All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
April 18, 2014, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Buck Sexton here filling in for Rush Limbaugh today.
I'm also, just to bring you up to speed, the national security editor of the Blaze dot com and fighting a tiny bit of a cold, but couldn't uh pass up this opportunity to have a chance to speak to all of you.
So I think that the best way to do this as we are on Friday, and for many of you it is good Friday, would be to look at some of what's happened this week and try to make sense of it.
Now, I think that the progressive impulse of the Democrats, uh, the Democrats expose themselves in several ways and in ways that give us a very clear indication of what the long-term play is, the play going into the midterm elections, but more importantly, the play to fundamentally transform this country, as President Obama accurately promised was his goal.
What we saw, of course, were a number of times when there was a decision made, a decision made by the oligarchy that is our Congress, uh, to try to push forward even more restricting legislation and regulations against the American people, and also we got a sense of just what their character is when that uh is met with some resistance from the American people.
I think more specifically here of the continued uh back and forth over the Nevada Ranch standoff with Cliven Bundy.
Now, if you had any doubt in your mind whatsoever about just what members of Congress, the Democrats specifically think of folks who decide that they're just going to not comply.
And that's really what this comes down to.
This is an individual in his family who have decided that they're gonna just take a more wait and see approach to whether or not this federal regulation that the Bureau of Land Management really should be telling them what it is that that they should do as a matter of their livelihood.
But Senator Harry Reid, who never disappoints if you're looking for an outrageous soundbite and a sense that our government treats us as children to be spanked and pushed around.
Uh Senator Reed came out and he made very clear that he thinks that uh, you know, these uh individuals are who who came to the Clive uh through the Bundy family's aid, they are in fact domestic terrorists.
Listen to this.
There were hundreds, hundreds of people from around the country that came there.
Uh they had sniper rifles on the freeway, they had assault weapons, they had automatic weapons, and as the one of the former sheriffs from Arizona said, and we had children and women lined up because what if anybody got hurt, we want to make sure they got hurt first because we wanted the federal government hurting women and children.
This is the deal, and it's not a good one.
So these people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not.
They're nothing more than domestic terrorists.
Nothing more than domestic terrorists.
Now, and in a time period at which we know that the left and the Democrats, that their policies have caused some problems.
Uh we've started to see the end results of them.
They, of course, will call for civility, the constant demonization of Republicans, the claim that if only Republicans wouldn't stand in the way if they wouldn't be so obstructionist.
This has become the talking point for the lazy uh of the elected and of course the easily fooled within the electorate.
But that is in fact the talking point that somehow Republicans stand in the way of all progress, and again, we talk of the progressive impulse of the Democrats.
So it's all their fault.
Oh, well, actually, it's not all their fault.
Can't be all their fault, because they've actually managed to get some things through.
They've managed to push through certain policies, the most notable of which, of course, is Obamacare.
But you also get this sense of the tremendous hostility that people like Harry Reid have to the American people.
To call for civility in any discussion, to call for an uh an end to a standoff, and of course, everyone wants to see these things settled quietly and without violence.
To speak of someone as a domestic terrorist along the lines of one who should be, oh, under federal investigation.
Maybe they can sick the IRS on these individuals, which by the way, I'm sure is coming.
If I were in the Bundy family, The assumption would be, the assumption that I would have is that the full weight and might of the federal Leviathan of the bureaucratic, many headed hydra, would be coming for me.
I'm not exactly sure in what form.
I couldn't know per se, because there's so many of them.
They've seen one of the more obscure heads of the Hydra with the Bureau of Land Management deciding to make quite a stand, decide that they're going to be quite uh uh forceful in their direction of or in their directives to the Bundy family.
But you see, Harry Reid treats the American people with a degree of disdain because he views himself not as somebody who is representative of the people, but in fact somebody whose job is to direct the people.
There's much more of a sense of the sovereign over the citizen when you talk when you look at these Democrats than anybody on the you know on the left, and as Rush says from the drive-by media, any of them are willing to say, but you see it in it, it is evidenced by the way they react to certain things, and of course by the policies that they push for.
