Finally finished trimming this important clip from Mark Levin one week ago, responding to Obama's obnoxious "silver spoon" comments. Listen to the Great One tear the Class-Warmongerer-in-Chief a new one:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
If I had a nickel for every time I had to go toe to toe with a liberal over the minimum wage, or came across literature petitioning my representatives to raise it, I'd almost be able to balance the budget.
The late great economist Milton Friedman has said it, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams have said it as well: The minimum wage destroys jobs and slows the economy. And now El Rushbo is saying it. Because it's true.
Everything you need to know about the minimum wage is right here in these 13 minutes. School is open and the professor is in.
Some gems to listen for in this clip:
Have you seen the teenage unemployment rate in this country? Well, can you say 25%? It's 16%, 18%. It's way, way up there! The teenage unemployment rate, it's at record highs. Whatever it is, it is at a record high, and why do you think that is? In part, it's the minimum wage.
Businesses are having enough trouble as it is in this economy, and then to be told to go out and hire a bunch of people who have no experience and pay them an arbitrary amount of money that has no relationship to the business's operation or cost structure, is literally absurd! And so the only option the small businessman has is not hiring anybody. ... It's sort of like raising tax rates and these dummkopfs in Washington think, "Well, you raise the tax rate and these taxpayers just sit out there like a bunch of idiots and they'll pay it." And every time tax rates are increased, guess what? Revenue goes down!
* * * * *
If you want more of an activity, you cut taxes on it. If you want less of an activity, you raise taxes. If you want more homes sold, then you allow the interest on a mortgage to be deducted. If you don't want a lot of homes to be sold, take that deduction away. If you want to spur teenage hiring, lower the minimum wage or get rid of it. If you want to retard teenage hiring -- if you want to slow it down, if you want to limit the amount of teenagers to get jobs -- raise the cost of hiring them. And that's what an increase in the minimum wage is!
* * * * *
The national teenage unemployment rate in November, 21.4%. The teenage unemployment rate in Washington is over 50%. Now, who does the unemployment rate hit besides teenagers? It hits the unskilled worker. The unskilled worker who needs the first rung of that ladder. ...
The whole safety net idea is a disaster. It's robbing people of opportunity. It's robbing people of dignity. It's creating dependents. It's creating perpetual Democrat voters reproducing. That's what it is. That's what it was designed for. LBJ, FDR, that was the purpose in all it is, to create an ever-growing and perpetually renewing pool of Democrat voters who never learn to depend on themselves, who never learn the skills to support themselves. That's fine with the Democrat Party. That's fine with guys like Barack Obama.
Two things happen: Those people become dependent and then you run around and talk about how heartless and cruel the Republicans are for opposing ever more money in the policy to give them ever more benefits. So it's a double whammy for 'em. ... The real safety net is a job, and the minimum wage is one of the many obstacles in the way of people trying to find work in this economy.
* * * * *
This is another part of the charade the Democrats play: They try to convince you that every minimum wage earner is a 40-year-old, bedraggled person who the Republicans don't care about, who the Republicans are trying to keep poor and homeless, trying desperately in this horrid country to support a family of four. And the vast majority of people on the minimum wage are teenagers, young people.
If the minimum wage gets too high and then they start cracking down on interns, what's the next place business will go? Illegal aliens. You see how this works? The minimum wage can be said to be responsible for a whole bunch of problems in this country -- while a bunch of dummkopfs run around thinking with their hearts, "Oh, boy, is that compassion!"
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
The past weekend was quite busy for the GOP candidates. One debate Saturday night, facilitated by lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist George Stephanopoulous and another one Sunday morning with lib/Dem-hack-posing-as-a-journalist David Gregory.
Each debate had its key moments, but the one that made the most news was when Stephanopoulous posed to Mitt Romney the hypothetical question whether a state has the Constitutional right to ban contraception, citing the landmark Griswold vs. Connecticut case from 1965. It was a completely irrevalent but extremely loaded "gotcha" question that was clearly posed to paint Romney and any other candidate who took the bait as some sort of privacy-hating sex-obsessed turn-back-the-clock neanderthal.
Fortunately neither Romney nor anyone else took the bait and in the end it was Stephanopoulous who looked like the fool.
