All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
June 5, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're talking about the great trade, the remarkable trade in which the shrewd Barack Obama managed to release five horribly dangerous terrorists in exchange for one American who may or may not have been a defector.
You know, there's a Fox News poll out.
Fox News' polls are done by Anderson Robbins Research, they're Democrats, and Sean Company who are Republicans.
The one thing that Obama has always held up on poll wise is he always seems to poll better than W. Bush.
I think George W. Bush is going to be judged by history better than he's being judged right now.
There are clearly problems, there were clearly strengths in his presidency, but it's still close behind, and Obama has been able, we inherited this mess, all of that.
And he's always been judged better than Bush.
Is now even that changing?
This Fox News poll, 48% of Americans say the Obama administration is less competent than Bush's.
So even now, when put up against Bush, Obama's not very well.
Now that question was about competence.
There's been this tremendous debate on the right about whether or not Obama is merely a bad president, or whether or not this is all part of some master plan to weaken America.
In the end, I think that debate becomes irrelevant because whether it's an intent or not, in so many different areas, our nation is a different one than the one we had before.
We are weaker, we are losing standing in the world.
We are certainly more of a target.
We are being shoved around.
All of this is a result of the actions of the president.
I have argued from the very beginning, in fact, I still remember this program in which I guest hosted for Rush, right after Obama was sworn into office, and I argued that these people were in over their head and they were not competent.
Let me explain my point.
Even if you accept my premise that Obama's goal here is to get out of Afghanistan, and therefore he needs to start talking to the Taliban and to get rid of the Guantanamo problem by starting to release inmates.
He hasn't handled this well.
Look at all the crap he's getting for this.
He's being ridiculed.
He's got Democrat members of the Senate criticizing him for the release.
He's got people who've served in the military appalled that we are elevating Bergdahl to the status that we have.
He's got the people in Afghanistan horrified about what's been released.
He's got everybody after him on this.
It's so bad that he's had to change the narrative.
I mentioned earlier in the program that the New York Times is now reporting that the reason the administration did this is because they were terrified that the Taliban was going to kill Bergdahl.
They hadn't said that until today.
Bergdahl is terribly sick.
That was the big one.
The people who are being released from Guantanamo were going to be closely monitored in Qatar.
That wasn't true.
We have guarantees that they're not going to be returning to any kind of terrorist activities.
They now acknowledge that isn't true.
The first story that they tried to peddle where they did so badly at, they botched it so badly that they've got to put out another one.
Whether this is a goal or not, the president lacks the competence to even pull off the kinds of things that he wants to do.
By the way, we have another trade.
You didn't like my first one.
I know that.
The staff was not happy about the first.
There isn't a I can only report the news.
Obama's made another trade.
We're sending the Statue of Liberty back to France.
In exchange, we're getting a signed Francois Mitterrand.
There might be more of these trades, for better or worse.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
On the Rush Limbaugh program, I think it's time to talk to callers.
Brooklyn, Ken, it's your turn on the Rush Show with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, um, I love your your two-part analysis, but I disagree with what you just said that it's irrelevant.
I think it's that people need to know who we're dealing with, so you know, we win, we start winning some elections.
But I think the third dimension of of your two-part analysis of their motivation is that I believe based on the fact that everyone is called a racist who disagrees with any any policy or Obama and they're constantly playing the race card,
the Islamophobe race card, uh all of that, is because they look at America as if it's some um wealthy, racist, rich, white old guy with a Billy Club that's just walking around the world and here they're you know hitting minorities over there.
And so I think there's their overall umbrella is more than just uh Bengal uh Guantanamo, is that they they need to neuter that image in the world with because they have this mistaken belief that if they do that we'll somehow we'll be well liked and people, you know, and we won't have any more enemies.
I agree I agree with this second point that we'll be.
Before you do that though, Ken, I want to uh I strongly agree with your point, so I want to work with it for a minute.
When you say they, are you referring to Obama or his leftist core?
I'm talking about both and the media and guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, which is a perfect lead-in to my second point, but if you have on the first one.
I'm gonna give you the second, I'm gonna give you a chance to make the second point because I love your first point.
I agree with you on this.
There are people on the left, and I mean the real left.
They have never been comfortable with the notion of America as a superpower.
They have never been comfortable with the notion that we sit there and we use our power to try to figure out what's best for the world.