But when we look at those policies as well, I think there's a growing unease, and as I said, short-term, midterms, long-term, the transformation of this country.
There's a growing unease with what's going to happen as a result of these policies.
But everything put together paints a very difficult picture for the Democrats.
They don't necessarily, though, think that we're going to be able to beat them based upon the numbers, because as we saw this week, they will change the numbers.
I'm sure you have heard that now the Census Bureau is going to be shifting the way that it collects health care information just magically at the time when it would be of most use to the political opposition, to conservatives to Republicans.
It used to be that we would argue over the numbers.
We'd argue over the reality, and then there'd be some creation of perception.
But the Obama administration is perception and perception only.
There's nothing else.
They offer you nothing else.
Propaganda is in fact the policy.
Because the things that you feel every day, your health care premiums, the doctor networks that you have, the economy, your tax rate, all the things that you know and that they can't change really because you're feeling it day to day, those aren't working.
Those are problematic.
Those in fact create weakness for them.
They create create difficulty for the Democratic Party, which is so desperate to hold on to power.
Power is in fact the prime goal of Democrats because power is in fact what you need to be a progressive who transforms a country, who dramatically alters the state of what we thought we were living in.
But I would tell you this as well, the changing of the numbers and the lies, there was that poll from earlier this week that says that a majority of Americans overall think the president lies on big issues.
Well, what does that say about the direction we're headed in?
They're lying about the numbers and they're lying about the policies.
This must be to a point, though.
You don't want to underestimate the opposition.
You certainly don't want to underestimate the opposition when you're talking about Democrats who have a craven desire, a craven and cynical need to hold on to power at all costs.
I think what they're doing here is creating a number of uh different perception changes, including with the numbers of the President Obama, using weaponizing the bureaucracy, like with the IRS, the Bureau of Land Management, using all the different levers of federal power in order to fundamentally transform the electorate, not just the country.
Because all the failures of the Democratic Party are irrelevant if the electorate is changed and manipulated in such a way that those failures bring about certain constituencies.
If partisan advantage is institutionalized by the government itself, again, through these mechanisms, like the IRS targeting of conservative groups, like Obamacare, a massive scheme for the redistribution of wealth from some to others.
You almost get the sense that there are people in the White House with a giant abacus who are saying, okay, well, we're taking away from this many Americans, but we're giving to this many Americans, and so on balance we're still in power, so it's okay.
The hidden costs in the system of the regulation, and by the way, I'm going to bring you into some specifics on regulatory costs under Obama.
He has the the regulations that we've seen, regulatory czar doesn't even begin to cover it.
It's a regulation bonanza in this country.
It's endless.
But the failures, as I said, the failures of Obamacare, the failures of policy, and even the failure that comes from the American people seeing a bunch of federal agents surround a civilian's property in Nevada with rifles and dogs and that imagery,
which is difficult for the Democratic Party, none of that really matters if they are able to create what is a de facto single party state, meaning that the Republicans, because of the institutionalized advantages of the government itself, as well as specific changes made to who votes, start thinking amnesty here.
Then none of it matters.
Then you go into a future where the Republican Party is a permanent minority.
And as I've said, President Obama only needs to hold on to what he's already done for the rest of his term.
He doesn't have to pass any major legislation.
If he can head fake the Republicans into going forward on an amnesty deal, great, but he doesn't have to do that.
He recognizes that would be to his advantage.
He recognizes that it would certainly put the Republicans in a much quicker spiral into non existence, into the abyss essentially.
And by the way, this is not something that's unusual around the world.
There are many countries.
If you just look to our South in Mexico, by the way, there was one party in power for seventy years.
Sure, it's a democracy, but all of the levers of power and all the institutional aspects of voting of politics were tilted in such a way that only one party is ever really in charge.
The Democrats, as you know, in this country own the Congress for what, forty years before Reagan came along.
There has been very clear and very obvious attempts to not just transform the country, but to transform the way that power is uh given back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats are trying for the whole thing.
They're trying to change exactly how it is that we have a separation of powers in the executive, and they're trying to change who it is that's able to vote for whoever's supposed to be at those levers of power year after year, election cycle after election cycle.
