Rush Limbaugh in See, I Told You So
On Principles & Values:
“New Democrat” really means old liberal social engineer
Any time you see the adjective “new” employed, assume that the label is mere smoke and mirrors, calculated to obscure the fact that there is nothing “new” about what is being described. Rather, it is the same old stuff simply repackaged.Think about it
What was new about the “New Left” of the 1960s? It was simply the old left dressed up in tie-dyed shirts. The “New Age”? It’s nothing more than recycled paganism.
Why, then, did so many believe it when Bill Clinton professed to be a “New Democrat”?
Moreover, why did so many believe there was any such thing as a “New Democrat”? As the days pass, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is nothing new about Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party. During the campaign, Clinton co-opted the traditionally
conservative issues from George Bush.
But since taking office, Clinton is revealing himself to be extremely liberal. Make no mistake. There’s nothing moderate about Clinton’s programs. The New Democrat is the same old social engineer.
Source: See, I Told You So, p. 38-41
Jul 2, 1993
On Education:
Multiculturalism is historical revisionism
What makes the education establishment so hostile to America? Because, in the last 25 years, a relatively small group of anti-American radicals have bullied their way into power positions in academia. And while they preach about the evils of “cultural
imperialism,” they themselves are, ironically, the ultimate practitioners of it. The indoctrination taking place today in American academia is disingenuously disguised as “multiculturalism” by its academic purveyors. A more accurate description would
be “politically motivated historical and cultural distortion.” It is a primitive type of historical revisionism. [I want] to set the record straight: - Columbus really did discover America.
- The Mayflower Compact [was based on] the Bible.
-
Thanksgiving is an expression of gratitude in the tradition of the Bible.
- The Constitution proclaims that government’s only raison d’etre was to protect God-given freedoms and rights.
- The Founding Fathers were Bible-believing Christians.
Source: See, I Told You So, p. 74-78
Jul 2, 1993
On Principles & Values:
Constitution only works in a moral society
Don’t believe the conventional wisdom of our day that claims the Founding Fathers were anything but orthodox, Bible-believing Christians. They were. And they were quite adamant in stating that the Constitution-as brilliant a document as it is-would work
only in the context of a moral society. “Our Constitution was made for moral and religious people,” stated John Adams. George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable
supports.“ James Madison agreed: ”We have staked the future upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according the Ten Commandments of God.“The founders knew they were bestowing upon us only an ingenious political system of checks and balances, limited
government, and a legacy of human and civil rights. It would be up to future generations to make it all work. But it would only work, they warned, if the society was girded on a bedrock of solid values and Judeo-Christian principles.
Source: See, I Told You So, p. 82-86
Jul 2, 1993
On Principles & Values:
Liberalism poisons the soul and destroys character
A truism I’ve often proclaimed is: “Liberalism poisons the soul.” Originally, it may have sounded harsh to some, trite to others; scintillating to the politically astute. Today, I am convinced it is more on the mark than ever. Here’s what it really means
to me: Modern-day liberalism is like a disease or an addiction that literally has the power to destroy the character of the person who falls under its spell. Liberalism is seductive and insidious. It can take hold of you before you realize it. Do you
know why? Because it doesn’t take any guts to become a liberal. All you have to do to be a good liberal is to say yes to everything except cutting spending and downsizing government. Just say yes. Government should do more to end homelessness.
It should spend more on education. It should provide day-care. You name it; the omnipotent, central government should do it. All you have to do to prove your compassion is say yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. What could be easier?
Source: See, I Told You So, p. 87-89
Jul 2, 1993
On Jobs:
1980s tax cuts created jobs by “trickle down”
Here are some of the nitty-gritty details about what really happened in the so-called “Decade of Greed.”- Average real family income grew by well over 15% from 1982 to 1989.
- For the poorest fifth of Americans, real income grew almost 12%.
- The
proverbial misery index took a nosedive: We experienced sustained economic growth without inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates.
- Some 20 million new jobs were created, 82% of which were in higher-skilled occupations.
