×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: There is a story in the New York Times today. This is incredible — speaking of the ChiComs — the New York Times, we just had this piece last week by Andy Stern, the SEIU, we ought to emulate China. By the way, you couple Stern’s column in the Wall Street Journal last week and Obama’s speech on Tuesday in Osawatomie, Kansas. Folks, I don’t think any longer it is improper to use the word “communist” to describe Obama, communism to describe his objectives, nor is it wrong to use the word “communist” or “communism” to associate with the trade labor movement, be it the AFL-CIO or the mine workers or the SEIU. I mean they’ve made it clear, Obama came out of the closet. We called him out. We set the arena. Obama is now playing in our arena, not the Republican Party’s arena.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

This story in the New York Times: “EntrepreneurÂ’s Rival in China: The State.” It’s a great story. It is actually about an ongoing battle between two companies in China. One company is run by the ChiCom government, one company that isn’t. The private company, the company not run by the ChiCom government, says that the government-run company stole its patents and isn’t completing on a level playing field. The first nine paragraphs go into the details of this. Then the following 44 paragraphs — I counted ’em — the following 44 paragraphs go on to chronicle the private company’s struggles against the government. But in typical New York Times fashion the really shocking news is buried right in the middle of the piece.

The Chinese government is stifling China’s economy by wanting too much control and taking too much of the wealth. I swear to God. I swear to Allah. That’s exactly what the New York Times — I kid you not. The Chinese government is stifling China’s economy by wanting too much control and taking too much of the wealth. Now, there’s a reason that’s buried in the middle of the story. It’s so the readers of the Times don’t get that far and see it. The editors of the New York Times, no doubt, don’t want their readers to be subjected to such anti-government statements. But they are amazing because they apply to the current state of affairs in our country even more than they do to the business friendly so-called ChiComs.

So here you have two companies, one state owned, one private. The state-owned company is stealing all the patents and basically cheating against the private company. The New York Times says the Chinese government is stifling China’s economy. You just change the names. Obama is stifling America’s economy. The Times does not make that connection. But any reasonable — we have to throw out New York Times readers in that qualification — any reasonable reader couldn’t help but note the irony. I’m reading it, how did this get past the editors at the New York Times? ‘Cause people like me are going to see this and they’re going to say this is exactly what’s happening in the United States. The New York Times doesn’t see it that way at all. They’re upset, they are mad that the ChiCom government is mistreating this private company.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to share with you some of the quotes. Not actually quotes, but some of the — some of the references here in this New York Times article on the ChiComs. It’s just how we can have such a stupid, bonehead media. They’re upset at big government in China! It’s a communist government. They’re upset about it. It’s so unfair to the entrepreneurs in the private sector, in China.

And yet in this country the New York Times hates everybody in the private sector! Here. Let me give you some examples. “After more than a decade in which private companies have been the prime engine of ChinaÂ’s economic miracle, the [ChiCom] government is eager to control more of that wealth — even if that means running roughshod over private companies. ” Folks, I tell you, it’s Twilight Zone. Just change this to “the United States” from China and you’ve got the same story, but these lugheads at it New York Times don’t see it. Who is this? David Barboza is the Wizard of Smart that wrote this piece. “Chen Zhiwu, a professor of finance at Yale University and a harsh critic of the stateÂ’s dominant role in the economy, says the Chinese government is smothering the private sector. ‘When the government is involved in business, it’s hard for private companies to compete,’ Professor Chen said.”

This is a professor of finance at Yale. This guy is not gonna have his job long talking like this. I’m almost at a loss to express my incredulity here. A professor of finance at Yale “says the Chinese government is smothering the private sector. ‘When the government is involved in business, it’s hard for private companies to compete.'” Mr. Chin, what..? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is going on here, right before your very academic eyes? The usurping of private enterprise has become so evident that the Chinese have given it a nickname: guo jin min tui. That roughly translates as ‘while the state advances, the privates retreat.'” (scoffing) I… I… (laughing) I donÂ’t know how to react to this. We have a similar nickname here. It’s called Obamanomics. Obamanomics: While the state advances, the privates retreat.” “Some prominent Chinese economists are warning that the potentially corrosive effects of an approach that favors government companies at the expense of the private sector could eventually stifle innovation, saying it could stunt ChinaÂ’s long-term growth and quash the rising aspirations of the nationÂ’s 1.3 billion people.”

