RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned over the course of the past several months, and I share my passions with all of you, it's what I do here. Oh, Snerdley, by the way, have you heard, there are a lot of people that are analyzing the future of talk radio, that it's in trouble just like the Republican Party is. Apparently, for talk radio to survive, hosts are going to have to be funny. Right. You think we should try that, maybe? Being funny? Yes, I know, I know, I know, I know, but I've been doing this for 25 years, and people are coming along, saying, "This lecturing stuff isn't gonna cut it anymore," which I didn't think we did anyway. "Now you're gonna have to be funny." Have you heard that? We gotta start being funny. My question, when did we stop?
Anyway, one of the things I was telling you about, folks, I share my passions. I always have. I read tech blogs. I'm just fascinated by the advancements being made in high-tech and how I can play. I can take advantage of it. So I'm reading all these things that I used to really never read as frequently as I do now. It's been very educational for me because these are young professionals, but they're journalists at the same time. And when someone's a journalist, they are identifying themselves pretty uniformly. When somebody's a journalist, you can make book on the fact that ideologically they're liberal. They're pro-big government, and I would go so far as to say that they're ill-educated, maleducated, that the public education system and even institutions of higher learning have been dominated for decades now by the left, and it matters. It really does matter. It's so pervasive that it matters a great deal.
So I just pick up little things that serve to remind me of the task that we have if, for example, we are to beat a path back to an America as founded, because, as you know, and as we've discussed in recent weeks, I am convinced that Obama's mission is to transform this country into something other than what it was founded, because he doesn't believe that this country was founded in a moral or just way. In his view, this country has been, if not criminal, it's been unjust. Illegitimate, in fact. This country's been a rigged game from the outset, with a select few identified as the beneficiaries and with the rest of the people getting the shaft. That's his view of capitalism, but it's also his view of the founding of this country.
There's nobody, by the way, that could talk me out of that. I think it's so easy, but it's also frightening, to admit that. It's much easier if you're a commentator Inside the Beltway, for example, to look at Obama as just the next in a long line of Democrat presidents. You plug Obama into the hole that you plug all presidents into, and there are assumed to be things that all presidents have in common. Among them, they all appreciate the founding. They all want to reduce debt. They all want to cut spending. They all want economic growth, and that's where I think all of these people are missing Obama.
It's much easier just to plug Obama into the traditional cliched puzzle and discuss him and the events of the day within that framework. I think he's totally outside that framework, as I've spent the last four years saying. And I'll just reiterate that I think this fiscal cliff business is really all about Obama trying to destroy the Republican Party as a legitimate opponent for the Democrats, which is politics. Nice work if you can do it. I'd love to make liberalism a minority political enemy if I could. I would love to. The objective is to beat them. I don't think that there's anything, quote, unquote, criminal about that.
The problem is when the Republicans don't recognize that that's what's about to happen to them, and thus do not respond, defend, react, fight back accordingly. But the evidence is all over the place. In fact, later in the program I'm gonna go through a long list of things that are now being assumed to be responsible for all of the problems that exist in this country, and they all happen to be free market, conservative, capitalistic-oriented things, policies. The latest one is tax cuts. The mission that Obama and the Democrats are on, Jay Carney admitted it yesterday in a briefing in the White House. Jay Carney admitted that what they're out to do is to convince... They are blaming the tax cuts of 2001, 2003 for this mess.
They're blaming 230 years of capitalism for this mess. Obama, he's only had four years to fix it. It's gonna take longer than that. You don't just fix a 230-year mistake. Now, don't misunderstand. Obama wouldn't dare say it that way, and Jay Carney doesn't dare say it that way. They don't have to. They intimate, just take one little element, the tax cuts of 2001, 2003. And then throw in the Reagan years, and that's the biggest economic expansion in this country, the biggest economic expansion in any country in the history of the world. And, of course, how's it rewritten? What's the history revision on the eighties? That it led to the widest gap, rich and poor. It ended up taking money away from the poor, and the rich got richer, same old stuff.
The subprime mortgage crisis. Whose fault is that? Republican bankers. It's not the fault of the Community Redevelopment Act. It's not the fault of the government demanding banks make loans to people that couldn't ever pay back. No, no, no, no. We're in the middle of history revision and what's happening is that the Republicans are being identified, and their policies, as the reasons why this mess exists. If they can succeed with that then they've got a free road. They got a free road, and, by the way, a road with no opposition as they head on down the road to socialism and expansionist government and what have you. So when I read these tech blogs I look for evidence that they're succeeding. And I find it everywhere.
Now, high-tech is not populated with idiots, at least scientifically. But it is populated with people who don't think. It's populated with liberals who feel, who've been propagandized, in my view, who have been ill-educated. They've been lied to about this country and the things that make this country wrong or unfair or unjust. Here's just one little example, and it's actually not that little. It is a post from one of the many tech blogs that I read to try to keep up with what's going on with Apple and Samsung and the latest gadgetry, 'cause I love that stuff. I want to know what's coming. Gizmos and what they can do fascinate me.
So I read this stuff. And here's a blog entry on Eric Schmidt, the Google chairman, defending his tax avoidance. You know the story. Google has found a way to put $10 billion in places the US Internal Revenue Service can't get to. Legally, by the way. And that $10 billion has in it two billion which is owed in taxes that they are able to not pay.