- The 1980s was a
decade of greatly increased personal and corporate charitable giving.
Cuts in marginal tax rates spur economic growth by providing entrepreneurs an incentive to invest their marginal tax dollars, causing many of them to earn more money and pay
more taxes on their earnings, albeit at a lower marginal rate, and create new jobs. These new jobs result in a bigger employment base and, thus, more taxpayers. More taxpayers translates into higher tax revenues-even at lower marginal rates.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.125-33
Jul 2, 1993
On Health Care:
Health care has problems, but no crisis for drastic change
Hillary Clinton is attempting to solve a phony crisis-health care. Yes, we’ve got a problem, but it is not a crisis, and its solution should not be concocted in a crisis atmosphere. It’s the usual liberal modus operandi. They overstate a problem and work
society into a frenzied state in order to justify their invariable, big-government solution. What Hillary and Bill are about to do is undermine the best health-care system in the world in the name of fairness and equity. The Clintons stirred up
passions and fear by citing the misleading statistic that 37 million Americans are without health-insurance coverage. A CBO study, however, shows that 51% of those were uninsured for less than four months. Many others choose not to be covered.
There
was no health-care crisis in this country, at least not until Hillary got her mitts on it. And the problems we have-like escalating costs-were caused primarily by the very kinds of liberal interventionist programs Hillary is now proposing.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.167-69
Jul 2, 1993
On Health Care:
Deregulate health care; government is the problem
Government intervention-specifically the Medicaid and Medicare programs-is the biggest reason costs are escalating in health care today. When Medicare began in 1965, it cost taxpayers about $3 billion per year. It was projected back them that by 1990 the
price would rise to $9 billion per year. The 1990 bill was actually $67 billion per year. The pointy-headed theoreticians who devised this program made the mistake of assuming they were operating in a zero-sum game. They never imagined that the very
creation of their program would increase demand for medical services. What happens when the government pays for all medical care is that limits must be placed on the amount of care that can be offered. Thus, with Rodhamized medicine, you will always
have rationing of care in one form or another. Government is not the solution, Ronald Reagan used to say. Government is the problem. Further intrusion is not the answer. Competition is. We need deregulation, not more government control.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.170-72
Jul 2, 1993
On Environment:
Let’s count all the disproven environmental myths
On no issue has the evidence of my foresight and keen political instincts been more compelling than that of the environment. Come, let us count the ways:- Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global
warming
- Mankind is not responsible for depleting the ozone layer
- The Earth’s ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it
- The real enemies of the radical environmental leadership are capitalism & the American way of life
- There are more acres of forest land in America today than in 1492
- Less-developed cultures are not kinder to nature than technologically sophisticated civilizations. The reverse more often is true
- Big-government regulation is not the best way to
protect the environment
- Many environmental groups have adopted their cause with all the enthusiasm of a religious crusade, abandoning reason and accepting many faulty premises on faith
- Mankind is part of nature and not necessarily the enemy.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.189-90
Jul 2, 1993
On Education:
Don’t encourage homosexuality by teaching it in grade school
Think of what the NYC school system was trying to teach first-graders without any objection from the ACLU. One of the books recommended, Heather Has Two Mommies, describes how two lesbians become mommies. (One of them was artificially inseminated
by a “special doctor.”) Another book was Daddy’s Roommate, which pictures Daddy and his male roommate in bed together. A third was Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. In the first grade! Can anyone tell me with a straight face that such teaching is
not for the express purpose of indoctrinating students with the false notion that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality? Surely no one can argue that it is healthy to encourage such a lifestyle. Even if you reject the moral objections to this
lifestyle, you cannot honestly deny the overwhelming evidence that homosexual behavior statistically reduces one’s life span. And, if kids are learning about homosexuality in first grade, what do you suppose they are learning in high school?
