All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:35
March 24, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back, the one and only Rush Limbaugh program, America's Most.
Listen to Radio Talk Show and hour three of today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
I mentioned this story right before the break.
It's a it's a Reuters story.
Resistance grows to Obama's bigger government.
A public furor over big bonuses paid by firms bailed out with U.S. taxpayer money is fueling resistance to President Obama's ambitious plans to extend government intervention to the U.S. private sector.
I want to read that to you again, and I want to ask you if this makes any sense to you.
Because I saw the headline, resistance grows to Obama's bigger government.
And I know that there is some objection to all this.
It's out there.
In fact, let me let me let me put it this way.
I've got a lot of emails from people over the weekend.
And even today.
And Snerdley was asked, but doesn't anybody care about the mob rule on these tours of the executive homes in uh in Connecticut?
Did anybody care why it wasn't a banana republic?
Did anybody care?
And a lot of people are saying, Rush, these tea parties, they're all over the place, and nobody's reporting on them.
The media is ignoring these parties.
You've got 40 people on a bus tour of AIG executives.
You have 1,200 people average at a tea party, and the media is not reporting those protests.
Here's the thing about this.
Let's pret let's create a different scenario.
Now the purpose here is to try to keep you um inspired and bucked up and not go wobbly here.
Let's go back to well, January 15th.
Uh basically five days before Obama was inaugurated.
And let's pretend from January 15th through today, that there had been no significant opposition expressed in national media anywhere over what Obama was doing.
Do you think that things would be a little different today than they otherwise are?
And before you say, but Russia's getting everything he wants, yes, yes, it appears so.
But let me ask you to think if if there hadn't been any expressed opposition, how much further along would there be?
Would they be in accomplishing their whole objective of the takeover of the private sector on Wall Street and the basic assault on capitalism?
You see, it was on January 16th that I first said, I hope Obama fails.
And four days afterward, I amplified it and said it again and again and again, and I said it on Hannity's TV show, and I defined it, amplified it some more.
And it is my contention that that statement, I hope Obama failed.
The first breath of any kind of opposition to Obama in general about his policies.
If that hadn't happened, we would be far worse off today.
His polling numbers are coming down.
Zogby has him 50-50, Rasmussen has him falling.
Some polls, yes, still put him at 65, but they are the outliers now.
They're not uh part of the of the average.
There is opposition to what is happening.
There are people now starting to raise questions about, hey, is this what we voted for?
A lot of people are starting to say this is not what we voted for.
This is not what we thought we were voting for, and this is not what we voted for.
Now we are talking about the President of the United States here, and we're talking about a Congress that is run by Democrats.
And so the likelihood of stopping in its tracks Any of this is doubtful.
Actually stopping it, but raising doubts about it and causing questions to be asked is precisely the kind of thing that takes Obama off his game and makes him rely even more on the teleprompter.
Imagine if two months had gone by, 60 days with no opposition whatsoever.
If there had been nothing but fawning adulation, which is what we would have gotten had nobody spoke up.
And the Republicans weren't going to speak up.
And noted Republican leaders made it plain.
They wanted him to succeed.
They wanted to work with the guy.
They went, they went the opposite direction.
Nobody was willing to call attention to the absolute danger to this nation posed by this administration.
Nobody in elected Republican Party politics was willing to.
In fact, they said we can't.
His numbers are too high.
His presidency is too historical.
All we can do is go after Pelosi and Reed.
Nobody cares when you go after Pelosi and Reed.
Pelosi and Reed aren't that popular anyway, and nobody knows who they are.
Nancy Pelosi sold 6,000 copies of her book or some such thing.
Nobody knows who she is.
She's delusional in her own mind.
She thinks everybody knows who she is.
Nobody knows who she is.
They know Obama.
And our party, the Republican Party, was afraid to tie any of these policies to Obama.
But now they're starting to.
There's a little bitty story here.
Two paragraphs, little Reuters' story.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner's request for government authority to wind down failing non-bank financial firms is an unprecedented power grab, says House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Now I can tell you a month ago, Boehner wasn't willing to say anything like this.