They're going for the goal.
They're going for number one, they're going for the prize.
Republicans and opposition here have a mighty task ahead of them, because if they can't manage something in these midterms, they may never have another shot to get it done.
Call in number is 800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton filling in for Rush Limbaugh, back in just a minute.
Buck Sexton here filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
As I said, the policies, the end result of the policies are something that they're trying to sort of mask because I think the long-term goal is very different from what they've told you.
You've been told, for example, that Obamacare.
You have been told that Obamacare is about getting insurance for the uninsured.
And as you know, they rolled out the sweeteners first.
The things that have the most emotional and therefore political resonance, things like staying on your parents' health insurance until you're twenty-six.
Why not?
Things like giving uh coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, that came first.
But we can't even really understand what the costs are because the costs which were written into this law a certain way have all been back-ended now.
They've been placed into the future, just like our entitlement program now is all about what comes in the future, and we keep overspending and going deeper into debt, Obamacare is a layaway program that maybe you'll never have to pay for.
We're not really sure at this point.
But despite that, despite the game of three card Monty here where they're trying to hide what in fact is under this, hide what the costs are, and not just the cost, by the way, but the care, so much of this comes down to whether or not you're going to be able to get health care, not health coverage, but...
Coverage is a piece of paper.
Coverage is, oh, uh, my doctor's supposed to take this.
Well, we've not yet reached a point, and we may, by the way, we have not yet reached a point where the federal government mandates that doctors have to take all of these plans.
But we may.
In fact, when people start to feel the doctor shortages that are coming, and also the rationing of care that this thing has to create, Well, then, as we know, it will be too late.
Then they'll have to try to find another fix to this.
But the latest from uh from the past twenty-four hours is that Obama is hailing eight million enrollees for insurance under the federal health care law.
Eight million.
Now that's of course lower than the initial estimate that came out from the Congressional Budget Office.
Um, but I digress.
Originally they said it was going to be seven, and then when it got close, they said, Oh no, we're not going to hit the seven.
And then when they realized they were gonna hit the seven, they said, Oh, look at us.
Seven is the magic number.
Okay.
Is that so?
Then here we get President Obama, this is the from the Post.
Can I call it the Washington Con uh the Yeah, the Post, that's right.
Well, President Obama announced Thursday that eight million people have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, calling the feat a success story that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of in the face of Republican election year attacks on the law.
He was speaking at an impromptu news conference.
I this president certainly has a lot of a lot of news conferences.
He said I think Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that millions of people like the woman I just described, who I saw in Pennsylvania yesterday, we're helping because of something we did.
Okay, well let's take a look at this for a second.
Only in the progressive, and by the way, just a little note, an idiosyncrasy of your uh of your intrepid guest host today.
I don't like to refer to them as liberal.
I don't like to refer to them as liberal as a personal matter because they are anti-liberty.
I think progressive as they've adopted now, they keep switching the term in order to slough off the uh the connotations that come with it as they destroy whatever it is that they said they were working on, whether it's liberal, whether it's progressive, it's back and forth.
There's sort of a ping-pong of terminology that occurs.
When liberal starts to sound bad, they start saying progressive.
But now we know progressive sounds sort of sort of bad, so they've started saying liberal again.
But they are anti-liberal, they're anti-liberty.
So I refer to them as Democrats, progressives, left wingers, nut jobs, any number of things.
But this eight million number is fascinating because they have mandated you buy a product.
They've literally mandated if you didn't have if you were in the individual insurance market, they've said as a matter of law, and law is sort of a punchline to this administration, regardless, but as a matter of law, you have to buy this.
Or else you pay I don't know, we gotta get John Roberts to call in here from the Supreme Court, a tax one day, a penalty another, who knows?
What's one or the other?
But you gotta pay.
Everybody has to pay.
So they say you must buy this product.
This is like you've arrived at the county fair and they uh they they force you to eat some cotton candy, and then they say, Well, you're gonna buy it now, and isn't that great?
Look at how much cotton candy we're selling.
Eight million enrollees.