Here's the Great One discussing this truly embarrassing moment and delivering an exegesis on the Griswold case and the heralded "Right to Privacy". This is truly a listen and learn clip so sit down and take it all in:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
My apologies for being so late on this one. A week ago I posted a 20+ minute sound clip of El Rushbo's take on Obama doubling down on Marxist class warfare at a Kansas high school on the 6th.
But I couldn't with good conscience delete my podcast of Mark Levin cutting through the crap without first providing a portion of it here. So here's the Great One doing what he does best:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
On Tuesday the 6th, President Hope&Change doubled down on his Marxist-socialist ideology. He actually declared that the United States in its 235 year existence does not and has never worked, that the free market is "a license to steal," and that an activist government that taxes, spends and regulates more is the only way to "preserve" the middle class.
Rightfully, the conservative punditry lambasted him. Even the Washington Post -- not exactly a right-wing rag -- criticized him not actually on his sentiments but on the veracity of some of his statements, earning him 3 "Pinocchios" on their political Fact Check page.
Here's Rush the day after the speech, doing his best to control his anger, tearing apart this disastrous, wholly anti-American speech (Yes, I said anti-American. Whaddaya think of that!?)
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
This is a follow-up from an earlier story. On May 5, 2010 a high school assistant principal in California prohibited students from wearing shirts displaying the American flag because he feared it would incite violence from offended Mexican students. Yes, you read that right.
Well, the issue went to federal court and the judge ruled on the side of ... the assistant principal.
Don't try to simmer down just yet. Here's The Great One last Friday -- Veteran's Day -- discussing the ruling. The second of the two clips is really moving: it contains comments from four callers, two of whom are Hispanic themselves and are thoroughly disgusted by the threat of violence from the Mexican students, the action of the assistant principal, and the decision of the federal judge.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
Wow, has it really been since April since I posted a Rush audio clip?? My apologies.
Rush doesn't have on many guests, but yesterday he had on Florida Tea Party fave Senator Marc Rubio (R-FL) to discuss some statements he recently made about Obama and the debt ceiling talks. Rubio, like Congressman Allen West (also R-FL), is a liberal's worst nightmare because he's both a minority (his parents fled Cuba) and a solid conservative. If this young man runs for president one day, he'd have my vote.
Anyway, here's Rush interviewing Rubio during hour 2 of yesterday's show. The second clip is a bonus: After concluding the discussion, Rush analyzes an appearance Obama made on CBS News with Democrat tool Scott Pelley. This would be the interview in which Obama infamously stated that he couldn't guarantee if Social Security and other guvmint checks would be able to go out August 3 if the Republicans didn't agree to raise the debt ceiling.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
Meant to post this one sooner but, you know, summer, kids, family, etc.
Anyway, I had hoped that The Great One would deconstruct the disastrously flawed main article from the upcoming issue of Time magazine. Sure enough, he spent last Thursday addressing it part by part.
The article in question was about whether the Constitution is relevant anymore and was written by Time's managing editor who, despite his having been the CEO of something called the National Constitution Center, is amazingly ignorant of one of the nation's seminal documents. I posted about it too on Friday, after it appeared on-line
These 24 minutes are crucial to absorb for those who are battling clueless Constitution-hating leftists who use it only to enslave, not liberate, Americans from the yoke of big government. There is a war out there, my friends. We need to be properly armed.*
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
* It's a metaphor, brain-dead liberals. Get over yourselves.
I don't know about you but I've spent way too much time and, unfortunately, wasted effort taking on giddy Obama-worshipers who, like Obama himself have yet to give the Bush administration one shred of credit for the OBL capture n' kill, when the plain truth is Bush and co. deserve most of the credit. That plus the fact that the same people heaping praise on Obama were the same people demonizing Bush for implementing the very tactics that Obama used to catch bin Laden.