Call this a power grab?
I mean, that's that's fighting words.
To call this a power grab, but now more and more people are starting to do this.
And more and more people are starting to have questions about.
I mentioned that the New York Times, and please don't get mad at me for citing them.
I'm not I'm not using the New York Times as any kind of validation, do not misunderstand.
I'm just saying when you have a lead editorial and three columns on Sunday that are really tough on Obama, mainly his style, but somewhat unsubstance.
What you know is that this ain't the way they thought it was going to be.
This isn't smooth sailing.
And he is not the guy they thought he was.
He's not the suave, smooth talk.
He got this guy makes gaff after gaff after gaffe.
And there are people who are starting to say, hey, look, pal, stop whining about what you inherited.
You are long over and you are way beyond what you inherited with what you've done here.
And besides, President Obama, didn't you ask for the job?
You ask for the job, then you take what the job gives you.
He's up there whining and moaning.
Well, I never thought this would be what I would have to deal with.
Oh, when we took over, I and I predicted this.
I said before this guy isn't even inaugurated.
They're going to get up there and they're going to say Bush was not honest with us.
They didn't tell us what all was going on in Afghanistan or Iraq or the economy.
We had no idea how bad it was.
We got to do X, Y, and Z as a result of that.
My point is that the criticism and the objections are having an impact.
But you have to be realistic in expectations.
There's that we can't stop any of this.
And Obama is not about having his mind changed.
If he sees there's more opposition, he's just going to change tactics to get what he wants.
And we know what his tactics are going to be.
The tactics are going to be another press conference, another appearance on Leno, goes straight to the Obamabots who are responsible for his approval numbers, which are falling again.
His approval numbers are falling.
You don't see big polls about his wild over-the-top approval numbers anymore.
You don't see any polls really about it.
You see polls on me.
You see polls on Obama compared to me, but you don't see Obama compared to Obama.
From six months ago to two months ago to today.
That's what they're not other than Zogby and Rasmussen.
But the networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, Wall Street Journal, all these uh coordinated polls, New York Times, they're not showing you this data.
Just like they're not showing you and talking about the tea parties that are taking place all over the country.
But the fact is, all these things are working.
They are having an impact.
They are providing obstacles.
We're throwing boulders in the road.
And that's what we can do.
All we can do is throw boulders in the road and obstacles and try to slow this down.
And what and believe me, there probably is more outrage over these bus tours of AIG executives out there than you know.
And there probably is a lot more outrage at a 90% confiscatory retroactive tax rate on a select few people.
It's unconstitutional.
There's probably a lot more outrage than you know.
The drive-by media is just not going to find it on purpose.
And if it happened to walk into their front yards or into their offices, they wouldn't report it anyway.
They would characterize it as fringe.
And uh and and people listening to limbaugh and uh and conservative talk radio and so forth.
But ladies and gentlemen, the power to seize the banking industry and all financial institutions is legalized blackmail.
It is de facto nationalization of the economy.
And it's all built on this phony rage against AIG employment retention contracts.
And that was necessary.
All the phony outrage was necessary for future power grabs.
All of this chaos, all of the effort to talk down the U.S. economy to create chaos is necessary for future power grabs.
It's been in the works for some time.
Treasury and the Congress worked together to protect the retention contracts.
They sanctioned those contracts, yet now they're angered and shocked and outraged.
Those contracts were paid as promised.
It makes sense if the end game is chaos after chaos after chaos to take over more and more of the private sector.
And they are openly admitting this.
What the Washington Post and the New York Times that this is what they want to do.
Stories yesterday and Monday or Sunday.
Now let's not forget that Obama wants to control the pay, the compensation of all bank and non-bank executives, too.
Why would a leftist authoritarian want that power?
Well, if you control executive compensation, you can then start controlling any other kind of compensation.
And if you control that, you have the right to take over the economy's central nervous system, do you not?
That's what people earn in the private sector.
So how easy would it be for the president or Geitner to threaten any of the country's financial institutions?
Barney Frank's already doing it today.
