All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 29, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
December 29, 2011, Thursday, 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.
It's not quite an all-mark week on the EIB network.
The great Walter Williams will be here tomorrow to take you through a mark-free Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show with a best of rush on Monday and then Rush returns live Tuesday for the big Iowa caucus day.
Huntsman has been retailing an old line.
John Huntsman was asked why he wasn't actively campaigning in Iowa and he said in Iowa they pick corn, in New Hampshire they pick presidents.
So he's gambling it all on one big roll of the dice for a good showing in the granite state in New Hampshire.
That's not his line by the way.
I think pretty much every New Hampshire politician says I think I think the last time I heard anyone deliver that line I think it was John H. Sununu, the former governor of New Hampshire, who said in Iowa they pick corn, in New Hampshire they pick presidents.
Just to go back to what we were talking about, we'll be talking to Congressman Louis Gomert from Texas in a few minutes.
Last time he was on the show with me, I think he did a Lou Rawls impression.
What was he singing?
He was singing that big bass line from some Lou Rawls song or other.
I forget what it was now.
But we'll be talking to him in a few minutes.
I want to just go back to something Vinny was saying about Newt.
I said I had like first principles objections to Newt.
That's what I like about Rush.
Rush frames things according to first principles.
And if you think about first principles, a conservative does not support an individual mandate on healthcare.
In other words, he does not support, because for the government to order you to spend your money in a form that complies with government fiat is not a conservative position.
And that's aside, by the way, from the sort of utilitarian objections, that what is killing what's left of private healthcare in the United States is the third party element.
The fact that whether the government pays for it or the third party pays for it, you're a private insurer.
It's a classic third-party transaction, which means you don't care what it costs.
You just care whether you're granted access to it.
I was taken ill.
I'm in New York at the moment.
I was taken ill and had to go to the doctor and get a little prescription.
And it used to be that if you it was an easy business to get a prescription and take 10 minutes to pick up some pills.
I was in the Duane Reed pharmacy in the middle of Manhattan, as usual, standing behind a bunch of people.
The delay is caused, the delay in service was caused not by the time it takes to make up the prescription, but by the fact that everybody was told, oh no, your insurer says you can't have a refill of the prescription until the 31st day of the month.
All know the one poor lady, I blush to say what it was she was suffering from, because I certainly wouldn't want to mention it on the radio, not least if you happen to be having a dinner date with her that evening.
But she was denied the particular treatment by her insurer for this thing.
So if you have a third-party transaction, you don't care about, you don't care about the cost of it.
You don't care about whether the pills cost $15 or whether they cost $150.
You care about your third party, whether it's the government or the insurer, giving access to it.
You can look at how it would be if we had that system for going to McDonald's.
You wouldn't care whether the hamburger costs $2 or $200 or $2,000.
You'd only care about whether the Obamacare hamburger program or Blue Cross Blue Shield hamburger insurance granted you access to the hamburger.
So that's classically inflationary.
But before you even get to that, you should object to it on first principles, which is that it is simply wrong in a free society for the state to tell you you have to spend private money in a way that meets the state's approval.
And once it can do that on, you know, when it comes to your bladder or your kidneys, it can do that with virtually anything.
As you see in other European countries, they're proposing a maximum carbon allowance per citizen.
In other words, you'd be able to take one long-haul flight a year.
So you'd be able to take a vacation in the summer and fly off to a beach somewhere.
But if you decided in the winter you wanted to have a skiing vacation and you could afford a skiing vacation, the government would say, no, you're not allowed to do that because it would be in excess of your carbon footprint allowance.
The minute you go down that road, you're no longer in a free society.
So conservatives who think about first principles wouldn't do that.
Now, having said that, just to go back to Vinny's point, here's what I like about Newt.
Newt gets the big picture.
Newt understands that the problem with the deficit, for example, isn't that an accounting problem, isn't a bookkeeping problem.
It's not a fiscal problem, but that it has underlying causes.
Newt is very good on that, sometimes in a kind of slightly wacky way.
I mean, he's the only candidate in this election cycle to give a speech on brain science.
Why did he do that?
Because the entire Western world's demographic model is decaying into a society where people live till 97 and spend the last 20 years of their life with dementia.
And that's incredibly expensive.
Keeping people alive for decades in advanced stages of dementia is hugely expensive.
So Newt, in the side of him that's attractive, the thinking outside the box way, goes and gives a talk on brain science, so how we can come up with a cure for Alzheimer's disease so we can keep people being productive till the age of 97, and that will improve the bottom line for the very unhealthy demographics of the Western world.