They will not, of course, tell us how many of those enrollees, and this is at the heart of the whole matter, are getting insurance for the first time.
They've also made sure that by pushing forward the employer mandate into what is it now, 2016, oh look at that.
Maybe we'll be able to elect a new Democrat president without actually seeing what the signature law, not just of President Obama, but the entire Democratic Party.
They have been chomping at the bit to do this for decades.
In fact, if you want to go back to the early days, Herbert Crowley and the progressives, I mean, they've really wanted to do national health insurance in one form or another for over a hundred years.
And if you want to look at the origins of that, you can look at Bismarck in Germany.
I mean, this is all part of the idea of creating a statist and therefore increasingly authoritarian society, one in which they tell you what you get, what you have, and what you keep.
But here they are with their eight million number, and they're just patting themselves on the back doing victory dances left and right, thinking this is so fantastic.
That's on the one hand, on the other hand, they're making sure that it is literally impossible for you to know, for us to know, for the national discourse about health care to be infused with the facts and figures that are essential to understanding whether or not this law was a failure, to understanding whether or not the entire basis of this, which was to insure people who did not have insurance before, whether that had been met.
We've seen nothing yet.
We've seen people sign up and click on a website.
This would be like saying, well, look at how many people have gone to Amazon and they yeah, maybe they've bought something, maybe they haven't, but at least they've made an account.
Well, we haven't gotten our products.
I haven't gotten my Amazon fuzzy slippers yet.
I'm waiting for them.
And what if they don't fit?
Oh, well, then I get to go to some federal bureaucrat and say, hey, this isn't what I signed up for.
And you know what they'll say?
Yeah, it is.
Because you sign up for what we tell you you sign up for.
Oh, well, in that case, I'm so glad that's been explained to me finally.
I'm so glad I have an understanding that there was no actual choice in this in the first place.
And by the way, the choice is like a BOA constrictor.
This is going to get tighter and tighter around all of us, with less and less actual decision making by the American people, and much more by the bureaucrats inside the beltway in DC, who will not stop until they have control over every aspect of your life.
800-282-2882, call in Bucks Exton Infrarush Limbaugh back in a minute.
So we are clearly in regulation nation.
You and I are living in an America in which rule by middling bureaucrats is increasingly the rule.
It is not the exception.
We find ourselves always hoping.
There's almost like a sort of a Stockholm syndrome here in which we just we sit and we we pray and we we plead not to become the target of the federal government.
Now, as I have said many times before, the federal government is something like a one-eyed giant to most Americans.
I've heard this analogy used elsewhere.
It is my favorite one for the federal government.
You can avoid it, generally, you can hide from it, but if it gets you, if it grabs you in its hands, you are essentially finished.
Whether it's with regulation or with the criminal code for any reason, you're done because they get paid to show up either way.
They get paid to make sure that you can't pay your mortgage.
And so in this society in which we have the endless tyranny of stupid little regulations.
And we understand this as being contrary to the very essence of the Constitution and contrary to a system of limited government.
This is death by a thousand cuts for the Constitution.
Or if you will, death by a thousand bureaucratic fiats.
But what we see here, and I have to give the Wall Street Journal credit for doing a good job of raising these issues into the national discussion, is a piece it's called regulator without peer.
This is from the Journal's Review and Outlook section.
By at least one measure.
Barack Obama surpr surpasses all of his predecessors.
And it starts off, it talks about why is it the economy, as I'm sure you know, this is the worst recovery out of a recession since the second world war.
This is the worst recovery out of a recession essentially in the modern era of America.
And yet they say nothing is wrong.
They say there's no problem here.
It's just a question of knocking some of the dust off and maybe having those plutocrats pay their fair share.
But in reality, as we know, the federal government has set a record for its tax receipts in the first six months of uh of the year.
The federal government is bringing in more money than it has at any comparable period in history.
And it's never enough.
It will never be enough.
And this is the same with regulation.
This is the same when it comes to the little intrusions, those irritating little intrusions into your daily life, into your personal life, your business life.
In fact, as we see with the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups and other conservative groups of your political life.
There's never enough regulation either.