The Great One did his share, coming right out the gate swinging on his Monday evening show. Here are two hours from condensed into 38 minutes. Obama and the left have been shameful; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been vindicated. And neither Mark, nor I, is going to let any WOT-protesting leftist forget it.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
On Monday (tax day!) Rush spent a good portion of the show talking about Obama's economically-illiterate and ideology-driven "tax the rich" speech as well as the DBF* media's equally illiterate and ideological tax day coverage, such as that from dinosaur left-wing propagandists Bob Schieffer and Christiane Amanpour
Rush then lays out the facts about the distribution of income tax payment in the United States. Most important is his conclusion: The reason Obama and the hard left that have taken over the Democrat Party are so hell-bent on raising taxes on "the rich" is not to balance the budget, not to reduce the deficit, and not to make sure children don't starve and seniors don't die (at the hands of those eeeevil Republicans). It is only to redistribute wealth and to buy votes with other people's money.
Don't believe him? The following 30+ minutes are a must-listen for everyone left, right, and center who needs to understand the truth.
For convenience, here are the articles Rush cites:
AP: Nearly Half of US Households Escape Fed Income Tax - Stephen Ohlemacher (April 7, 2010)
But then ...
AP via ABC News: Super Rich See Federal Taxes Drop Dramatically - Stephen Ohlemacher (April 17, 2011)
and (same article, different title!):
AP via Washington Post: For Richest, Federal Taxes Have Gone Down; For Some in U.S., They're Nonexistent
Wall Street Journal: Their Fair Share (July 21, 2008)
WSJ: Where the Tax Money Is. Obama Targets the Middle Class While Pretending to Tax Only the Rich (April 18, 2011)
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
*DBF = Democrat-b*tt-f**king
In the first hour of Wednesday's show Rush addressed the hysteria exhibited by the Dems with regard to GOP Congressman Paul Ryan's budget proposal. Rush played some old clips from the mid-90's of Congressional Democrats the last time such a proposal was offered and - lo and behold - it was all the same talking points: minorities are going to starve to death, children are going to starve to death, old people are going to starve to death, the rich are stealing from the poor, the Republicans are mean-spirited and heartless, etc., etc. It's actually quite amusing.
The second of these two clips in particular is instructive. Rush explains just why Democrats are hysterical about reducing the budget, namely, it decreases their power to enslave people.
Enjoy the next 22 minutes of pure genius.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
Last Thursday, Mark Levin donned his professorial hat and dedicated the first hour to delivering an informative lecture on Libya (which he opposes) and the presidential War Powers Act. It's a topic I knew very little about, and I recall it coming up back during the first Bush term when liberals would argue that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Bush didn't get "an official declaration from Congress." Mark clears that up too.
Sharpen your pencils; class is in session.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
UPDATE: It was brought to my attention that Mark Levin's discussion of the war powers has been challenged by professor Thomas Woods. (Woods is apparently not a huge fan of Mark, either as a scholar or a human being; his disdain is quite evident in the linked pieces.)
It seems that by being so behind on my podcasts, I have missed the exchange that has ensued between Levin and Woods since last Thursday. To be continued then ...
I haven't blogged about the fascinating teacher union protests in Wisconsin. There's a lot of good writing out there already and I'd just be reinventing the wheel. El Rushbo has been on top of this story from the beginning and on Tuesday the (22nd) he made this on-the-mark comments.
In this clip from the 2nd hour Rush discusses the American people's rejection of the Democrats' overreach for power and how Wisconsin is just another example of it. He also exposes the teachers' (or at least the union's) hypocrisy when they claim they're for "the little guy" and "the children," as well as the cowardice of Wisconsin's Democrat lawmakers for fleeing the state rather than taking on their responsibilities. He also castigates Obama for siding with the greedy union over the cash-strapped citizenry and laments the dramatic diminution of standing the U.S. has suffered under his presidency.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
(Download clip here)
On Monday President Obama stood for the first time before of the Chamber of Commerce (who last year he and Dems accused of accepting secret foreign contributions; guess they conveniently forgot Obama's own campaign website illegally allowed foreign donations, and he got plenty, but I digress ...).
The crowd barely gave him an applause through the speech. And no wonder. During it, he got his Marx on and admonished them to hire more (Ah what does he care? He doesn't know anything about making payroll.) and to share more of the corporate profits with the workers.
And liberals scoff when critics call Obama a socialist. The audacity!
But to add insult to injury, the Obamedia got right on the story and touted Obama's performance as Kennedyesque. No, not Teddy. Jack. El Rushbo provided the montage:
E.J. DIONNE: (b-roll noise) It was a John F. Kennedy sort of "ask, uh, what you can do for your country" speech!