He's great like that.
A lot of candidates don't think like that.
If you asked Obama about that subject, you wouldn't have a clue.
And he's supposed to be a genius.
So that's fine.
Newt's great on that kind of stuff.
But there's too much, there's too many of these situations where Newt is on TV explaining that what he said, not in the 1990s, but what he said in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 is no longer operative.
And just to go back to Vinny's point, by the way, on what this so-called thing is, in which he expressed his approval for the individual mandate in Romney Care, it was something called Newt's Notes.
Sorry, when it appears in a publication called Newt's Notes, it doesn't matter whether your intern wrote it.
It doesn't matter whether you, some minimum wage illegal immigrant wrote it for you, it doesn't matter whether you outsourced it to Rajiv and Suresh in Bangalore to write it for you.
When it appears under the heading Newt's Notes, you own it.
And Newt owns this as much as Ron Paul owns his stuff from his newsletter about Martin Luther King having sex with underage boys.
The difference is Martin Luther King isn't around to have sex with underage boys anymore.
So Ron Paul's point, whatever it was he was making, is moot.
But Newt's point in that about the healthcare individual mandate is relevant to the crisis facing America in the United States today.
And it's odd to me that those of us who are concerned about that are dismissed as kind of rhino squishes.
We're rhino squishes because we haven't flirted with individual mandates.
We're rhino squishes because we haven't flirted with cap and trade and big punitive liberalism solutions to climate change.
Newt is susceptible to that in a very worrying way, in a very worrying way.
And he has many admirable qualities, but when he's staggering around the big issues, he's like Yosemite Sam.
The dynamite is as likely to blow up in his own pants as it is to do damage to his opponents.
And that's my problem.
That's my problem there.
Now, we're talking about Obamacare as the big issue.
The other big issue, of course, facing the United States today is that it's broke.
Well, it's actually beyond broke.
We've got to pay back $15 trillion just to get back to being broke.
The Republicans are now faced with a choice of whether they're going to raise any objections to another increase in the debt ceiling.
President Obama has asked for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling to take it to $16.
Trillion.
At this stage, you know, why not?
Why not raise it to $19 trillion?
Why not raise it to $28.7 trillion?
Why not raise it to $49.6 trillion, the debt ceiling?
The problem here is that every time we do this, you get the stronger and stronger impression that there is no realistic intention on the part of anybody spending this money, and they're spending it in our name, so we're on the hook for it, ever paying it back.
And once the world gets that message, the dollar is going to collapse, and then we're basically looking at Mad Max on I-95 as the big scenario.
So that's the second issue.
Who is going to be serious about reining in, dramatically reining in, which means killing government departments, which means closing agencies, which means rolling back millions of federal regulations and ending programs.
Because when you're spending $4 trillion, but you're only raising $2 trillion, there's no way you can close that gap.
You can't close that.
There's not enough money anywhere on the planet to close that gap.
Nobody is even talking about these sums.
And when $1.2 trillion, you know, you look at all the money they're talking about in Europe for the bailout for Greece, for the bailout for Spain, for the bailout for Portugal, for the bailout for Ireland.
And it's a few rinky-dink billions.
It would be lost in the line items of the federal budget under miscellaneous.
No one would even bother discussing it.
The only people spending on this scale are us.
Obama in 2008 complained that Bush had raised the debt by $4 trillion.
And as a result, every man, woman, and child in America now had $30,000 of debt on his shoulders.
Now every child, man, woman, and child in America has $50,000 of debt on his shoulders.
Bush increased it by $4 trillion in eight years, and Obama thought that was outrageous and unpatriotic as he saw it.
Obama has increased it by $6 trillion in three years and has no plans to stop.
And so now we've got another $1.2 trillion, 50 grand for every man, woman, and child in America.
And people run these sophisticated analyses when you talk to economists and they say, well, okay, our debt is about 100, it's just over 100% of GDP, whereas in Greece, it's about 150% of GDP.
By the way, think about this for a moment.
The United States of America is now saying we don't have to worry because we still compare favorably to Greece.
Anybody who's ever spent any time in Greece, even the European Union doesn't think Greece doesn't have any respect for Greece.
They think Greece snuck into the European Union as some kind of clerical error and shouldn't even be there.
That in fact, it's some kind of basically it's a North African kind of Middle Eastern country in terms of corruption and inefficiency and incompetence and general inertia that somehow wound up on the wrong side of the Mediterranean.