They can't take enough of your money unless you stop them from doing so.
And they can't tell you what to do enough unless you stop them from doing so.
And in this Wall Street Journal piece, it says that the Federal Register finished 2013 at 79,311 pages, the fourth highest total in history.
That didn't match President Obama's 2010 all time record of 81,405 pages.
This regular now you're probably thinking, okay, this is annoying.
That's what I think what most people think of with regulations.
This is annoying.
And people who work in large companies or large bureaucracies, most specifically the federal government, they are, of course, the implementors of these regulations.
They are part of the process.
They are the sort of little quisling bureaucrats that make sure that the machinery rolls on as is and grows, of course.
Has to keep functioning and keep growing.
In fact, we've now come to conflate.
We seem to have this notion in our heads that a government cannot function unless it is in a constant state of growth.
Growth in spending, growth in size, growth in power.
Now I know as a principal or in principle, you reject all of those things, but in truth, that's what's happening.
You know it, and I know it.
But regulation is not merely a question of irritation.
It's not just, oh, is this going to be a problem?
Is this going to be something I have a little more paperwork?
You know, what am I going to do about this?
Uh they're doing this to my business.
No, no.
And I know you just filled out your taxes, most likely, or you paid someone to fill out your taxes last week.
And there was that wonderful letter from Don Rumsfeld in which he said, I have no idea, and you have no idea.
Even the IRS has no idea, really.
They kind of make it up as they go along.
And you hope that when you point these things out, you are not again, you're not grabbed by the blind giant.
We are all suffering from the federal Leviathan Stockholm syndrome of, oh, maybe they'll be nice to me if I just am quiet and comply.
Rumsfeld is saying, I don't know what the deal is here.
Well, I bring you back to these regulations.
That was on taxation, and as you know, if we go back to the founding taxation, regulation, these sorts of things got our founding fathers a little hot under the collar.
They found these things somewhat irritating.
In fact, I'm pretty sure these were some of the things that led them to say, you know what?
We're not doing this anymore.
We won't comply.
And then we all know what happened after that.
Nice work, by the way, founding fathers.
But we look back at this regulatory issue and understand that it's in principle a problem.
It's in principle problematic.
It erodes the structure of our liberties that are in place as they are now.
It's law essentially without the lawmaking process.
So there's no way by which you can hold people accountable for this.
Just like with the Bureau of Land Management.
Who do they answer to?
Well, I guess they sort of tangentially answer to the White House, maybe.
Well, unless it's the IRS.
Then they don't, then they are then the White House has no idea, nothing to see here.
Lois Lerner is like never talk to anybody in the administration who is senior.
Never.
No, of course not.
But these bureaucracies are tools of implementing policy that don't have the usual checks and balances of the legislative process.
We have a problem right now, as you know, we have a problem with this Congress that thinks that it has way too much power and also seems to think that inaction is the worst of things.
When what we see based upon the piling up of federal statutes and, as we're talking about now, regulations.
The pile is getting so high that we can't even see the top.
And what's worse, we're supposed to be subject to these things.
How can there be a check or a balance on regulations that are, oh, what's this seventy-nine thousand three hundred and eleven pages in the Federal Register talking about government regulation?
How can we change it if we don't even know it exists?
Not a single human being in the country has read all seventy-nine thousand pages of that, I assure you, not one.
So we don't even know what's in there.
This reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me about how in ancient Rome, I think it was under Nero, they would write laws at the very top of a column.
They would inscribe them.
And nobody could read them, nobody could see them, but if pressed, they could say the law is there publicly for all to see.
Now, whether this is true or not, you get the point.
That's essentially what's happening now.
So you have a regulation system that inherently cannot be stymied and stopped.
Because we don't even know what it is.
No one knows what it is.
All we know is that the system is wide open and people who are drunk with their power, and it's limited by in the individual cases of the bureaucrats.
But taken as a whole, the federal government is a gargantua.
It's enormous.
It gets bigger all the time.
The founding fathers were concerned about the centralization of power at a time when it took a couple of weeks on horseback and some rough nights sleeping in random taverns along the road to get word from DC to Boston.