CONNELL McSHANE: (music under) A JFK moment...
LARRY KUDLOW: ...stealing a page from JFK. [Et tu, Larry!?]
JOHN HARWOOD: A JFK-style challenge to businesses...
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: ...a Kennedy-like call to action!
MARK CRUMPTON: ...hearken back to President Kennedy!
CHRISTINE ROMANS: ...sounded like JFK!
By comparing Obama to JFK the media hasn't looked as ridiculous since ... well, since they compared him to Ronald Reagan. But Rush does not let the Obamedia revise history and get away with it. In yesterday's first hour he plays three distinct clips of Kennedy from a speech he made in December 14, 1962 to the NY Economic Club:
JFK: This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures
This is exactly the opposite of what Obama has done. In terms of tax cuts, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to sign the extension of the Bush tax cuts that he promised during his campaign to let sunset.
JFK: When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are higher. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.
Oh yeah, this is definitely Obama's approach. NOT.
JFK: Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions. And any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
Let's see: avoiding large federal deficits? Obama. Wild-eyed spending? Obama. Breaking deficit records? Obama.
So not only is Obama not like JFK with regard to economic policy, but Obama's actions are precisely what JFK was warning against!
But I guess as long as the Obamedia pushes the notion that their messiah was Kennedyesque, they can rest assured that the citizenry, dumbed down by 50 years of liberal/Democrat-run education will buy their revisionist history lesson.
Here's Rush in his own way going through this topic. The clip ends with a hysterical story by AP lamenting how Uncle Sam isn't getting his fair share of tax revenue (translation: We need to raise taxes!!!). Rush nips that one in the bud too.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
In the first clip below from this past Tuesday Mark discusses the soon-to-expire Bush tax cuts and makes this interesting argument that capitalism is actually a form of wealth redistribution, but one that's moral, freedom-promoting, and, compared to big-government socialism, highly efficient.
In the second clip Mark discusses the newest food safety bill passed by Congress, which Mark explains is nothing less than a power grab by the FDA and the death knell for farmers, ranchers, grocers, restaurants, and basically anyone involved in the food industry.
In both instances the general theme is the continuing expansion of government, and the continuing shrinking of everyone's liberty.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
On Wednesday's first hour, Mark was on a roll, discussing Obama and the lame duck Congress's last ditch effort to pull out all the stops - and czars and agencies - and push as much regulation and taxation down our throats until it's filling up our intestines and coming out our tuchases: Tax increases, cap and tax, tax increases, amnesty (oh excuse me, path to citizenship) for illegals so they can vote for you-know-who in the 2012 election, and tax increases.
Did I mention tax increases "For what?" Mark asks. To satisfy the federal government's insatiable appetite for spending your money and grabbing more unconstitutional power for themselves.
For that reason, at the end of the second clip Mark makes a bold suggestion to the incoming Republican House: To propose an amendment to limit government spending to a fixed percentage of the GDP. Sounds good by me.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Download clip here
For most of Rush's show yesterday, he naturally discussed Tuesday's elections and their implications. But then in the second hour he went into a monologue in response to a seemingly innocent exchange between President Hope&Change and ABC News' Jake Tapper at yesterday's press conference (Obama's first in months, Rush noted.) Tapper asked that, now that the Republicans have taken the house, would he be willing to compromise on at what amount of income taxes would be raised.
Obama's non-answer answer notwithstanding, the question itself sent Rush into a tizzy, because he realized that the government has no Constitutional authority to determine any of this and he laments that nearly all of us have submissively fallen for the premise that they do.
Here's the clip, and the transcript from his site below. It's quite fantastic, a must-hear. One might even argue it's Rush's first call to arms for November 2012.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
… Jake Tapper, ABC, asked Obama about the compromise that he might make on extending the Bush tax cuts. Right now, of course, the tax cuts will eliminate, stop for everybody, $250,000 or more, and maybe everybody’s taxes will be raised. But believe me, there’s no tax cuts on the table. And Jake Tappersaid, (paraphrasing) “Would you compromise and say people who make a million dollars a year will not see their tax decrease, tax cut sunsetted?”
And I started thinking, where’s all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year, where does all this start? What right does Obama have to sit there and proclaim that people who earn X are gonna be punished with Y, people who earn less than X won’t be punished with Y?