Even the Europeans don't pay any heed to Greece.
But we're now saying, oh, well, the good news is we're not as bad as Greece.
Yeah, Greece's debt to GDP ratio is 150%.
So what?
They're talking about a few billions.
We're the only people.
$16 trillion is more money than anybody on the planet ever has owed in all of human history.
And again, I put the question to you: are we seriously going to pay that back?
Because if we don't pay it back, if we don't pay it down, if we don't have a plan for somehow getting from $16 trillion of debt to $12 trillion of debt to $4 trillion of debt to $173.87 of debt, then the world is going to yank the rug out from under the dollar.
And as I said, once that happens, it's Mad Max on I-95, and good luck with that.
We're going to talk to one of the few voices in Congress who takes these issues seriously.
And he will be up next on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Stein on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Let's go to Congressman Louis Gomez from the first congressional district in Texas, which is on the Louisiana border.
I think that's what the Congressman told me last time.
Last time he was on, I think we'd had some Lou Rolls bumper music or something, and he sang this whatever song it was, three octaves below Paul Robeson.
You'll never find.
Mark, you've got to laugh time to time or you go nuts.
I mean, Russia's good about that, and so are you, but the craziness going on would be pretty comical if it weren't so serious.
No, well, this time last year, we'd just come to the end of that pretty disastrous lame duck session, which kind of sucked.
Actually, now it depends on your point of view.
From the standpoint of the Democrats, it was the most productive giveaway lame duck session in the history of the country.
So, yeah, it just depends on your perspective.
From their perspective, it was fantastic.
They gave away more money than any lame duck in history.
Yeah, and it was spectacular.
And what it did, I think, psychologically was it kind of sucked all the life out of the November victory in the midterms.
And I wondered how you felt just looking back on a year later.
Obviously, we had the payroll tax thing just a few days ago.
How do you feel a year on?
November 2010 kind of feels a lot longer than just a year ago to me.
Well, it really does, Mark.
Well, I have been extremely discouraged through the year.
You know, we had the big debate over potential shutdown last spring.
It's hard to believe that was like nine months or so ago, eight or nine months.
And so many of the freshmen were convinced that, gee, if we allow a shutdown, the military won't get paid, and they'll blame Republicans, so we've got to vote for it.
Never mind the fact that I had a bill that would have, if we could have brought it to the fore, it would have ensured the military got paid in the event of a shutdown, just as Social Security recipients get paid in the event of a shutdown.
And then we were told the debt ceiling, you know, that's where we'll have the leverage and we get to the debt ceiling.
And we're told, gee, we can't afford to let the country default.
Well, it was not going to default.
If it was, then there would be no better evidence that Geithner really is the worst Treasury Secretary in history, even surpassing his predecessor, who up until Geithner, I thought, was the worst.
I agreed with Newt on that.
But anyway, so we didn't really accomplish anything there.
We get to the end of the year, and the encouragement I have, Mark, is that I'm seeing so many of the massive number of freshmen that came in are going, you know what?
We've gone a whole year, and we've really not cut anything.
Now, in the bill that passed right before Christmas, right before we left, not the payroll tax extenders or what might better be called the Social Security bankruptcy bill, the bill that actually would fund government for the year.
We were told rightfully that it was actually making $6 billion in cuts.
That's a far cry from the $100 billion we promised in the pledge, but it was making $6 billion in cuts.
And then as soon as that passed, we immediately passed an $8.5 billion bill that we didn't want to include in that one because then we wouldn't have been able to say that we cut $6 billion.
No.
And so then that passed.
But listen, we're now to the end of the year and people are looking back going, wow, you know, we promised we were going to make cuts.
We promised we'd get back to pre-bailout, pre-stimulus years like 07 and 08.
And we really have made no progress.
So the encouragement I have, Mark, is seeing so many people that say, we have got to be serious about this.
And even though we put this thing off for two months, and I'm sure the Democrats would like to keep doing that every two months, I think you're going to see a lot of people saying, enough is enough.
We made some promises.
It's time to start keeping them.
And it being an election year, I think we'll have a good chance to do that.
And the bill that we were demanding that the Senate take up or at least send people to conference on had a bunch of good stuff in it.
You know, Obamacare wiped out most of the good welfare reform from the 90s, but we had welfare reform put back in.
You had to get a GED if you were going to get welfare.
States were going to be allowed to drug tests to get welfare.
It had $89 billion in legitimate cuts.
There was a bunch of good stuff.