In an AIG hearing, he's talking about we had regulations, federal laws to tie compensation to performance.
So what we have here, Barney Frank blackmailing while hearing having having a hearing with Geitner and Bernanke on AIG.
Barney Frank and the Obama administration are blackmailing the rest of the financial industry.
This could happen to you.
You could be next if you don't play ball with us.
A polite way to say blackmail is leverage.
Regardless, this is de facto nationalization of the entire economy.
Remember, we have to return the wealth of the nation to its rightful owners.
And in Obama's world, that's the poor and the middle class who are only poor and middle class because all the spoils are being stolen from them by evil, greedy thieves.
So you destroy the private sector.
And you do it with a mob demanding that you do so.
As in going after AIG executives.
This is how it starts.
Gin up the populist mob to support that takeover of the private sector.
What this will then in turn create is political Donations from all of the targeted companies.
Ransom, in other words.
Obama is basically asking for ransom from financial institutions.
Pay me, or I'll take you over.
Donate to me and my party, or I'll take you over.
The old protection racket.
Now, in most instances, something is dramatic and overwhelming of this would be a tipping point.
People ask me, have they overreached?
Oh, yeah, they've overreached a long time ago.
Normally this would be a tipping point.
If America were what it was when you and I were growing up, the protest would not be in Connecticut.
They'd be in Washington, D.C., they'd be in front of the White House.
You talk about all this, the Patriot Act and the invasions of privacy in the Bush administration.
Nothing compared to what's happening now.
The drive-bys would be leading the charge, encouraging the protesters to march in front of the White House.
But now, give you a sample soundbite.
It is Chuck Todd.
And it is, I think it's uh Chuck Todd.
Chuck Todd today on the Today Show defending Obama on 60 Minutes last night.
Sixty minutes, Steve Croft, he was laughing.
Obama laughing at the economic misery.
So sometimes you just gallows humor to get through the day.
Ha ha ha ha.
Croft said, This is crazy.
You're sitting here laughing about real pain, money problems.
Are you punch drunk?
This is how Chuck Todd described Obama last night.
You know, this has been a problem for President Obama when he was candidate Obama.
This criticism that sometimes he doesn't seem to show that he feels the pain of what's going on in America.
You know, he whether it was that criticism of what happened when he described folks in Pennsylvania about clinging to their guns and religion, so sometimes he gets a little sort of zen-like and above it all, and I think that's where this tone comes from.
He also was traveling a lot last week, and as Steve Croft said, he might have been a little punch drunk and just a little tired.
Will you talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel?
What Steve Croft called punch drunk, Chuck Todd sees a Zen-like.
Yeah, it's really hard.
Yeah, he got into this problem with the bitter clinger comments.
Now, in the old days, the Chuck Todds of the world would have been outraged by what they're saying.
Now they feel the need to defend it because they're invested in him.
It's why you ought to read the British press.
The British press is not invested in Obama like the American media is.
They're invested in him.
He's too big to fail, they're invested in his election, the historical nature of it, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And this is just one example.
But in the America you and I know, there would be mobs of protests in Washington on Capitol Hill and at the White House over what's happening.
And the drive-bys would be out there with cameras and microphones encouraging these people.
Not today.
Back after this, my friends, stay with us.
A little soundbite here.
Barney Frank shutting down a Republican, Spencer Bacchus.
Republican from Alabama.
He was having a conversation with Geithner.
Uh, and and Bacchus was about to nail Geitner on the use of the AIG bailout as a laundry for Goldman Sachs, et cetera, when Barney Frank slobers and uh interrupts him.
This is how it sounded.
Was there any discussion over uh a haircut or a 95%, taking 95% or 90% as full payment?
We explored at that time every possible means to reduce the drain on their resources, including what you referred to.
But again, because we have no legal mechanism in place for dealing with this like we deal with the bank, we did not have the ability to selectively impose losses on their counterparty.
No, I'm sorry, the gentleman is now exceeded the five minutes as I said before.
The last person speaking during the five minutes uh will uh complete a sentence and we will move on.