Do you notice how easy it is to fall into the premise trap that the left sets? Looked at within the prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out—the Declaration, the Constitution—in nowhere in any of our founding documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for it. It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who didn’t.
Where does all this talk start? Because all this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty, a direct attack on freedom and it creates class envy and resentment and anger between the classes, between people of different income groups.
So all of a sudden we’re faced with a possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn $250,000 a year or more. Well, why are we even discussing it in the first place? What did those people do? What is the magic? Who sets arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year? Why are they targeted?
And look how easily people fall into the trap of debating the premise, when the real question is when is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending, for the irresponsible position they put this country in? When are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our liberty and freedom? The question is not: Should people who make $250,000 or $500,000 or one million for some reason pay a higher burden of supporting the folly and the irresponsibility of people like Barack Obama and most people in government?
Why are we even debating the premise if we really believe in liberty, if we really believe in freedom? Why do we acknowledge a premise that states: The successful are gonna get punished, the successful are gonna pay the price? Where is it written that the people who create the problem get to demand that people who had nothing to do with creating the problem solve it, but first get blamed for it, because that’s really what’s happening here. People who are making $250,000 or $500,000 or a million, according to people like Barack Obama, and in fact most people in Washington, are somehow to blame for our deficit, somehow to blame for this out-of-control spending, somehow to blame for this generational theft.
What did they do? What did the people earning $250,000 do to create this problem? What did the people who earn a million dollars do to create the problem? What did the people who earn $500,000 a year do? What have they done that resulted in this irresponsibility in Washington? Nothing! The people who earn $250 or 500,000 or a million are in fact the people who are investing in this country and the private sector hiring other people, producing products and services that allow for the country’s economy to grow and for people to have jobs and to earn higher wages!
The federal government, the state government cannot and does not create wealth. All it can do is destroy it. All it can do is confiscate it. And what we’re doing is discussing the proper level of servitude. What is your price? What are you going to have to pay for the irresponsibility and for the misnamed, the maligned, the stupid, and the incorrect policies of liberals like Barack Obama? What level of servitude will you have to bear the responsibility for something you had nothing to do with? At what level are we going to proclaim: You are more guilty than another citizen based on how much you earn? Where in our founding documents, where in Natural Law, where in the Constitution are these principles written?
So when Jake Tapper stands up, “Are you willing to compromise, Mr. President? Are you willing to compromise, maybe go $500,000 a year they get to keep the Bush tax cut, maybe a million?” And Obama, as the all-knowing, the all-whatever, “Yeah, I’ll think about it,” as though he has any right to. Who is Barack Obama to be able to say that any citizen in this country has to pay more to support his mistakes because of what they earn. And why do so many of us fall into the trap of thinking: Yeah, that’s fair? Why are so many people willing—accidentally, purposefully—to squander and give up their liberty and freedom so that they do not have to feel the guilt?
What is the price of your freedom? You know, it used to be that Americans would give up their lives before they would give up their freedom. Americans would give up their lives before other people would have to give up their freedom. Americans would give their lives so that others might be free.
Now, who made Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or any Democrat, I don’t care, any Democrat, who made them the decider on what anybody should make and then what level of taxation they should pay?
Who made them the deciders on what we should eat?
Who made them the decider of what kind of lightbulbs we have in our homes?
Who made them the deciders on the kind of car we should drive?
Who made them the deciders on what kinda house we live in?
Who made them the deciders of when and where we can and can’t turn our lights on?
Who made them the deciders of who loses how much of their freedom?
Who gave them that power? It doesn’t come from the Constitution! The Constitution does not say the Democrat Party gets to decide which car people drive, which lightbulb they have, what foods they can and can’t eat, and what lights they can’t turn off or on at what time of year. The Constitution does not say that the Democrat Party gets to decide any of this. The Constitution does not envision this kind of usurpation of freedom. The Constitution does not envision nor allow for this kind of invasion of private property rights or overall liberty or freedom. It has to have been a political party looking at the Constitution and being unhappy with what it says, ignoring it in order to implement their policy.