Now these bureaucrats have, as we know, from those emails, Lois Learner, remember IRS.
They have immediate, instantaneous contact with all branches of the federal Government right away, every day.
The White House can enforce its writ with a phone call.
They can contact anyone and everyone within the bureaucracy and mobilize them in a way that is unforeseen in history.
Nobody could have had any idea that this was coming.
So you have all these things swirling together.
You have this sense that you are slowly being strangled and your freedom is being removed.
And it is.
There's no question about it.
Regulation is the absence of choice.
Regulation is this is how it will be.
And you didn't even get to vote those bums out of office.
In fact, you don't even know where their offices are.
Go to the local branch of the BLM out in law.
Oh, we take our orders from maybe the regional office or maybe from D.C. This becomes like a Kafka nightmare.
You can never find justice, and you can never find a way to win.
The federal government always wins.
On top of all of that, as I mentioned to you, with the economy and the current trajectory of this anemic recovery we're in.
Jobs numbers are a joke, as you know.
It's much higher than the unemployment figures, much higher than are currently touted.
Just as they've managed to cook the books and find ways to change the way that our health care coverage is collated and collected by the federal government now, or as we should say, over the past few years, you've seen that as long as you drop out of the workforce, we don't have to worry about you anymore.
Well, if we're looking at ways, which of course just means that they're undercounting the number of unemployed, as a matter of policy, the Democrats are doing this because they see the midterms looming and they recognize that the economy, even go uh go around to different groups, and you know, the Democrats love to balkanize and break us all up by ethnicity and gender and everything else.
But go into most groups.
The economy, if not the number one issue, is certainly very high on the scale.
And so they've found ways to try to control that message as well.
I'll actually get more into the specific messaging that Democrats, the Dems are trotting out later today on the program.
But this issue of the regulations that are coming up against us now, this issue of a regulatory tax, as it's called in this Wall Street Journal piece.
Let me just read you this one section.
This regulatory tax makes U.S. businesses.
Now they're talking about the cost of all these regulations.
It makes U.S. businesses less competitive, but it also burdens every American because it is embedded in the prices of all goods and services.
The estimate is that U.S. households pay $14,974 annually in regulatory hidden taxes, or $23% of the average income of $65,596.
25% pay cut, courtesy of the bureaucrats in D.C. How does that stick in your crawler?
What do you think about that?
That's no fun, is it?
They talk about adjusting the percentages of the high earners, you know.
President Obama likes to try out this class warfare stuff.
Oh, maybe if we just tinker at the top, we raise the rates 3%, that'll make everything better.
Well, I got a message for Republicans.
How about you say I want to give everybody a 25% raise?
Because I want to just go in there with a hacksaw.
I want to use Occam's razor like it's a chainsaw and cut away all of the nonsense, unnecessary regulations the federal government keeps piling up year after year after year.
That might get someone's attention.
If you say it in the context of, well, look at the look at the Tea Party.
I mean the old, the old school Tea Party, not Tea Party 2.0.
Look at regulation from the perspective of the founding fathers.
This is completely out of control.
This is sort of a a monstrous outgrowth of the Wickard v.
Philburn decision at the Supreme Court that said that the government can regulate uh commerce that's not even between the states because commerce within a state affects commerce between the states.
Oh.
By the way, you can draw a straight line from wicker to the most recent Supreme Court decision in which inactivity became something the government can regulate.
Not commerce, lack of commerce.
Now how are you safe?
Now how can they not enforce policy as they see fit at every turn, whether through the regulation or through the bureaucracy?
That's the that's these are the questions we have to look at.
Oh, by the way, one more thing on this.
There are 3,305 regulations moving through the pipeline on their way to being imposed right now.
And this is from this Wall Street Journal piece.
199 of those are quote economically significant rules, which are defined as having costs.
Get ready for this.
Of at least a hundred million dollars a year.
A hundred million.
Pulled out of the economy by who?
By people that never have to answer to you.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in just a minute.
Buck Sexton In for Rush Limbaugh.
As you can see, I'm battling a tiny bit of a cold, but when Rush calls, you answer.