And if you have a million dollars in property, you can't draw welfare food stamps.
Just hold that thought.
Actually, look for a job.
Hold that thought for a minute there, Congressman, because I want to come back to you after the break and pick up on that.
If you've got a million dollars worth of property, you can't mean food stamps.
Just to put that $6 billion of cuts in perspective, though, even if there had been $6 billion of cuts, that's basically just the equivalent of a day's borrowing.
Right now, the United States government spends about a fifth of a billion dollars every hour that it doesn't have.
So that's like spending weeks and months negotiating a day's saving.
And that is one of the problems here.
We'll pick that up with the congressman when we return.
Yes, rush back Tuesday for the big Iowa caucus day.
He'll be here live, running on ethanol.
We were talking to Congressman Louie Gomeut from Texas just before the break, and he's agreed to stay with us.
Very grateful for that.
The point at which we held the conversation was he was talking about they want to make it end food stamps for people who own more than a million dollars worth of property.
This is the kind of radical reform.
People who own a million dollars worth of property, they're going to be forced out into back alleys now.
They're going to be begging.
You'll be walking down Park Avenue, and bespoke beggars will be standing there with their hands out in their hand-tailored suits, begging for food.
This is what you know, Congressman, the problem here is when you say things like that, a lot of people listening will think we've got a two-party system in which one party explicitly wants to floor it over the cliff, and the other party is kind of content to go over the cliff in third gear.
And if you're in the car and you land at the bottom of the ravine, it's not going to be making that much of a difference in the end.
Well, metaphorically speaking, you're exactly right.
That's really where we are.
And some of us are wanting to put on the brakes and go back to the fork in the road where we took the wrong fork and get back on track to fiscal responsibility.
And I'm telling you, I am encouraged going into this new year.
You go down the roster of the Republicans in Congress in the House.
You've got a great bunch of people there.
And, you know, at the end of the year, apparently it shocked however the message got misportrayed to the Republicans in the Senate that House Republicans would go along with a two-month extension.
However that happened, when the Speaker came to our conference, people were going, uh-uh, now is the time to take a stand.
We have gone a full year.
And that was just a huge consensus.
Well, Mark, that's very encouraging to me.
We have come so far from my freshman term when we didn't used to say, look, we're the ones that can make a difference back in 05 and 06, our last term in the majority.
I heard somebody stand up at conference and say, look, nobody's to blame.
This is simply an unfortuitous confluence of circumstances.
Well, I love that expression.
I've never heard that before.
But what we have here is not only a failure to communicate, it's more than an unfortuitous confluence of circumstances.
You've got a bunch of people in the Senate that are holding up the good legislation.
And they realize in the House, we can make a difference.
We can take a stand.
And people were ready to do that before the caving occurred for two months.
I don't think you're going to see that kind of caving again because it's been made very clear to Republican leadership, we're not going to do this too much.
We're going to stand up and make some changes.
And you talk about the millionaires.
It just gets me to have the president keep talking about fat cats on Wall Street.
That man knows.
They gave to him 4 to 1 over McCain.
And Mike Frank at Heritage Foundation did the research.
He said, actually, that's pretty typical.
Wall Street execs give 4 to 1 to them and their family, 4 to 1 to Democrats over Republican, every election.
Because you've got to be that wealthy to afford big government liberalism on that scale.
Basically, you've got to be— Well, and to want to take other people's money to give to the charities that they may not be giving to, that just sounds better when you've got a lot of money.
Yeah, that's right.
Just to go back to that business with the payroll tax extension, though.
Basically, it was thought that the Republicans could call the President's bluff on the Canadian pipeline.
And in the end, he wound up calling the Republicans' bluff On the payroll tax thing.
And is there not a real concern that, given the media environment and all the rest of it, that the House leadership will simply be lining itself up to get suckered for that again?
I mean, I notice with the $1.2 trillion debt ceiling increase that there's not a lot of commentary from the Republican leadership on that.
They're not anxious to pick a fight this side of Iowa and New Hampshire on some of this stuff.
Well, that's what's so shocking.
For the Republicans that did vote for the debt ceiling increase this summer, they were assured that it would not require another debt ceiling vote before the election.
So, look, let's just get it behind us and we won't have to have another.
Well, some of us could see this president and Harry Reid are addicted to spending like nothing we've ever seen before.
And it's also why Paul Ryan and I both talked about it and agreed.
We had separately told groups that if you gave us a choice between a balanced budget amendment or a spending cap, we would vote for the spending cap because what we've seen, we hadn't been able to cut anything after the biggest wave election in history.