Mr. Keitner, uh, you want to complete the sentence?
I've forgotten where I was in my sentence, but that's right.
Then we will now go to Mr. Candy.
I there were too many members here for those of us in the top row to abuse the five-minute pill.
Now, what was happening here, we didn't, this is a long bite.
What was happening here did Spencer Backus was about to nail Geitner not on the bonuses, but on the hundred and seventy billion in bailout money that ninety-three to a hundred billion was sent to other banks, among them Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and others, and he had set that all up, and that's why the conversation on haircuts and uh and and 80% ownership and so forth.
Uh he knows where Bacchus is going uh with with all this.
Uh and and so the Marney Frank once again shut down the entire conversation as it was about to nail Geithner on the real real problem with these bailouts, and that is the laundering of money to other banks back after this.
Did you people see this yesterday?
I'm sure you did.
The U.S. government is gonna buy Chinese condoms, and that will end jobs in Alabama.
In a move expected to cost 300 American jobs, the government is switching to cheaper offshore condoms, including some made in China.
You think these Chinese condoms will have lead in them?
That could be interesting.
So we're gonna trust birth control, we're gonna trust AIDS to the ChICOMs.
They can't even make pet food, they can't even make kids' toys, and we're gonna shut down 300 condom jobs in Alabama to start buying condoms from China.
It's in the Kansas City SCAR newspaper at a time when the federal government spending billions of stimulus dollars to stem the tide of U.S. layoffs, should that same government put even more Americans out of work by buying cheaper foreign products, in this case, ChICOM condoms.
That's the development uh dilemma rather for the folks at the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Aid, AID, which has distributed an estimated 10 billion U.S. made aids preventing condoms in poor countries around the world, but not anymore.
They're gonna start buying them from Chicoms.
The ChICOMs are the Chicoms.
How hard's it going to be to manufacture faulty condoms in the name of the United States government, and you pass them out to people where you're hoping to staunch the spread of disease, and what happens if the disease spreads?
The U.S. gets to blame using Chinese condoms, whether they've got lead in them or not.
It's the ChICOMS.
And you know, you you when I read a story like this, I will admit sometimes folks, I have to catch myself because I get depressed.
Because we have to just continually re-argue and refight old battles that we've already won.
Remember back in 1974 or 75, it might have then, an absolute blithering idiot, but an academic by the name of Paul Ehrlich, wrote a book called A Population Bomb.
And I forget exactly what year, but it was supposedly we've already passed the year.
By 2000, the starvation and pestilence around the world would be out of control because there are just too many people.
We wouldn't be able to feed people, we wouldn't be able to have jobs, it would run out of natural resources because there's a limit on the population that the earth can support.
Julian Simon, who is now deceased, made a bet with Ehrlich and said, Paul, pick your pick ten minerals and elements.
Pick anything out, pick ten things.
And I will bet you that they are cheaper and in greater supply 20 years from now, 10 years from now, whatever, than they are today.
And Early jumped at the chance, and and Julian Simon was right on every one of them.
Things like copper, tungsten.
It was more plentiful as the population grew and the prices were cheaper.
Now, Ehrlich has been discredited by reality.
We have more people in the world than he predicted we could support.
The standard of living around the world has increased in places where there are basic free markets.
Where there aren't, of course, the standard of living has declined, such as Zimbabwe, the former Rhodesia, now run by Robert Ogabe.
Mugabe.
I was confusing him with a well-known Kenyan named Barack Ogabi.
This is Robert Mugabe.
Please forgive me.
I did not intend that slip up to be made.
Barack Ogabe, Robert Mugabe, at least in human structure, two different people.
I don't know about policies.
But basically, regardless, regardless.
See, I'm embarrassed I stepped in that.
Barack Ogabi.
At any rate.
Where there are free markets and where there is basic capitalism, the prosperity of the world was just roaring right along.
We've had our ups and downs, but it was roaring right along.
Everything Ehrlich said was disproved by reality.
And yet this from the Sunday UK Times.