What would be so hard for these lugheads to write a story like that about this country. Why are they so worried a massive government takeover in China and yet same time people at the same newspaper applaud it, support it, and advocate it in this country? They’re worried about the ChiCom government overtaking the middle class, the private sector in China, and encouraging the very same thing in this country. “‘If China doesnÂ’t deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this countryÂ’s growth is not sustainable,’ said Xu Chenggang, a professor of economics at the University of Hong Kong.” Really? If AMERICA doesnÂ’t deal with this problem and strengthen the private sector, this countryÂ’s growth is not sustainable! You could easily write that sentence. Am I making too big a deal about this? I’m sorry, folks. I’m apoplectically incredulous here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Just a couple more passages here from this New York Times piece because it gets even better. “There are a variety of reasons the Chinese government is seeking an enlarged role in the economy — including fears that wealthy entrepreneurs could begin to challenge the Communist Party.” Something of course our political elites never worry about. “There is also an ingrained belief among leaders that the state is better at driving growth and redistributing wealth.” Well, our Dear Leader, Barack Obama, just gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, expressing this very belief.


You know, folks, I know a lot of you, “Come on, Rush, it’s the New York Times, why are you wasting time?” I’m not wasting time. Folks, this is the kind of stuff that is as instructive as it can possibly be. Here we have evidence that a major media organ in this country will support private sector economics. Just not in this country. We know that they get it, that they understand, they’re worried about government encroachment. In China, there’s hardly — the government runs everything in China! If the New York Times is consistent, they ought to be worried about the rising middle class, the rising entrepreneur class, if they’re to be consistent.

You watch, just like a week ago when that piece appeared in the New York Times op-ed section that the Obama campaign didn’t care any longer about the votes of white working class people, it’s a little hidden piece, it didn’t get beyond the op-ed page except for here. Just like Fast and Furious started, I told you what that was all about. Just like before Obama was immaculated, I told you what was ahead. This is the kind of thing that we’re gonna look back on someday in the future and I’ll say, “Remember when the New York Times did that piece on China?”

I don’t know how it’s gonna manifest itself. I don’t know what the relevance in the future is gonna be, but it’s further evidence that we don’t really need because we know it’s already happening the way it happens, but it’s further evidence that we got a rigged media in this company, we have a rigged president in this country, and when the private sector individuals yearning to be free are on the short end of the stick, nobody here in our media stands up for ’em. They will stand up for people victimized by big government in China, of all places. The New York Times never stood up for the people getting crammed by government in Russia, the Soviet Union, in the Koreas, in Cuba. And now all of a sudden the New York Times is concerned about big government in China.

We even have a quote from a Yale professor talking about the dangers to economic growth if the government starts getting too big and redistributing wealth and trying to run companies. I wonder, I do, I think a lot of people suffer from a misconception. The misconception is — and Steve Jobs, interestingly enough, back in 1997, addressed this. In fact, let me paraphrase Jobs to make the point. Steve Jobs said, as best I can recall this, is that you look out the window, and you see everything out there going on that you call life. When you figure out that all that stuff out there that you see was put together by people no smarter than you are, then your life has changed. And what he meant by that was, everybody assumes that people who earn more money than they do or build things that they don’t or whatever are smarter, better, wiser, what have you.

Jobs’ point was you’re just as smart as anybody else. You just may not use your intelligence the way other people have. But the thing he was cautioning against was, don’t let inferiority take over. How many of you assume that people on Wall Street, the CEOs, the grand titans, are smarter than everybody else? Because they have more money than everybody else does, and they’re able to game the financial system so that they end up always having more money than anybody else has, so they must be smarter than you are. Well, let’s redefine smart. Jamie Dimon, who runs JPMorgan Chase made a statement yesterday he can’t understand why Obama’s out ripping the rich. He says he doesn’t understand what’s wrong with being successful. He doesn’t understand why Obama is criticizing, ripping, and trying to tear down to size successful rich people. And I’m sure he doesn’t.

I’m sure Jamie Dimon’s probably seen to it that Obama’s received millions of dollars in campaign contributions. I’ll wager that Jamie Dimon doesn’t understand conservatism versus liberalism. I don’t think he even cares. Here’s a guy who looks at what Obama is doing, “Why is he ripping? We’re giving the guy money and he’s coming after us.” What Obama apparently hasn’t done is taken Jamie Dimon and said, “Look, okay, look, now, I appreciate the money and I appreciate the contributions, you know we’re on the same team, but in public I gotta rip you to shreds. Don’t believe it. I gotta do it for public. Public hates you. I gotta make the public think I hate with you. It’s the way I’m gonna get reelected.” Apparently he hadn’t had that conversation with Dimon, or if he did, Dimon forgot it. But apparently Dimon’s not bright enough to figure it out on his own.

Now, to me, somebody running JPMorgan Chase, thought to be the smartest guy — remember, Corzine ran Goldman Sachs, too, just to help you put this in perspective, another blithering idiot who ended up getting fired from the job. So the guy running JP Morgan Chase, “I don’t understand why the president is attacking the rich.” You don’t? You can’t see who the guy is? Or are you just scamming us with this statement that you don’t know why he’s attacking the rich, or you don’t see what there is to gain by attacking the rich. So these people aren’t any smarter than you are. They’re not more perceptive than you are. In fact, in many cases they’re less so.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This