.
Now when I I mentioned this to Justice Queen in 1996, they say they don't get a pay raise to get a call, and he said, Oh, so that's how they did that.
Yeah, exactly.
If they want a balanced budget amendment, one of the things the proviso that's supposed to be in there is they have to balance the budget in case of a national unless there's a national emergency.
Now, who's going to define what a national emergency is?
Congress?
The President.
No, no, and they Exactly.
Exactly.
And you would have Mark, by the way, this is what it is.
Now where have we heard what is is before?
And and you would have a situation, as you say, it would not just be defining a national emergency, uh, but also defining uh how you balance uh how you balance the budget.
The essence of Washington accounting is that it bears even less uh relationship to the real world than Hollywood accounting.
Uh and that and and you would have exactly the same thing, where stuff would be delayed to so-called out years in the same way that uh when you look at how they passed Obamacare, the price tag they put on that, basically they decided uh the the they wanted to hold the cost of Obamacare down below a trillion.
Uh so they basically came up with a formula uh that would allow them to defer the alleged cost of parts of Obamacare so it didn't figure into the original cost calculations.
And they would be doing that if you told them they had to budget the b balance the budget every year, they would be doing all that kind of stuff every year too.
Yeah, well, yeah, take into consideration.
Are we in a national emergency now?
If this was the case when you had a balanced budget amendment, the president might come down and says, Hey, we have a national emergency, so I'm gonna spend whatever the heck I want.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, because we're in it we're in a time of national crisis because we're running huge budget deficits that are imperiling uh an extensive existential threat to the Republic by this runaway government spending.
So that's why we can't have a a balanced budget amendment because we're in a national emergency of runaway spending.
Uh you would that that's the argument they would use in the same way that uh the executive office of the president yesterday said that they were rejecting the House uh of representatives proposed cuts to the executive office budget because cutting the budget would impact uh the executive office's ability to cut the budget.
So you would be just running around in circles with all kinds of stuff.
And you know, I'll tell you I'll add something else to this, John, because you you make a good point uh that that that the whole government now is uh operating on accounting slights of hand, including payments for legislators.
Uh as you know, when you look at a guy like Barney Frank, he hardly ever has has to actually reach into his pocket and write a personal check.
On paper, his salary is is very low.
But by the time you you uh load in all the perks they get uh b it doesn't matter actually putting up the nominal salary.
They they very rarely are in you look at the House Gym, for example.
If if uh if if you wanted to belong to a private gym, if you if you've got a plumbing business, if you've got a computer software business and you want to belong to a gym down on Main Street, you've got to pay your membership.
Uh Anthony Weiner has a taxpayer funded gym for him to take his crotch shots in.
Uh they th so the whole m salary cap thing is is meaningless.
And I think it gets beyond this, John, because it's not about balancing the budget.
A lot of this stuff is wrong, even if it could be afforded.
And that's why the the way the Republicans frame the conversation a decade ago uh i is essentially fundamentally flawed.
It's not about finding ways to afford uh being able to pay American citizens to mail their toenail clippings in.
Uh it's about actually shrinking the size of government so that we liberate more space for the citizen to exploit his economic opportunities uh and for the great entrepreneurial energy in this country uh not to be crushed by the size of government.
So it's not about making this stuff affordable, it's about making this stuff smaller.
And that's why the budget the balanced budget amendment is not going to solve the problems uh on this, uh John.
Right you are.
That's right.
That's a good off budget outlays that they have.
Yep, yeah, yeah.
No, I know, and and absolutely absurd things like uh and even and nobody understands it.
John Boehner, that thing, that last thing that John Boehner uh agreed to, where he merged triumphant, uh uh uh uh having secured uh supposedly all these savings and it shrank from billions, and then it shrank to millions, and then eventually somebody else ran the numbers and it turned out it actually increased the budget.
Nobody knows what this stuff is.
Why would you?
Why would you?
When diversity manuals in Omaha, Nebraska are being paid for out of the federal budget in Washington, why would anybody think you could actually get a real world figure on what that costs?
Uh big government, big government at this scale i is uh is never going to be accountable in that way.
And that's why the other thing we need, by the way, is actually to to stop monkeying around with this.
We need to get the the the a book I've uh mentioned before on this show called The Size of Nations, uh and it basically points out that the the wealthiest and most successful nations in the world are the small countries.
They're places like uh Singapore, uh places like Norway.
Uh the their countries with uh either either physically small pi places like Luxembourg or their countries with relatively small populations.
All the big places bust up.
Soviet Union, bust up, Yugoslavia bust up.
Um and the uh the United States has been an exception to this, because it's a highly decentralized federation.
If the founding fathers had decided to emulate, say the French revolutionaries and come up with a uh say the French Revolution uh had happened a couple of years before the American Revolution, and they'd come up with a kind of French style level of centralization, this country would have bust up two hundred years ago.
You can't have you can't have b centraliz effective centralized government uh in a country this big.
Obamacare includes a tanning tax.
A tanning tax.
Why is that a federal responsibility?
I mean, nobody need I I suppose if you're listening to this show in uh California or Florida or Hawaii, you're probably saying, why is he going on about the tanning tax?
So who needs who needs to go to the tanning salon anyway?
Well, that's because you live in Hawaii or California.
But but if you live in uh northern Maine or northern New Hampshire where it's winter ten months of the year, go into the tanning salon and uh and so getting that pasty, sickly north country one flesh uh look out of you and and having a nice healthy glow so people could almost believe you're uh you're you're on the beach in uh in in Malibu uh sitting next to Barbara Streisand.
Uh it's that that is that if anything shouldn't be a national responsibility.
Uh it's it's tanning.
Obviously, tanning salons are much bigger deal in northern Maine and northern New Hampshire than they are in Hawaii and California.
Why is there now a national tanning tax?
Why is there a national tanning regime?
This is nuts.
This is nuts.
This stuff, there's no absolutely no reason to do this stuff at the national level, and there are many compelling, many, many compelling reasons uh why we shouldn't be doing it, uh, not least the fact that once you sluice it through the great uh the the the great sinkhole of Washington, it's impossible to get a real estimate.
It's simply too remote.
You don't know who to call.
If there's a tanning tax in your town in Maine, you can pick up the phone and call the guy at the town hall and complain about it.
That's what people do in my town in New Hampshire.
If uh if the school they don't like the school district budget, they call the school board guy at home in the evening and yell at him.
But you can't do that with Washington.
Who do you yell to?
You're yelling into a void.
Uh that's why this stuff we need to do a lot less at the national level, or we're gonna live up to the prediction in that book, The Size of Nations.
Uh this country is gonna end up as centralized as France, and when a big continental country gets as centralized as France, a continental power from Maine to Hawaii, you get as centralized as France, you're basically going to go the way of the Soviet Union.
You're gonna bust up and it's not gonna be pleasant.
Mark Stein for Rush, more ahead.
Mark Stein for Rush at the Golden EIB microphone.
Let's go to George in Springfield, Missouri.
Georgia live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey Mark, thanks for taking the call.
You're doing a great job.
I just wanted to point out the uh explanation you gave about a half hour ago or so regarding the transfer of power uh from England to the United States was probably the most cogent I've heard.
I've I've thought that very thing uh for many years.
A lot of it had to do obviously with our industrial capability, but once we were in Europe, we have stayed, and that is why the socialist nations that are now failing have been able to do what they've been doing for the last sixty years, because they weren't paying for their defense.
And the the United States uh bore a heavy price in terms of man, manpower and uh and dollars.
So they they've been able to experiment only because we were a capitalist system propping them up.
Yeah, that's a very good way of putting it.
That that really the only uh reason that uh Belgium can be Belgium and Sweden can be Sweden is because America's America.
Uh America gets guarantee guarantees global.
If you look at the Germans, for example, the Germans were one of the most militaristic nations on the planet a century ago.
And uh they're they're the opposite now.
They're as obnoxiously uh peacnik now as they were once obnoxiously militarist uh in nineteen eleven.
And and when people uh Americans go over to Germany and they say, Oh, look, it's wonderful.
People stay in school until they're thirty-two and they have a great health care system.