It doesn't matter what's going on.
So that's why I'm here.
Thank you very much for staying with me.
The call in is 800-282-2882, and I want to take some calls now.
Let's get Patrick from Turks and Caicos.
Sounds lovely there this time of year.
Uh Patrick, what's going on?
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Um well, listening to what you have to say, and combined with what I saw on TV with the Nevada thing.
You know, we were all looking at a hundred the manifestation of a hundred and ten years of what progressivism turns into.
And you're right about the Stockholm syndrome thing, but you know, in general, Americans are good people.
Our country was founded on an idea, it did develop a different way.
We do trust government.
We do like order and the rule of law.
Even if it's the EPA that's, you know, questioning a pond on your land or something, you know.
Most Americans um listen, they pay attention.
We are a law abiding people.
That is absolutely we are a law abiding people, and that's why it's important that the government respect the laws that it's passing as well.
But go ahead, Patrick.
Yeah, and um, you know, I'm in the middle of uh uh reading the uh uh book about Coolidge that uh Amony Shales uh wrote, and in reading about how he was dealing with the early progressives, and it's like it's taken out of yesterday's news.
It is amazing.
They haven't changed, they've stuck with the deal, they are reaping the fruits of all their hundred and ten years of labor right now.
And all these laws, it it it in regulations, you're right.
It doesn't make any sense.
That would mean that we're an out-of-control, lawless society.
We aren't.
Our government is out of control.
They're increasingly showing that they are lawless.
And yes, I think most Americans have it in their heart that when they lose that respect or think that the people that are making or enforcing the laws are out of control, they're gonna push back.
Yeah, you know, Patrick, one of the best examples of this, we don't have to reach back, and by the way, I love the the historical uh you know, looking back into history to get a sense of where we are now uh and Calvin Calvin Coolidge actually went to my college.
There's like a statue of him on my on my campus, which I always thought was kind of fun, and it's uh something that's always stayed with me to this day.
But you know, we saw the Obama administration uh saying the one of their talking points.
I mean, this is from Smarmy J. Carney himself, which was the law is the law, you know, and with Obamacare, the law is the law, because when we had that fight back in the October or November time frame about uh the debt ceiling and about funding the government and all the rest, they were saying there's no way we're gonna delay implementation.
The law is the law.
And what we found out was that the law is only the law when they think it gave when they think it is, when it helps them, when it counts on their side of the ledger.
And this has very pernicious, very nasty downstream effects for the rest of uh America, for the rest of our society, because if the government itself is going to say one day, we're letter of the law people, and the next day, whatever it is, thirty-eight changes to Obamacare and counting, no one can even really keep track.
The next day the law is not the law.
Well, why are citizens supposed to be subject to a different set of rules and principles than the government that's supposed to represent them?
That's a question they can't answer.
That's right.
All right.
I've uh I've probably read a hundred and twenty books on the founding of our country and the history of it, and I knew exactly what I was seeing when I was watching this unfold in Nevada.
And it's um it's pretty frightening.
They've put a lot of work into it, and uh now as conservatives, we have to do the same thing.
And you know what?
Even if it takes a hundred and ten years.
Yeah, well, we got it.
We gotta start fighting back against the incrementalism, the tyranny of incrementalism.
Um so thanks for that, Patrick.
Uh, let's get uh oh, nope.
Let's just get me telling you what's coming up.
Uh you know, some of you uh may have seen this.
I'm gonna talk to you a little bit about some of the IRS's plans going forward, how it's gonna find out exactly where you are and what you're doing.
Uh, this is something that um Oh, I gotta go now.
It's uh call in is eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two, Buck Sexton InfoRush Limbaugh back in a few minutes.
Buck Sexton Infor Rush Limbaugh on the National Security Editor of The Blaze dot com, formerly of the Central Intelligence Agency and the NYPD Intelligence Division.
You can check out my stuff at theBlaze.com slash Buck Sexton.
I got something coming up for you here in a second.
The IRS is using some spooky technology that you're gonna want to know about.
It had tax they just passed, but we got a lot more.
▲
Export Selection