That spending cap is incredibly important to force us to quit spending.
And so the way this president went, spent over a trillion dollars more than we had coming in.
Nobody'd ever run that up.
In 2006, we got beat up for overspending $160 billion.
Who knew that the president would take over and go 10 times that much?
But he wants to raise the taxation up to the level of that extra trillion to trillion and a half in spending rather than bringing the spending down.
And that's also, from his standpoint, the beauty of taking down, lowering the Social Security payroll tax.
This year, for the first time in history, Social Security tax money coming in did not pay for a full year of Social Security payments.
Yeah, he is.
We had to dip in 5% into the general revenue, and we're borrowing 40, 42 cents of every dollar there.
And next year, it's predicted to be 14% or more of general revenue that we won't make up because this president cuts Social Security.
It was brilliant politically on his point from his standpoint.
But the trouble is he is pitting working people against our seniors.
This guy is a divider, not a uniter like anything we've ever seen before.
It's just incredible.
Ankela Merkel in Germany laid it out pretty bluntly for a European leader.
She said, you know, we are going to have to take some pain.
There's no other way.
There seem to be tens of millions of Americans who don't seem to grasp this point, that there's no money for any of this stuff.
All the money's been spent.
So that no matter how caring or compassionate it might be to give food stamps to people who own a million dollars worth of property, there isn't any money for it.
The money has gone.
It's spent, it's blown, it's done.
We've got a big $16 trillion hole that we have to pay back just before we get to the bank.
Mark, you are heartless.
Just heartless.
How could you say that?
You wouldn't want to help millionaires.
But you mentioned a while ago going off the cliff, and you mentioned Europe.
You know, really what we're doing is we're following the taillights of the European countries that have already gone off the cliff, and we're just beating right along behind them, following their tail lines.
I think it's actually worse than that, Congressman, because some of those European countries are heading back this way.
They're saying, no, no, no, don't go down that road.
The road is, the bridge is washed out, and there's a huge drop.
We've seen it.
There ain't nothing back there.
And Washington is at the wheel saying, hey, that's just a rubor.
Full speed ahead.
And Just as a final thought, Congressman, the excuse made for the Republican House leadership is, well, it's a Democrat Senate, it's a Democrat White House.
Let's suppose that things, the stars align perfectly in November.
The Senate flips and there's a Republican president.
Are we going to get serious cost correction, or are we just going to get more of this like trimming at the margins with the old millionaires and food stamp stuff?
I don't think we can afford to do anything but get serious.
We either get serious or on our watch, we've lost the greatest gift God ever gave a people, and that's this country, more freedoms, more liberty, more opportunities than anywhere in history, greater than Solomon's Israel in the way of freedom and opportunity.
And we've got to get serious or we're going to squander it.
And some of us are just too serious about not letting that happen on our watch.
We don't want that wrapped around our neck as we leave this world.
Amen to that, Congressman.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Always good to talk with you.
And let's hope we get more of your ilk elected this November.
Elections do make a difference.
That would scare a lot of people.
I told the speaker, heck, why don't you put me on the conference committee?
You always talking about how I'm a pain in the rear.
Let the Senate see the kind of pains in the rear you're having to deal with down here.
But I didn't like the conference.
I think that would be next time.
That might frighten those ladies from Maine if they found you sitting across from them.
Thanks a lot, Congressman.
Great to talk with you.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
More straight ahead.
Mark Stein for Rush on the EIB Network.
Let's go to Carl in Fort Myers, Texas, Louis Gomeut's home state.
Carl, thank you.
Thank you for waiting.
And I'm glad you hung in there and you're live on the Rush Limbush.
Good to have you with us.
Well, thank you very much, Mark Stein.
I'm actually from Nashville, Tennessee, but we're down here visiting our wonderful son, Rex Moontower, and the grandkids.
And I'm just here enjoying this beautiful weather in Florida.
And you earlier mentioned Mongolia.
And it just, I mean, I always think about America as the greatest country in the history of the world.
And I was just thinking about what had we'd come to had we didn't, had we not had.
I'm a little nervous.
I'm sorry.
What would we do if there wasn't the Roman Empire, if there wasn't the Greek Empire, if there weren't all these great civilizations for good or bad, that it has led to the United States of America, and then all of a sudden we're doing everything wrong?
Although, I want to say I know that the Indians, the slave trade, I know that that was part of our history, but I want to say I believe we've done it the gentlest way.
