{"id":10423,"date":"2014-01-15T18:06:22","date_gmt":"2014-01-15T18:06:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-01-15T18:06:22","modified_gmt":"2014-01-15T18:06:22","slug":"dictators_don_t_let_the_law_stop_them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2014\/01\/15\/dictators_don_t_let_the_law_stop_them\/","title":{"rendered":"Dictators Don\u2019t Let the Law Stop Them"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: We\u2019re gonna start with the Fox News Channel, Fox & Friends this morning. They discussed my reaction to Obama pretending to… Well, you know what? He\u2019s not really pretending to be dictator. He was threatening to do dictatorial things a couple of days ago. He said, “You know what? We still haven\u2019t dealt with the inequality and the discrimination and the unfairness that exists in this country!<\/p>\n

“You know what? I\u2019ve got a phone and I\u2019ve got a pen, and all I need to do is a bunch of executive orders and a bunch of executive actions, and I can take care of the it. I can take care of the inequality. I can take care of the unfairness. I don\u2019t need Congress! I\u2019m tired of waiting on Congress; I\u2019m just gonna go do it.” They started discussing this on Fox today with Steve Doocy, who played an audio sound bite of my reaction to this<\/a>.<\/p>\n

DOOCY: Rush Limbaugh says what he\u2019s doing is not legal.<\/p>\n

RUSH ARCHIVE: [E]xecutive orders to make things fair. He can do executive orders and executive actions to get rid of the unfairness. He\u2019s gonna make this lousy country finally fair! … He\u2019s got these Republicans standing in his way. “Okay, I\u2019m gonna just start writing executive orders. “To hell with it! I\u2019m gonna finally make everything fair.” Now, he might have a pen, and he might have a phone, but what he does not have is the constitutional power to run this country like a dictator…<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. So that is what set up the discussion. Up next, Brian Kilmeade.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

KILMEADE: He\u2019s a constitutional lawyer on top of that, so he does know the difference. But, you know, what President Obama would say is, “Yeah, you\u2019re right.” Jobs are scarce, the economy is not having the robust turnaround he projected it to be and most economists expected. That\u2019s why he needs to do these things because Congress is in his way. I can almost hear the speech rolling off his tongue now.<\/line><\/p>\n

RUSH: He\u2019s a constitutional lawyer, and he should know better. But he doesn\u2019t care. He doesn\u2019t care about the Constitution. The Constitution is an impediment to Obama. The Constitution is not something to be respected — and it\u2019s not just Obama, by the way. It\u2019s to the vast majority of the intellectual, leftist elite. They really detest the Constitution, because it thwarts them. Some of you may not know this, but the United States Constitution was written to limit government power.<\/p>\n

The US Constitution\u2019s first 10 amendments specifically limit government\u2019s power. Well, that\u2019s not cool if you\u2019re Obama or any of today\u2019s liberal Democrats. That, to you, is shackles. They call that “a charter of negative liberties.” Stop and think of that. A document founded in the belief, the proclamation, the declaration, the primacy of individual liberty and freedom is considered “a charter of negative liberties.”<\/p>\n

It\u2019s something that gives the people individual primacy and freedom — and, to the left, that\u2019s negative — and the reason they call it “a charter of negative liberties” is because it limits government. They don\u2019t like that, and that\u2019s what Obama was talking about, “You know, the heck with it!” Now Kilmeade says, “Okay, the economy hasn\u2019t turned around despite how he projected it to, and most economists expected.”<\/p>\n

This is really a fundamental question for me. What economists expected the stimulus to work? Who are they? We need names, because they\u2019re no longer qualified to weigh in as “experts.” People like Thomas Friedman, Thomas “Loopy” Friedman at the New York Times. Paul Krugman, New York Times. I\u2019m sure a bunch of Ivy League economists really believed this Kenesyan belief that you just flood the zone with federal dollars, and you can\u2019t help but grow the economy. <\/line><\/p>\n

The problem is, where do the dollars come from? You have to take the dollars out of the private sector first before you flood the zone, so it\u2019s a net-zero effect. Now, if you had a pile of money over there that wasn\u2019t being used (which we don\u2019t), and you flooded the private sector with that, then maybe we could talk about a short-term stimulus. But that\u2019s not possible because we\u2019re $17 trillion in debt. <\/p>\n

So there is not a pile of money not being used that you could throw into the private sector and stimulate it. If you\u2019re gonna throw in $1 trillion, you have to first take that trillion dollars from somewhere, and that\u2019s done via taxes and regulations. So bring it down to a more personal level. You\u2019re gonna stimulate your annual income, you\u2019re gonna give yourself a $10,000 raise, but to get it you gotta take it from your bank account. <\/p>\n

So you go write a check on your account for $10,000, get it in cash, and you put it in your back pocket, and you think, “I just got a stimulus,” or a raise. You didn\u2019t. You just transferred the money. Net zero. That\u2019s all that stimulus was, and any economist that\u2019s honest and has any kind of economic understanding coulda told anybody it\u2019s gonna be a net wash. In fact, it\u2019s gonna be bad. It is not gonna stimulate anything. <\/p>\n

<\/a>The dirty little secret is that it was never intended to stimulate; it was payoffs to government employee unions and insurance against them being laid off, because all of that is a very intricately woven web of deceit called “money laundering.” The federal government makes sure that union jobs are not eliminated. The people in those jobs pay dues. The dues end up back in the coffers of the Democrat Party and various candidates, because nobody knows how much the unions spend funding Democrat politicians.<\/p>\n

So here you take $1 trillion and you put it in “the private sector,” but the vast majority of it goes to state employee unions? Most of that money is gonna come back to the Democrat Party. It was a money-laundering scheme. There was no economic stimulus in this at all, and any economist worth his salt and honest could have said so at the time. Now, there are a bunch of leftist economists who are idiots and do not understand what I just told you and really do believe in this stimulus effect. <\/line>