Now, Google is an accepted, appreciated, stamp-of-approval corporation 'cause they're a bunch of libs. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders, are big liberals. They're big Obama bundlers and supporters -- all of Google is -- and so there's less heat on these guys when they avoid taxes. There's still some heat, but it's of a different variety. It's more like these bloggers who scratch their heads and wonder why.
'Cause Google, that's good guys! Why are they shafting the government? It doesn't compute with them. They're really bothered by it. They think this 'cause of the way they've been educated and the way that they have been indoctrinated. These guys cover the business side of high-tech, and they're clueless as to what the purpose of a business is. You can tell it when you read what they write. As I say, I read this to remind me what we're up against.
So here's Google. They've been able to run some income (quite a bit of it) through Ireland, to Belgium, to the Bahamas. By the way, all of it legal. In so doing, they escape paying $2 billion in taxes. Now, the story from a particular blog here is about Eric Schmidt defending Google's tax avoidance and the strategy. Here's the post: "Google chairman Eric Schmidt has a decent rejoinder to politicians upset that his company is sheltering profits in Bermuda shell companies:
"Under the rules governments have written, such behavior is perfectly legal. Per the Sydney Morning Herald, Schmidt this week said that he was 'very proud of the structure that we set up' to keep his company’s taxes as low as possible while adding that 'we did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate.'" So what's Google saying? "Our job is to pay as little in taxes as possible." But, see, Schmidt can get away with it 'cause he's a good liberal.
Let me say that, and they're gonna send out the dogs for me! Or let any Republican talk about the fact that tax avoidance... It's not even tax avoidance. It's just following the rules. Keeping taxes low is good for Google. Why is it not good for America, why is it not good for an individual if it's good for Google? Now, the difference, here's Eric Schmidt who's fearless. He's proud to stand up and say, "Screw you!
"My job is to make my bottom line as big as it can be, and if I got a chance to avoid paying taxes, I'm gonna do it!" He doesn't make one excuse. He doesn't beg for forgiveness. He doesn't ask for any sympathy. He basically just rams it down the critics' throats, which is what Republicans ought to do. And then he said (summarized), "Look, governments gave us these incentives if we would come there and set up in these countries. They want our business. They gave us these incentives. We'd be foolish not to take advantage of it."
Here is the blogger's rejoinder: "But while Google’s behavior may be legal, there are still important questions about whether governments should put up with it." Governments designed it! Governments designed the law or the laws. Government offered the incentives to Google to get 'em there. But here's this little blogger who doesn't know what he's talking about. He thinks he does. I'm sure that he thinks he's a big, compassionate, caring individual.
But look what he wants to do.
You have Google, which is doing more for people than government can even hope or think of doing, and he wants 'em punished. Yeah. "Google’s behavior may be legal, but there are still important questions about whether governments should put up with it." Here's some young kid who thinks government's god, government can do no wrong, government is the solution, government's the answer to every question, government is holy. "[T]here are still important questions about whether governments should put up with it."
The question is, when are we gonna stand up and say we're tired of putting up with government?
RUSH: Douglas, Appleton, Wisconsin, one of my all-time favorite towns. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Well, hey, Rush! Great to talk to you, and I'm using Skype to make the call. I thought you'd like that.
RUSH: I appreciate that. Yes, sir.
CALLER: Well, I was wondering, you were talking about all the high-tech stuff. I'm a big high-tech guy. I love all that stuff. Now, I'm kind of going back and forth between wanting to get the iPad, or now Microsoft has their thing called the Microsoft Touch.
RUSH: You mean the Surface?
CALLER: The Surface, yeah.
RUSH: Microsoft Surface.
CALLER: And I was just wondering what you thought about it.
RUSH: I'm biased. You understand this going in?
CALLER: Oh, yeah.
RUSH: I'm biased pro-Apple products.
CALLER: You always have been, since way back.
RUSH: I have not used the Surface. I've only read about it. And what I have read, if it's to be believed, the Surface doesn't quite match up well with the iPad in terms of battery life and screen resolution. It's got some... It has a cover that opens and is a keyboard, which the iPad doesn't have.
RUSH: If that matters to you, that could be something advantageous. I've got an idea. Why don't I send you an iPad and you can use it for a while and then determine whether or not you like it, and if you don't then you go buy a Surface?
CALLER: That sounds like a plan to me.
RUSH: All right. So now you tell me: What kind of iPad do you want? Do you want the iPad Mini or you want the iPad fourth generation Retina display, screaming-fast processor with about a 12-hour battery?
CALLER: (chuckling) That sounds great. I'm a photographer, and that would be fantastic.
RUSH: Well, no, no. There's two of them. The iPad Mini is a 7.8-inch screen. The fourth-generation iPad with the Retina is about a ten-inch, 9.7-inch screen. But the screen resolutions, there's no comparison to the Retina screen. But the Mini, it's a cute little thing. You hold it in one hand. It's very, very light, but still an iPad. You tell me: Which one do you want?
CALLER: Well, I would use it for my work. I would display for my customers, my photography.
RUSH: Well, then you need the iPad fourth generation. There's no question. AT&T or Verizon? Five seconds.
RUSH: Got it. Hang on. We'll get your address and you'll have it tomorrow if you want it tomorrow.