Well, you've got to look at the overall balance sheet.
Just before we get into that, what was the connection with Mongolia?
I think I mentioned that today's the— It was way back during your great show.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's right.
It just struck me.
And I just wanted to call to celebrate America with you, the rest of the country.
And I want to remind everybody how great our country is because of freedom, not because of government, but because of freedom.
And Carl, that's a great point.
I mentioned Mongolia because it's the centenary of Mongolian.
It's Mongolian Independence Day.
And if you're a member of the Mongolian American community, you'll be having your big parade down Main Street in Fort Myers or and everywhere else.
But the point the point to remember, Carl, is that we laugh about Mongolia now because it's like a backwater.
It's not on the UN Security Council or the G seven or anything.
But the Mongol Empire was the biggest the biggest butt-kickers on the planet at one point.
And Genghis Khan, or as John Kerry would say, Jean-Gish Khan.
Jean-Gish Khan, he's got a more effitive accent than me that guy.
But Genghis Khan led the Mongol hordes, swept across Europe.
Now Mongolia is a backwater.
It was Mongolian People's Republic under a communist system for a long time and has crawled out from under that and I gather is actually doing quite well now.
They're now like a parliamentary republic of limited government of some kind.
Mr. Slurdley.
Well, I think it's fair to say, Mr. Slurdley, that the system Mongolia has isn't as expensive as us.
But to go back to Carl's point, you know, it's a very good example of how mighty forces can suddenly collapse, wither away to nothing, leave no trace.
The Mongol Empire didn't make a huge difference to the world.
The Romans did.
The Greeks did.
The Spanish did.
The British did.
And great tides in the affairs of men, you hope to arrange affairs so that if even things are going sticky for you, your legacy survives.
That's what the British did after World War II, when they could no longer retain global dominance around the planet.
They did deals with the United States to ensure that the trade routes built up by the British, the rule of law, the global order built up by the British survived.
That's why in Bermuda there was a U.S. naval base.
That's why in Australia there was the ANZUS Alliance, Australia, New Zealand, the United States.
That's why there are Canadian, Royal Canadian Air Force officers at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.
All that is the legacy when the British discovered they couldn't retain global dominance and they transferred it to the kind of best available partner.
And there's no one on the scene now.
And so it is much closer to something like the Mongol moment, where if you're going to collapse, there isn't going to be a successor power to take your place.
Kim Jong-un, our old pal, Kim Jong-un, who's just been crowned in Pyongyang, has been given the title the Great Successor.
That yes, he's the great successor is a number one hit for the platters in 1957.
There's a Mitt Romney cultural reference there.
Around the time that Lucille Ball was getting into the chocolate factory business, the pretenders, the platters were number one with yes, I'm the great successor.
And Kim Jong-un, the great successor.
Who is going to be America's great successor?
If America goes down this path, Congressman Gomeut made a very good point just now, that the idea that somehow it was inconceivable when the Republicans agreed to the debt ceiling deal last summer, after all that phony baloney theater of, oh, you know, the clock is ticking down to American default, that the idea that it wouldn't be coming back for more.
Barack Obama would not be coming back for another trillion here and another trillion there before the election.
This was a good way to get it out of the way.
When you're spending on this scale, we're not talking about decline.
We're not talking about genteel European decline.
We are talking something closer to Mongolian collapse.
And Carl is right that when he says the difference in those civilizations that left a trace, whether we're talking about Rome or Greece or Britain, is that they were civilizations predicated on an expansion of liberty.
And the motto, migrate state, live free or die. is great about that is it's not a battle cry.
It's a simple statement of the obvious that you can live as free men, but if you choose not to do so, your civilization is surely doomed.
We'll pick that up straight ahead.
The NASCAR driver, Casey Kane, has apologized for saying on Twitter, tweeting, that he was disgusted at the sight of a woman breastfeeding in public on Wednesday night.
He said it put him off his food in the supermarket.
He didn't feel like shopping or eating anymore.
And he's now apologised for that.
Casey Kane, I wonder, you know, I can live with that as long.
Once it gets kind of, they get too old, once you see these like six and seven year olds breastfeeding, that's when it kind of gets slightly creepy to me.
But, you know, in a way, this is the perfect emblem of the Republic at Twilight.
We're big, overgrown babies suckling on the government teat.
And it is time, as Casey Kane said before he apologized for his offensive remark when he told the woman it was time for her to put it away.
It is time for big government to put it away and for us to stop being overgrown babies and get off the big government teat.
▲
Export Selection