Uh the German health care system is paid for, essentially paid for by American taxpayers.
Because Germany, the the United States Army lives in Germany, uh, so Germany doesn't have to pay to defend its own borders, so it's freed up to spend that money on uh on all the social programs.
Now who's gonna do that for America?
Who's gonna play that role for the United when the United States decided decides to uh opt for a German sized state, a Swedish sized state, who's gonna b who's gonna be America uh play the role that America played for Germany for the United States?
Have you got a good answer for that, George?
No, I you know, I as I was listening to you discuss that, uh it it just kind of furthers my my belief, Mark, that unfortunately I uh I just see us fragmenting as the Soviets and the Chinese do.
There are too many of us that have been producers that understand that the federal government is a mere creation, an invention by the states.
We understand that the purpose of the federal government is not to provide services, but to secure our liberty.
And we're sick and tired of watching what's been happening.
The Tea Party movement was a beginning step, but I think what you're going to see, Mark, is a furtherance of the state sovereignty movements through the state legislatures.
There have already been ten that have passed laws protecting commerce within their own states.
Obviously, these are being challenged by the federal government.
This movement that is coming from the grassroots will continue to grow until we either reform the federal government or we uh re-identify ourselves in regional governments that are more aligned with the traditional America.
And Mark, I want to leave you with one thought if I may.
I I've heard a lot of theories about how to how to improve things, balanced budget, flat tax, you know, how to control the politicians.
A long time ago I heard a guy talking about repealing the 17th Amendment and once again having our senators be appointed by the state legislatures.
I think that would be our only hope, because it is the Senate that has been the stonewall in the furtherance of either good uh uh reform or the furtherance of of everything that the left has been trying to do.
If we can't get control of the high house, then we're we're gonna march right over the cliff.
Yeah, that's a very that's a good, very good point because the Senate is the club.
I I spent uh whatever it was, two months in the Senate uh uh covering the Bill Clinton impeachment trial.
And by the end of that trial, I wanted to do what they did in uh New Zealand.
New Zealand abolished the upper house.
And after spending two months in the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, uh listening to Robert C. Byrd, Primp and Preen, and all the rest of them, I want I wanted to abolish that.
And and uh in divorcing uh the seventeenth amendment, moving to directly elected senators, uh change the balance, change the balance in Washington.
It turned to senator instead of uh being the the the senator being the representative of his state, uh to in a sense being uh the equivalent of a prince in the United Arab uh Emirates, the the emirs of incumbent.
In the end, you know, Teddy Kennedy uh uh flies back to Massachusetts every other weekend, but in the end, he's a national legislator representing Washington.
Uh and that and that is that is not just a problem with your Teddy Kennedys, but that becomes a problem for uh Republican senators too.
And that changed that did change the balance in power.
And I think the bigger point there is as well that we're gonna see we're gonna see uh movements towards decentralization because fiscally prudent states, my state, New Hampshire, why should we pick up the tab?
Even if we wanted to pick up the tab for California and New York, there aren't enough of us to be able to do it.
So so when you have these uh when you have these states that have basically driven up levels of government, live levels of uh government workforces, levels of government workforces with levels of public pensions that they can't afford, and they go to Obama or whoever it is for the national bailout.
If you're in Wyoming, do you really want to get stuck with the tab for paying that?
I mean, this this is the logic of uh of this.
The question is if you wanna if if if you want to push this, if you want to push this, uh you're gonna you're gonna be seeding little secession movements, uh, initially just in one or two corners of the map, but eventually people will get the message uh that they that the that you you you uh you know uh united will fall, but divided, a few of us might stand a sporting chance.
And people will get that message very quickly.
Mark Stein and for Rush, gotta go.
Hey, I hope that guy who uh threw the pie at Rupert Murdoch has a food preparation uh license for that pie.
You know, he could get into serious trouble if he if he doesn't.
Uh I've had a bowl these last couple of days.
Thank you to Mr. Snardley for looking after things, holding my hand long distance uh from New York.
Uh he'll be back at the Southern Command with Rush live tomorrow, 12 midday East.
▲
Export Selection