Source: See, I Told You So, p.217
Jul 2, 1993
On Civil Rights:
Abolish P.C. speech codes at colleges
Political Correctness, PC, is literally the law of the land on many campuses. And its theoreticians and top practitioners are bestowed with the highest honors and endowed with great authority. If there was any stigma attached to the politically selective
enforcement of speech codes in the universities, Donna Shalala could never have been confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services. What was her claim to fame before landing a job overseeing a $590 billion agency? She was a champion of
multiculturalism as chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. She supported a rigid code limiting “hateful” speech, but it was so repressive that it was even struck down by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment.
Some called her “the queen of political correctness”-and those were her admirers. Such speech codes should be abolished. Limiting free speech in this manner is antithetical to the idea of America.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.262-63
Jul 2, 1993
On Homeland Security:
No women in combat
What is the whole purpose of the armed forces? It is designed to kill people and break things. We have to look at the military as a separate and unique institution with separate and unique requirements. It’s different from all other institutions in our
society, and our only standard must be excellence-no matter whose feelings get hurt. Our only concern should be that the military does what it is supposed to do. Would an all-female combat force provide our nation with the best possible defense?
Clearly, the answer to that question is no. With an all-female combat force, would there be a need for men? Clearly, yes. Now, with an all-male combat force, do we have the best fighting machine we can assemble? Clearly, yes. No one has ever suggested
that women are vitally needed on the front line to improve our battlefield performance. So, if there is no need for women in combat as it relates to our purpose and objective, why are we considering it? Obviously, the answer is, For political reasons.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.290
Jul 2, 1993
On Homeland Security:
No gays in army; not a place for social experiments
There will be consequences to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the form of harm to the military & thus, arguably, our national security. If you don’t want to accept my judgement in this matter, perhaps you would be prefer to listen to Gen. Schwarzkopf,
who echoed what I have been telling you for years: “The job of the military is to go to war and win, not to be instruments of social experimentation.” Schwarzkopf says that although homosexuals have no doubt served honorably in the military, in every
case he knows about, their units have become divided when others learn of their sexual orientation. Every case!Did anyone notice Les Aspin’s report that the military is not in a high state of preparedness? Could it be that the best and the
brightest of our young men have no desire to participate in the kinds of social experiments politicians are forcing on the military? Could it be that there is no way to foster esprit de corps when you treat the military like a social laboratory?
Source: See, I Told You So, p.291-92
Jul 2, 1993
On Technology:
Broadcast’s “Fairness Doctrine” breaches First Amendment
The American model of democracy was firmly grounded on the imperative of free speech-and an absolute rejection of licensing or regulating the press. But absurd as it may seem, these bedrock rights and freedoms do not necessarily apply to
broadcasting. The US has freedom of the press. until we get to the electronic press. The American Revolution has not yet spread to the nation’s airwaves. Radio & television broadcasters must be licensed by the federal government-and there lies a
slippery slope. To beg any government’s permission to speak is to ask for trouble. That kind of government shackling of freedom of speech-in defiance of the First Amendment-is precisely what we will have in store if the Fairness Doctrine is
re-enacted. As we go to press, “fairness” legislation is popping up [in several bills].
Would somebody please find “fairness” for me in the Constitution? You can’t. Yet somehow we have gotten this notion that fairness is a guiding principle.
Source: See, I Told You So, p.361-64
Jul 2, 1993
On Education:
Vigorously promote educational choice and vouchers
Not all public schools are bad, but overall, the system is bankrupt. Why should we continue to prop up this manifestly failed system? We should vigorously promote educational choice and the voucher system to instill competition in our failing schools.
By doing so, we will be giving lower- and middle-class families the same mobility as the wealthy by providing them the means to choose the best schools for their children, rather than imprisoning many of them in inferior public schools that are all too
often urban war zones.
The teachers’ unions, the education bureaucrats, and many Democratic politicians believe they should have the prerogative to tell middle-class Americans where their children should attend school.
How often have you heard discussions of “giving parents the right” to choose their school? Good grief, [they should not] grant (or deny) parents that right. As Bill Bennett says in response to this idiocy, “Let my people go.”
Source: See, I Told You So, p.390-91
Jul 2, 1993
Page last updated: Feb 25, 2019