Jonathan Porrett, one of Gordon Brown's leading green advisors, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porrit's call will come at this week's annual conference on the optimum population trust, the OPT.
The optimum population trust, he's a patron of this munch, will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30 million if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.
Porrett said population growth plus economic growth is putting the world under terrible pressure.
Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries.
So cutting our population is one way to reduce the impact.
This is so wrong, but forget it being wrong for a moment.
Who the hell are these people?
How are you going to reduce the British population to 30 million?
Well, abortion is one way, but that's that may not cover it because right now abortion is still elective.
If if if you if abortion doesn't do it, how are you going to do it?
How are you going to reduce the population to 30 million?
You got to kill people.
Do you not?
And if if you're going to say, well, we're going to limit the number of offspring that every family can have.
Oh, so you're going to try the Chicom way.
Good.
Then let them use Chicom condoms at the same time while you are limiting the number of offspring.
This is this is this is leftism.
This is Democrat Partyism.
This is liberalism.
And what's what's really wrong about this is to say that a prosperous citizen of Great Britain does more damage to the environment than the average third world citizen.
The average third world country does more to ruin the pollution of this country and to pollute this world, the earth, than any advanced country and its citizens do.
And guess who's standing in the way in large part of the evolution to prosperity and technology in the third world?
It's these green idiots who don't want them building dams and don't want them building air conditioning and don't want them driving cars.
They want them living these primitive lifestyles, which are basically lived in filth.
You wonder about the spread of AIDS.
You wonder about the spread of malaria.
You wonder about it's filth.
These people are being forced to live in filth.
Obama's own brother for crying out loud.
George O'Gabi lives in a shack.
And George Ogabe has not even been sent twenty bucks that we need still living in a shack, a hut, hut, sweet hut.
People live on dirt floors.
And they're kept in those squalid circumstances to protect the earth.
Meanwhile, some jerk, some idiot, this guy should have been along on the trek to the North Pole.
They got stranded.
They're going up there to check the sea ice.
They're up there, they're skiing.
They're skiing.
To the Arctic Circle to the North Pole in March.
And they got frozen out.
They finally were saved.
You know what saved them?
An airplane made in Canada, the De Havilland Twin Otter.
The twin otter is a very versatile airplane.
It has, if you want to put skis on it, you can do that.
If you want to put pontoons on it for uh water landings, it'll do that.
It'll land on a carrier.
Power on landings.
It'll do any number of things.
So it landed and saved them, rescued them, dropped them food and got them out of there.
An evil combustible engine airplane saved these lunatics skiing to the North Pole in March to check sea ice.
This lunatic from the UK should have been on that trek.
And I it's just, I've flown a flu I I used to, I've I've flown on a I've flown on two different twin otters.
One was a computer, a commuter, sorry, when I was uh went home, I was in uh I was in Pittsburgh and I had a land in St. Louis, and they had a uh commuter flight down to where I live in Cape Girarde, and it was a twin otter.
And I was in, I was just amazed by the name of the airplane, twin otter.
Kind of ugly airplane, but it got the job done.
Got worried we flew over the Mississippi River because the flight attendant, you know, gave us instructions on ditching and life vests.
And then when I was in touring Israel, we got uh from uh from Jerusalem up to the Golan and some other areas on a twin otter.
Twin Otter took us up there.
And so that's what that's the airplane that rescued these lunatics up near the Arctic Circle on skis.
And it's not a new airplane.
These airplanes belch pollution like you would not believe.
I'm surprised that these looney tunes even got on the airplane in protest, but survival will do that to you.
So anyway, here we got somebody in Gordon Brown's government.
We got to reduce the UK population to 30 million.
I don't know what it is now, but the only way you can do that is to kill people.
And look at the basis.
We're killing people to save trees and vegetable and earth and air.
And this is considered responsible.
And we've already had the argument.
Paul Ehrlich has already been discredited, not by his own people.
He's still a hero at Stanford, but he's been discredited by reality.
And yet here it pops up again.
So what have I had to do?
If I had to spend five minutes on something that every damned American ought to know is BS.