So now we have a guy who is the least qualified in any room he walks into being asked a question by an equally incompetent reporter, “Mr. President, are you willing to compromise, people that earn $500,000 a year will be able to keep more of what they earn, will you even go as high as one million?” And I’m watching this, who the hell are either of you people to decide this? How did I end up as an American with a guy who doesn’t even like my country telling me how I have to live? How did that happen? How did I end up with a guy who does not even respect the founding documents of this country, how did I end up—how did we all end up—with that kind of guy telling us how immoral and unjust we are? How did this happen?
It happens because people for whatever reason are willing to sacrifice, and maybe not even know it’s happening, little bits of their freedom and liberty now and then, under the auspices of “it’s a good cause,” or it’s in the name of “compassion,” “fairness.”
Well, I want somebody to tell me what is fair about one incompetent having the right to systematically destroy my country. I want to know where the fairness is in that.
I want to know why in hell anybody is even thinking about much less talking about compromising with this man. I want to know why anybody who believes in the Constitution wants to discuss compromising individual freedom or liberty with this man. Because that’s what the compromise is. When people say that we must compromise with Obama, we are saying we must compromise on our freedom. …
There's a little more in the clip but you get the point. Right on, right on, right on!
Before anyone takes 8 minutes to vote today, take 8 minutes to listen to these powerful words.
As he is quite often, "The Great One" was all fired up last night. On the eve before Election Day, Mark reminds us how far from its original Founding this government has strayed and that we have the moral duty to cut this serpent off at its head before it is too late. He calls the predicted destruction of the liberal Democrat monopoly over the federal government an honest, lawful, responsible rebellion by the American people. Someone else (P.J. O'Rourke?) called today a "referendum." Either one works, in my opinion.
For anyone who is a staunch conservative, this opening monologue from yesterday's show will be music to your ears.
For those not really into politics and who kind of sit on the fence, I hope to G0d these words speak to you before you vote.
And for you planning on voting for the liberal Democrat today: Please, for the love of everything that is holy, wake the hell up.
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
Yesterday the 15th, Mark was at his best. In the first hour he had on Christine O'Donnell, who in a debate earlier this week out-debated her Senatorial opponent Chris Coons (D-DE). During the second hour he brought on Sharron Angle who in Thursday's debate mopped the floor with Harry Reid's tuchas. These are two of the smartest, talented, pro-America, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty women running right now. And the Left has bashed both of them, most recently mocking O'Donnell as a witch on "Saturday Night Live."
The Democrats are a bunch of misogynists. Sexists. Anti-woman. They've bashed and demonized Angle, O'Donnell, Meg Whitman running for governor in California, and of course Sarah Palin. (Not to mention the fact that these women have achieved their successes without riding on the coattails of some man—like Hillary Clinton, Nancy D'Alessandro Pelosi, or Michelle Obama.)
So how can one not come to any conclusion other than that the Democrats are misogynist sexist woman-haters?
(Hey, I'm just using the left's own twisted logic right back at them.)
And while we're on the topic, there are 38 blacks running for national office this year as Republicans. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Democrat-run media giving these candidates any positive coverage, if any at all! Conclusion: Liberals/Democrats are racist.
When the liberals/Democrat calls their opponents "racist"—be it establishment blue blood Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, or Tea Partiers—they say it on the basis of us disliking one black person: Barack Obama. They, on the other hand, have not lifted one finger to support or endorse any black GOP candidate running in 2010. This must mean they are more racist than conservatives/Republicans by a factor of 38.
(Hey, I'm just using the left's own twisted logic right back at them.)
But now back to Mark. Below is the monologue he began the entire show with. His central question is, "(Putting aside the military) What is it that the government does well?" He then goes through a list of massive liberal government programs and policies that have been dismal money-wasting failures. By the end, the answer to his question is quite clear: Not only does government not do anything well, but they have been quite detrimental to our economy and to our society as a whole.
If you're going to pass along any sound clip to friends or family before they vote next month, this is the one. Take it away, Great One:
[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]
Download clip here
In tomorrow's NY Times Sunday Magazine there will be an article called "Education of a President," which includes an interview with President Hope&Change himself. On Thursday Rush discusses this 16-page piece, offering it as a perfect example of the utter disconnect of Obama-worshiping liberals like those at the Times. That's when Rush gives the Times, and all liberals, an education of their own.
[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]
(Download clip here)
Recent Comments