They don't like it.
They've never been comfortable with us trying to stop other nations from getting nuclear weapons.
They ask, well, who are we to dictate?
Who are we the ones to say this?
They've always taken this view of the world.
They are they're the ones that object when you hear Republicans or conservatives talk about this concept of American exceptionalism.
They don't like that.
What they like is to cast America as the bully.
You see that you certainly see that that's what's what's the core of American history courses at your public universities right now.
We're always the bad guy.
That's the vision they like.
They don't they never liked President Bush, who they felt was a cowboy running around making foreign policy without consulting the rest of the world.
They felt that we needed to work things through with everyone else.
That's been the core of their policy.
I agree, and I believe that Obama is part of all of that.
When he came in, he was determined that he was going to achieve foreign policy through consensus and that he wasn't going to dictate to the rest of the world.
He felt incredibly naively that if he worked with Putin, if he worked with the Iranians, if he worked with other adversaries, we'd be able to reach accommodations.
He never felt that the use of force was appropriate.
So therefore, his whole presidency has been one in which he's tried to fight against this idea of America being dominant and America being superior.
I do agree with you that that is at the core of his ideology.
He has never been comfortable with a war on terror.
He has never been comfortable with us saying Iran, you can't have nuclear weapons.
He's never been comfortable with the United States going in and telling, you know, Russia what they can or cannot do.
And that I think is just part of, you know, what really drives the left.
They don't like the notion of a strong America because they don't think that the United States of America, imperialist, white racist America, white privilege America, should be dictating to anyone.
The great flaw, of course, in their thinking is that if we don't exercise our influence, who will?
And I think you see who the answer is Islamist terrorists, Vladimir Putin, and every other evil force in the world.
You wanted to make a second point, and I want to hear it.
Yeah, you uh you don't bring cat flowers and candy to a firefight.
And look at the two extremes of the perception we have over the world.
We just let five of the worst terrorists go, and we can't get a Marine who made a wrong left turn out of Mexico, right?
So here's my second point is that it's not just a belief on their part, but it's also a strategy now with guys like Al Sharpton and and and Jesse Jackson and and even Barack Obama and and uh Eric Holder is that they play the race card because they know that white America is So afraid and in the media so afraid of being branded a racist,
the actual reality is that they're the ones that are walking around with the Billy Club, and they can't assassinate us, so they'll use the IRS, they'll use the National Security Agency to spy on us, they'll assassinate our characters, they'll go after guys like James Rosen, who's pulling the covers on them, they'll call all of us racists, because they know that that's a strategy that will work.
And the only way we're going to win the hearts and minds of everybody in America is to pull the covers on that ideology, that left-wing defeatist ideology that is a progressive and basically sociologist socialist ideology, and not get distracted by diversionary red herring issues that sound great on the surface that no one can really disagree with, you know, like income inequality, real racism, parity, the environment.
Um button.
Until you just said that until you just said that, Ken, I agree with everything that you said about their worldview and their tactic, the reason that they hurl out racist, homophobe, and so on, they want to delegitimize our argument.
The part that I disagree is I do think it's important to take all of their arguments at face value and debunk them, because the alternative is what we're seeing happening in American universities where this stuff is spewed out and it's never challenged, and people aren't offered another point of view.
There's a reason they so despise Rush Limbaugh.
They hate Rush because Russia's a large audience and he presents a differing world view than theirs.
They want to present the stuff that you just described, and they don't want it ever to be challenged.
They don't like anyone who's going to fight back in terms of either politics or ideology.
That they don't like at all.
Very good call, thank you for the call.
The damage that happens when you make a deal like Bergdahl for five dangerous Taliban is longer term than merely today.
If the United States is ever going to be able to work with anyone else in the world, we have to be dependent on.
We have a treaty with you to defend Ukraine.
We're ignoring that.
We did go into Afghanistan and tell the people this whole business of trying to train the Afghan army to defend itself, to work to establish civil government in all of these small communities, these hamlets, these tribal territories of Afghanistan.
The whole stated purpose of this was that we tried to tell them, starting with the Bush administration, that the Taliban was gone, you can govern yourself, and we are here to help you.
Well, if we now are known as the nation that can't be trusted, if we're known as the nation that's going to abandon Afghanistan and worse, legitimize the Taliban, no one will ever want to work with us.
This is where I speak to Obama's competence.
I think he'd love to see the United States as the great facilitator.
He he sees his he sees our role as Phil Donahue.
Let's have everybody get together at a table, and we're all going to talk peace and love, mmm, kiss kissy kissy kissy face, and the world is just going to be at peace.
He's one of those people who believes in all the bumper stickers about war being hell, and we all need to coexist.
But he can't even do that right.
If the United States has the ability to work with anyone, our word has to be trusted.
Imagine being, and I made this point a few moments ago.
There's a story in today's Wall Street Journal that re-emphasizes it.
Imagine being someone who was in one of the communities in Afghanistan that some of these guys terrorized.
Quote from the Wall Street Journal, Taliban forces led by Mohammed Fasel swept through the village of Shaikan on the Shimali Plain north of Kabul in 1999 in a scorched earth offensive that prompted some 300,000 people to free for their lives.
When the Taliban seized control of this area from their Northern Alliance rivals in 1999, they systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields, and seeding the land with mines, according to two comprehensive studies of war crimes and atrocities during wars in Afghanistan and human rights reports.
Faso played a major role in the destruction.
There was not a single undamaged house or garden, said Majdidi Fachida, a shopkeeper in Mirbaka, the district center.
My entire shop was burned to the ground, there was nothing left.
This is the guy we're releasing.
How'd you like to be an Afghan who worked with the Tarzai government and against the Taliban?
How'd you like to be an Afghan known in your community as having supported the Americans?
How'd you like to be an Afghan who thought we would at the very least not prop the Taliban back up?
Those people have to be terrified because when these people get back, and if the Taliban regains power, they are going to go back and there is going to be terrible payback.
All because the United States of America couldn't be trusted.
If you want to work with the rest of the world, our word has to mean something.
And with this president, it doesn't.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
This is good, you'll like this.
The competence of some is dependent on the incompetence of others.
Believe it or not, I just made that up.
I did.
I made that up during the break.
It oh, it sounds like a four I think it's profound, but I'm from Wisconsin.
Here's why here's here's how I come to this.
I'm from Wisconsin, Green Bay Packer fan.
We have been blessed with back to back great quarterbacks.
The only reason we had Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers, though, is because others were idiotic.
The Packers didn't draft Brett Favre.
The Atlanta Falcons did.
And they traded him to Green Bay for a draft choice.
They don't make that trade.
We don't get 15 years of Brett Favre.
We follow this up with Aaron Rodgers, who I think right now is right there at the top of quarterbacking in the in the NFL.
The only reason Aaron Rodgers is a packer is because twenty of three other teams in the NFL draft that year passed on him in the first round.
People say, well, the Packers were brilliant in drafting.
They're picking 24th.
They see a guy who is one of the two best quarterbacks in the draft by everyone's estimation.
They grabbed a gift that fell into their lap.
The competence of others, the competence of whatever it was I said.
Think about what's happened in Afghanistan.
The greatest military power in the world after 9 11 decided to go into that nation, which had very little military, no economy whatsoever, and not that many allies.
The United States of America decided that we were going to do something about Al Qaeda that was hold up in Afghanistan, and we were going to take care of that problem.
There was going to be a payback and B an attempt to solve a portion of the Al Qaeda threat.
We went in there and blasted them with everything.
Within three weeks, they were running away.
Osama bin Laden scurried to Pakistan as soon as he could, as soon as he could find a camel quick enough to get him there.
The Taliban was discredited.
They were virtually wiped out.
How is it that all of a sudden, it is a very real possibility and maybe a likelihood, they're going to return to power?
How is it that this organization, the Taliban, with no money, no real bombs, no nation willing to describe it as an ally?
How is it that the Taliban is able to cut a deal in which they run rings around the United States?
How is it that the Taliban is able to get five terrorists freed people that we captured after nine eleven by merely handing back an American who may have been a deserter?
One guy walks away from his post, and the Taliban parlays that into releasing five of their people.
The Taliban now at the same negotiating table as the United States, dealing from a position of strength.
A president of the United States who so badly wants to end the Afghan war that he needs an accommodation with the Taliban.
This is a dream for the Taliban.
I hardly think the Taliban is the shrewdest organization in the history of the world.
Yet they've been able to go from a position of being under all out assault by the United States military in a country that was seeking vengeance for a terrible attack On us.
They went from being smashed back to the Stone Age to an organization now that is making a virtual fool out of the president of the United States.
The competence of some, in this case, the Taliban, is dependent on the incompetence of others.
They could not have done this without Obama.
He has re-empowered them.
He has emboldened them.
He has legitimized them.
Whatever you think about the notion of bringing back Sergeant Ball Bergdahl, whether or not you believe it is a noble thing, something we are required to do or not.
The consequence of all of this is an organization that had been ostracized and virtually wiped out is back in power.
The Taliban can thank the President of the United States for bringing them back to their new emergence.
Russia's on vacation.
Does it sound like I'm reading this?
Always make fun of people on the radio who have to read their material.
You can always catch up with Rush on Rush Limbaugh.com.
This is prepared for me by the staff.
And while you're there, be sure to join Rush 24 7.
So you can watch Rush on the Niddle Cam or get podcasts of this radio show.
The website's beautiful.
I like the color scheme of the whole thing.
I especially like it when I guest host because they put a little picture of me that looks better than I actually do.
And the website staff on Rush Limbaugh.com always takes the most eloquent thing I said all day, and I'm predicting it's going to be the competence of some of his dependent.
Which the staff here, not the website staff, the show staff is ridiculo condescendingly ridiculing as Milwaukee profundity.
Yeah, well, where are you from?
You're from Milwaukee.
Well, yeah, you'd think you'd appreciate it then.
I know some people are thinking, yeah, this guy's coming and guest hosting.
He has one topic.
That's his entire preparation.
No, actually, we have a lot of things.
I merely felt it important to lay out where I think the president is coming from on this whole Bergdahl deal and why it happened.
There's one thing I didn't mention.
I do think timing does matter.
I think they could have made this deal for five years.
I think they could have made it five years ago.
Of course the Taliban is going to take five of their leaders back for one guy.
Of course they would have done this.
This did.
It's just true.
This did knock the VA out of the news.
I mean, the VA has been out of the news for three days.
That was a story on which they were taking significant hits.
And it did move it not only off of page one, it moved it away almost entirely.
White Plains, New York, Rich, it's your turn on EIV with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Excuse me while I read from my prepared text.
No, just kidding.
Um earlier in the show, and it's funny you you talked about why they would do this, why they would make a trade for uh he was a private um for five of the worst terrorists, and you just mentioned a political reason, you know, took the VA off the front page.
But to me, um I think it's it's um common knowledge, it's pretty obvious that uh Obama is a Muslim uh sympathizer, and there's example after example um to justify that you know, that statement.
And um, I think this is just the perfect action in his, you know, in his mind, in his his uh handlers' minds that they could A, like you said, take the VA off the front page, B, bring a Muslim sympathizer back home in the form of a uh defective,
you know, defective uh soldier that defected, and give the Muslims back, you know, the five of their uh worst uh terrorists.
All right, let me comment on that.
When you use the term that Rich used, Muslim sympathizer, some people argue that it's racist, other people say that it's absurd.
You'll get some people who roll their eyes and say, well, there are those loony right wingers.
I don't use the term that he uses, but I do think this.
I think he is sympathetic to the Islamist cause.
I didn't say supportive, I'm not gonna go that far, but I think he's sympathetic toward it.
It has governed his presidency.
Every single issue that comes up between Israel and Palestine, he's angling for the Palestinian position.
From the beginning, he has not done anything to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
His notion of the war on terror, the only time he spent any time talking about it at all is when it served his political needs.
In 2012, when he was running for re-election, after Osama bin Laden was killed, he spiked the football 19,000 times.
We got bin Laden.
Al Qaeda's been neutralized.
He knew it wasn't.
That's the reason he had to put out the lie about Benghazi.
I believe that he sees some legitimacy to the grievances of the radical parts of the Islamist movement.
Now, this caller says Muslim sympathizer.
There needs to be a differentiation between Islam as a whole and the arm of Islam, the Islamist movement, the jihadists, the Boko Harems of the world, the Hamases of the world, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.
I do believe that this president has felt that these grievances could be accommodated.
He believes they can be we can accommodate the Palestinians.
I think he's always felt that he could work with the Iranians.
I think he's felt that if we didn't weren't so belligerent, you could get the Al Qaeda threat eased.
I think that in his mind, the grievance being stated by the Islamist movement, that many Muslims are disenfranchised, and that the world has denied that movement legitimacy.
I believe that he is sympathetic to the argument.
I'm not going to go so far as to use the rhetoric of that last caller.
But I certainly do not think that Obama's presidency has been as governed by the need to protect the United States from Muslim extremism, and the fact that never in his rhetoric do you ever hear in moral terms, and remember Obama had the ability, has the ability still, because of his standing as a black American, because of his standing as someone who came in, not part of the Iraq war, not part of the Bush administration.
He had the ability to stand up and use the presidency of the United States with the symbolic power that he had to denounce in the strongest terms Muslim terrorism and the use of innocent civilians.
The only time we've gotten any notion of moral outrage from him or his administration over any act of Islamist extremism was the kidnapping of the Nigerian girls in which his wife is standing up there with a Twitter hashtag.
Otherwise, you haven't heard him use the kind of language that President Reagan used in talking about the Soviet Union, the evil empire, or W. Bush's term of axis of evil.
He hasn't taken the position of elevating his position as President of the United States to strongly denounce Islamist terrorism.
Moving to other things, from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Budget Scorekeepers say they can no longer measure the fiscal impact of many provisions of Obamacare because the task is impossible.
The note came in the CBO's analysis of Obamacare's insurance coverage provisions in April 1st reported yesterday by roll call.
It means that measuring the health care law's effect on the budget deficit will be much more difficult, if not impossible.
The CBO is normally the best source of information on Bill's projected fiscal effects.
So we can't figure out exactly what Obamacare is going to mean for the national deficit.
Of course, of course we can't figure it out because no one knows what Obamacare says.
We have this rare circumstance of we don't know what a law in the United States of America is.
If you consult the law, it is not the reality of the policy that's out there because Obama has granted all of these waivers and delays and changed the timetable.
You have a law on the books, Obamacare, that the president himself has watered down in so many different areas, the individual mandate being delayed, the employer mandate being shoved back, evidently permanently for some.
All of these other changes that he's made in the law and delays in implementation and granting of waivers and administrative calls and all of this stuff has nothing to do with the law.
So how do you evaluate what the impact on the budget deficit is going to be when you don't know what the what the policy is going to be tomorrow?
His ability to simply say willy-nilly, we're going to enforce the law in whatever manner I say today has made it impossible for anybody to figure out what the impact is.
Well, I can tell you what the impact is.
It's a mess.
And whatever impact on the death deficit is going to be negative.
The reality, though, is this.
The President of the United States himself knows that Obamacare can't work, which is why he's chosen to delay the employer mandate passed this year's midterm elections.
It's why he's granted so many exemptions on the individual mandate.
And it's why they've been willing to allow so many people to lie on their applications for care.
There's a story from the Associated Press today.
Government document provided to the AP indicates that at least two million people enrolled for subsidies under Obamacare have, I love the term here, data discrepancies in their applications that, if unresolved, could affect what they pay for coverage or even their legal right to benefits.
Two million.
You know what?
I'll translate that into English.
That's two million people who have misstated their income.
And it's not surprising they've misstated their income.
People try to misstate their income on their tax forms.
They misstate their income whenever it serves their purpose.
The two million number is key.
Obama has wanted to prop up the number of people who signed up.
That was their judgment for success.
When he was able to trot out that big, so-called big number a few weeks ago, say after all of this, the program is working and all of these people are signed up.
If that means that a bunch of people who are making $350,000 a year are lying about their income and saying they're making $18,000 a year and they're getting a subsidy, good, I can add it to the number.
This is one of the greatest wink wink, nod nod jobs of all time.
The people who shouldn't be getting the subsidies are probably going to be getting them forever and ever.
The enforcement on this.
The IRS went after conservative groups with a lot more zeal than anybody's going to go after anybody who's getting a subsidy under Obamacare because the president himself needs to have that number as high as possible.
If that means that some people are cheating their way onto it, hey, so what?
They're getting Obamacare, and that's our goal after all, isn't it?
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
The competence of some is dependent on the incompetent of others.
I'm going to get that into Bartlett's quotations before I'm done.
They still publish that.
Here's what I mean by that.
President Obama is obsessed with income equality.
He thinks the United States is a raw deal, as do many on the left.
They think that it is stacked in favor of the super rich, and that it is very, very hard for those who have fallen behind to ever catch up.
That's their belief, and they've been determined to do something about it.
Yet the reality is that the income disparity has gotten worse under Obama.
I think many on the right make a terrible mistake when we deny this.
They try to come up and manipulate the statistics to say, well, that's not true.
It's not true that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poor.
It is true.
Look at the economic data over the last six years.
This, despite the fact that Obama has tried to do something about it, and it's my contention, and this is where I speak to this competence thing, that it is because of the policies of Obama.
The entire loosening by the Fed has done nothing to elevate people who are of lower income.
What it did is create a resurgence of the housing market and a boom in the stock market.
By keeping interest rates artificially low, you inflated the value of other assets.
Who benefits from that?
The holders of assets.
The biggest winners when the stock market goes up are people who are heavily invested in the stock market.
True, those in the middle class, through their 401ks, pension funds, and so on, they can participate.
But the big, big winners when the stock market explodes or explodes Are those who had money in the stock market to begin with?
Same thing with the housing market.
Little guys who own houses, some of whom suffered badly when the housing market cratered, they indeed have benefited from the recovery of the housing market.
But if you didn't own a house, the housing market going up doesn't help you at all.
All it does is it make housing more expensive now.
Yet his policies, his major policy, all of this loosening that's been going on through the Fed has had the effect of benefiting those who are wealthy.
I think those who are well off have done pretty good the last several years, even though Obama has been trying to screw them.
Likewise, there's an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore and Richard Vetter writing about a statistic that tracks the gap between wealth and salary in some states as opposed to others.
The term for this is the Ginny coefficient.
What they did is they took a look at all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
And they evaluated the gap between the people at the top and the people at the bottom.
Not surprisingly surprisingly to me, but probably shocking to those on the left is who comes in where.
Quoting from their piece, according to Census Bureau Data, 2012, latest available, the District of Columbia, New York, Connecticut, Mississippi, and Louisiana have the highest measure of income inequality of all the states.
Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Hawaii, and New Hampshire have the lowest Ginny coefficients.
The three places that are most unequal, Washington, D.C., New York, and Connecticut, are dominated by liberal policies and politicians.
Four of the states with the lowest Ginny coefficients, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, and New Hampshire, are generally red states.
So we find that the gap between the rich and the poor is smallest in states with conservative policies, low income tax rates, right to work laws.
The states with the biggest gap in income inequality are those with very, very high income tax rates and politicians determined to redistribute income.
In other words, the attempts by the liberals to lift up the poor by taking from the rich fail.
They don't even achieve an, and that's not a good goal to simply redistribute and take from those who've succeeded and hand off for having done nothing to others.
Nonetheless, their plan to try to lift up the poor and lower class people by redistributing income fails.
The income gap is greater in the state of New York than it is in a far more conservative state like Utah.
They can't even achieve their goals because of the lack of competence.
Now I understand what the reason for all of this is.
When you're redistribute income, you're basically doing it by raising taxes, which drives away business, drives away investment.
That's what creates jobs.
In the meantime, the money that you're redistributing, you're by and large putting into social programs which do nothing to help people get jobs, do nothing to help people get ahead.
All they do is create social programs that are aimed at making poverty more comfortable or more acceptable or less painful.
Perhaps that's a novel goal, but it doesn't do anything to move people forward.
The states that have low tax rates attract businesses.
Businesses come in and create jobs, which is still the number one way in which you can close the income gap, get as many people who are at the bottom in good jobs where they can move forward.
The attempts by the left to take from the rich and give to the poor backfire.
That's incompetent.
Mark Belling in for Rush.
It's the marijuana candy bar column that she wrote yesterday.
I'll have to get to that, get to that in hour number three.
The point that I was making about the left being unable to close the gap between the rich and the poor because they don't know how to do it.
They are so averse to capitalism that they can't grasp that the only way that you can move people from the lower middle class and poverty toward where higher income people are, is you have to give them an opportunity to earn a lot more money.
By definition, that closes the gap.
What's happened in America is we've lost much of our manufacturing industry because the high cost of manufacturing in the United States and the need to comply with environmental laws has forced jobs overseas.
▲
Export Selection