They're constantly reteach this stuff, have to constantly fight all these battles.
The war on ignorance is what we're facing.
The war on Obama is the war on ignorance, and I'm telling you, ignorance is the most expensive commodity that we have in this country.
The ignorance of way too many people costs us so much on the money on the basis of who the ignorant vote for and what the ignorant demand.
And what the ignorant do when they don't have their demands realized.
They get on buses, start harassing executives in Connecticut with the full sponsorship of an organization bought and paid for and groomed by President Obama.
Acorn.
Back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
How about nonprofit status for newspapers?
In order to save them.
Non-profit may describe a newspaper's balance sheet today, because there's so many of them are losing money, but it does not describe its tax status unless Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland gets his way as a Democrat.
Senator Cardin introduced a bill on the Senate floor today that would allow newspapers to elect to receive tax-exempt status.
All they have to do is promise not to endorse any political candidates.
They can report on campaigns, but they can't endorse candidates.
So here we have the Democrat Party, Pelosi first, out in San Francisco, relaxing regulation in order to get ownership of the chronicle mixed with somebody else to save it.
And now tax-exempt non-profit status for newspapers, as long as they don't endorse anybody.
Shh.
Huh.
And it's all happening right in front of us.
Right in front of our noses and faces, right in front of our eyes.
Stu in Palmdale, California.
I've flown over Palmdale.
I can't tell you how many times when departing Van Nyzer Burbank.
How are you, sir?
Nice to have you with us.
As an honest, sir, thank you.
Listening to the news this morning in the radio, I don't know which of the hyenas that was many common as far as the IG people getting their bonuses was.
Kind of instilled me with a bit of a mixture of uh fear and uh anger.
And came to you and the enlightened one for the wisdom as to which way it should go on this.
He made the comment that was full well knowing the threats have been made against AIG stockholders, not stockholders, but bonus recipients.
That they should return their bonuses because should the list of bonus recipients ever become public, those who return the bonuses will not be on that list.
It's kind of like saying, okay, uh, if you give the money back, uh, we're not gonna make sure the mad mob comes and burns your house down.
Well, this this look at this whole sordid episode.
I can't, I uh you're right, but I can't tell you how livid it makes me because none of it's real.
All of it is based on lies.
All of it's based on fabrication.
Everybody knew those bonuses were going to be paid.
They were taken out of the stimulus bill by some Democrats who got mad at them, and then somebody put them back in.
Chris Dodd will not tell us who, but it had to be Rahm Emanuel or Obama or something.
There were Obama bonuses.
Forget Rahm manual.
It's Obama that wanted them in there.
And once the bonuses were exempt from any limitation, then we got this dog and pony show last week where everybody acted like, oh, we didn't know this.
You voted for it.
You idiots, read the bill next time.
You voted for it.
And now you're holding these people up to public ridicule.
So you slap them with a 90% retroactive tax rate.
And then you have protests.
You encourage protests in front of their homes, forcing them to hire security.
Get their families and kids out of the neighborhood because of who knows coming to do what.
And then all of a sudden, you know what?
Andrew Cuomo says, we want the names.
We, the government, want the names of these people.
Barney Frank says, Well, I'll give you the names.
Well, we want you to keep the names quiet so we know I can't guarantee that.
So these people say, hell with it, take the money.
I'm giving the money back.
So rather than a 90% tax, the government secured a 100% tax, and they have used the fear and the power of a government which shredded the Constitution in the process.
If it can happen once, and if these people prove and demonstrate to themselves how easy it is to frighten and scare people into giving money back or changing behavior, whatever, it's just the beginning.
And it's, you know, hard to argue if you're an AIG executive and the whole country is being told that you need to be dealt with, and the Obama buddies are conducting tours of your home with a bunch of angry, rebellious protesters.
What would you do?
You give the money back.
Government wins.
This is not.
I refuse to believe this is what most people thought they were voting for.
We'll be right back.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence is now in the can.
And I know it's sad moment when this program ends, but be patient.
Fear not.
Unlike other things, we'll be back in 21 hours.
And we'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection