It's Rush Limbaugh once again, America's real anchor man, doing the job the drive-by media used to do.
Well, it's been a long time since they used to do what they used to do.
Nevertheless, we do it here as America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and the doctor of democracy.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Here's our phone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
Email address is El Rushbo.
Excuse me, El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
So I was just watching the TV monitors here in my fancy broadcast complex studio and Fox News talking about the G20.
I didn't hear what they said.
I didn't even read the closed captioning.
I just looked at their headline in the bottom of the page, market jumps on good news from G20.
This is not why the market is up today.
In fact, the markets, it was as high as 305 and it's now down to up 275.
I'm going to track this down to 274 because they just announced something from the G20 that the markets are not going to like.
And by the way, when it comes to the G20, folks, it has been a near disaster for the United States.
Obama is engaged in a slow surrender of United States' best interests, our national interests.
But as I told you, this is being reported as a slam-dunk grand slam.
He's the star of the show.
The leaders there can't get enough of him.
And Michelle, they are American royalty.
Tingles are up everybody's legs.
It's just sickening.
But the truth of the matter is the socialists at the G20 have prevailed.
And Obama is, for all intents and purposes, one of them.
It's not just the $1 trillion they have pledged, the G20 nations to the IMF and the World Bank to ostensibly wipe out third world poverty, worldwide poverty, and stabilize the world economy.
These clowns wouldn't have the first idea about stabilizing anything.
They're about destabilization.
But, you know, Sarkozy, and I'm going to have to, this just happened.
I haven't had enough time to check this.
I just had another television network headline to go off of here.
Sarkozy, the president of France, you know, he was threatening to walk out of there unless he got one thing, and that was a global regulator for the world economy.
And if I read it right, there was a headline on one of the news channels that said that the G20 guys did indeed set up a global regulatory body.
That is huge, and that certainly is not in the best interest of the United States.
Now, if that happened, if what I read is pretty much what Sarkozy wanted, then this market, when they figure this out, is going to plunge because the reason the market is up today is that mark-to-market rules have been relaxed so that the valuing of these toxic assets that the banks hold can be placed at something other than their current market values of today, which is zero.
And the markets are up because of that and the fact that Obama's out of the country.
The longer he stays out of the country, the greater the chance the markets will stay up.
If he would stay out for a month, who knows how many points up?
But now with this announcement coming out of there about this global regulatory body, this is like a world court.
This is like a world court where, for example, U.S. soldiers can be tried for war crimes if some country accuses them of such in the middle of a war.
So now a global regulator of the world economy, which means that people other than Americans are going to be able to pass regulatory regulations and laws for our economy if what I saw is what I saw.
Now, you have to cut me some slack on this because it's cable news reporting this, and it was just a headline.
But I saw global regulator G20 authorizes.
So I'm assuming that's what this is.
But the markets are not up because of what's happened today.
And if anything, they're going to level off once people get wind of that.
The markets are up today because mark to market ostensibly has been relaxed.
There's a picture, but he's talking about Michelle My Belle Obama and her wardrobe and how she's taking Britain by storm and so forth.
Now, I have a photo here.
I'm going to show you this on the Ditto Cam.
Let me zoom in, and I'm going to tell you what you're looking at there.
This is Michelle Mybel Obama heading off to the theater or some such thing.
And she's wearing, what you're looking at there is an odd, really weird-looking sweater, but she cannot button it.
It's too tight.
She's also missed a button.
Ladies and gentlemen, and I want to read to you, now that you've seen this on the Ditto Cam, by the way, the DittoCam is available to all members at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
The caption to the picture is endearingly, the first lady may have missed a button on her very busy sweater.
Now, she went to the opera.
It wasn't a place.
She went to the opera.
She can't button her sweater.
She missed a button.
And it's described as endearingly.
Let Sarah Palin try this.
Let Laura Bush try this.
I mean, just wearing this.
This is the opera.
There's going to be such a huge blowback to this.
There is going to be such a huge backlash.
I don't mean the sweater and the fashion.
I'm talking about the policy that is being done in the name of the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, Heritage Foundation, honestly, you will find things at the Heritage Foundation that you will not find anywhere else.
I am continually amazed when I go to the Heritage Foundation of things.
And I'm not saying this because they're sponsoring.
They have a piece up called A Budget We Can Believe In.
And it is the only place that a genuine contrast of the Obama nearly $4 trillion budget compared to the Republican alternative is made.
And here's what they say at the Heritage Foundation.
There are now two 10-year budget plans being offered in Washington.
One budget dumps a staggering $9.6 trillion in new debt onto the American people.
That's the Obama budget.
The other budget borrows $3.6 trillion less.
One budget creates $63,000 in debt per household.
As an aside, President Obama's budget is spending wealth created by people not even born yet.
$63,000 in household debt per household.
The Republican budget creates $23,000 less.
One budget raises taxes by $1.4 trillion.
The other avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the tax code.
One budget does nothing to address the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.
The other budget, the Republican alternative, begins to reform these programs.
One budget permanently raises federal spending to over 22% of GDP.
The other lowers it to pre-recession levels.
Now, when President Obama unveiled his budget, he told the American people, quote, we need to be honest with ourselves about what costs are being racked up because that's how we'll come to grips with the hard choices that lie ahead.
And there are some hard choices that lie ahead.
But when his budget went on to avoid all of those hard choices, instead of moving to borrow and spend at historic levels, House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan offered a clear alternative that does make hard choices.
And Bruce Reigel, the heritage analyst, maybe Riedel, how he pronounces, an economist, details what Ryan's budget, the Republican budget, does.
It freezes non-defense, non-veterans' discretionary spending at its current level for five years, allowing for inflation.
It reforms entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are currently growing at 8% annually.
That's unsustainable.
It takes back stimulus spending that would be spent in 2010.
That is crucial.
Because what the Republicans are saying here, elect us in 2010 and we can cancel a bunch of this spending that the Democrats and Obama have passed way out into the future as part of the porculus bill.
And by the way, that's when the recession is expected to be over.
Most of Obama's porculus spending occurs after the statistical tables tell you that the recession will be over.
And Ryan's budget, the Republican budget, places a moratorium on earmarks until the system can be cleaned up.
The alternative budget will also go a long way to restoring American competitiveness by making the 2001-2003 tax cuts permanent.
It would lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, simplify the tax code by allowing individuals the choice of opting into a system with a 10% marginal tax rate on all incomes below $100,000 and a 25% rate on incomes above $100,000.
Now, I love this.
I love every aspect of this alternative budget, and I'm not going to throw cold water.
Whoa, it would have been so fabulous if this had been presented in the campaign.
But of course, that was up to the Republican standard-bearer, and that wasn't to be.
So you simplify the tax code, you maintain the Bush tax cuts where they are.
And even with all these changes, the Republican alternative budget would bring in revenues averaging just below 18% of GDP, which is near the historical average, meaning government would not grow larger than it is now relative to the gross domestic product.
Heritage says that the contrast the two budgets create could not be starker.
Obama's plan saddles Americans with historic tax increases, runaway spending, and a doubling of the national debt.
The Republican alternative reins in spending, simplifies taxes, and lessens the debt burden on American families.
It's easy to see which version you believe in.
I mean, the Heritage Foundation is doing workout that you just won't find anywhere else.
You just won't find it.
Askheritage.org.
Try that website.
You can become a member.
I'm a member of AskHeritage.org.
$25 is all it costs.
You can become a member.
And a wealth of information that, in most cases, is not available.
Other places will be open to you.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls and other things straight ahead.
We are back.
Rushland bought.
Now, the White House is saying that they are not going to cede sovereignty to the global regulator.
That's in the New York Times today.
G20 Pact has new rules and a $1.1 trillion loan pledge in it.
Now, here's an excerpt from the story from the G20.
Sarkozy pushed for global regulator to reach inside U.S. borders because he said the crisis didn't actually spontaneously erupt in Europe.
It happened over there.
We need, meaning here, we need a global regulator.
White House said, well, there's not going to be a ceding of sovereignty to a global regulator.
While the United States was determined to resist European efforts to create regulatory authorities with cross-border authority, officials said the two sides worked out policies on transparency and early risk warnings for banks that would placate France and Germany.
White House officials said there's not going to be a ceding of sovereignty to a global regulator who spoke on condition of anonymity because the negotiations were confidential.
But what is this?
They worked out policies on transparency and early risk warnings for banks that would placate France and Germany?
You might also say, we don't need a global regulator.
Harold Obama's doing damn more damage than a global regulator could do to this economy.
We've gotten a point, I might welcome a global regulator to shut down some of the stuff that's going on here.
You think a global regulator would come in and start nationalizing businesses?
Well, I don't.
Yes, it's possible, depending on who's on the global regulatory board.
We're so cooked.
We're so fried.
No, it's not time to panic because this is all going to, at some point, this is going to hit people square in the face, and there's going to be a backlash to this.
And when it happens, the Republicans are going to win again, and we're going to have control of this big behemoth.
And we're not going to be able to get rid of it immediately.
Democrats will fight reducing the size of the government.
So we'll be able to use the power of the big government these clowns created in ways they used it against us.
Of course, that all depends on the guts and the gonads of the people that end up being elected by us.
The group of 20 also agreed on new global rules to cap the pay and bonuses of bankers.
No, this is not just a Timothy Geithner idea and a Barney.
is global now, as well as a common approach to dealing with the toxic assets on the balance sheets of the world's banks.
A financial stability board with enhanced authorities will also be created to provide an early...
Folks, I'm telling you, we have given away so much of our national interest at this meeting.
And I'm just struck.
I'm struck.
There's so much reporting about the gaffes and all these other things.
I warned you, no matter what happens, Obama is going to be portrayed as the savior of this thing, as the star of this thing.
He and his wife are being portrayed this way.
Now, all of this being portrayed is simply great news for the world, great news for all of the people who are depending on Obama to save the economy and to save the world.
Now, look at this.
This is from the French news agency.
Controlled bankruptcy now mulled for GM.
U.S. government considering a controlled bankruptcy for General Motors.
See, we don't need a global regulator.
We have thrown $25 billion down the toilet in bailouts for General Motors.
And now, after all this, we're going to have a bankruptcy, but a controlled bankruptcy.
You know what a controlled bankruptcy is?
Carefully monitored by the authorities, the bankruptcy would be somewhere between a prepackaged bankruptcy and court chaos.
All this means controlled bankruptcy is just code for we're going to control it so the unions don't get hurt.
Pure and simple.
That's all it means.
University of South Florida, next stop on the phones.
Michael, thank you.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
You here?
Yeah, I'm here.
Okay, sorry, I heard a funny noise over the phone.
I have, this isn't the first time I've called, so I'm kind of nervous.
I, being on a college campus, you know, obviously you know the type of people I've been hanging out, I've been exposed to, you know, and I'll tell you one thing.
I have never seen this much like hatred for Republicans.
And generally, let me just get to my point because that's what the call screener told me to do.
There's just so much tension now between the two sides.
You know, there's Republicans that really just loathe the Democrats, or let me scratch our conservatives that just really loathe the liberals and liberals that really loathe conservatives.
And it's getting more intense than it was in the 90s or beforehand.
And it's growing at an alarming rate.
So if things continue like this, if this tension continues to mount the way it's mounting.
Yeah, and you're probably sitting out there all confused because you've heard about how bipartisanship was going to be the rule of the day.
Actually, I voted for McCain.
Well, I know, but still, you heard that with Obama winning, we're going to be a new era of centrist governance, bipartisanship, and everybody getting along with one another because of the historical nature of his presidency and all this animosity.
It was going to evaporate.
You probably heard that.
Didn't believe a word of it, though.
Good.
I actually, I don't, it may be more visible to you, but I don't think it's any different than what it's always been.
You're a college student.
Therefore, you can't remember the way Ronald Reagan was despised, hated, and vilified.
I was a baby back then.
You were a baby.
It was as bad as George W. Bush.
Wow.
It was as bad.
In fact, in some cases, it was worse because Reagan was able to communicate directly to the American people without the need of the media filtering, and they hated him even more.
But the left is who they are.
The left, their ideology trumps everything.
And now what's happened with their perceived victory, you can add arrogance and cockiness to their overall general attitude of never-ending rage.
And that's what you're seeing.
Yeah, and it kind of scares me.
Well, keep your radio on.
Michael, I'm going to address this in a little bit more detail when we come back.
One of the things that Michael, the student from the University of South Florida, who was our previous caller, told Mr. Sturdley off-air is that on his campus, the liberals are saying that America won't be fixed until all conservatives are dead.
And that's one of the reasons he called is that he's never seen the partisanship and the anger and the unhappiness.
It's so pointed and so forth.
And look at on a college campus, maybe bad.
I mean, it is bad.
I find it difficult to say that it's worse today than it's been only because of my knowledge of history.
I mean, I think back to the days of Nixon.
I mean, what I despised and hated.
It wasn't so much ideological then, at least on the surface, didn't appear to be ideological.
But I think with the election of Obama, and you can't separate the hatred these people had for George W. Bush.
And the reason they hated George W. Bush is because they considered his election illegitimate.
They thought they had the election stolen from them in Florida, that he really didn't win it.
And then the things that he did, and he couldn't talk, they thought he was stupid.
They just, but you have to understand, Michael, every activist liberal in this country gets up angrier than you can ever remember being in your life, and they live their day that way.
They get even angrier after they win.
When they win, what they expect you to do is surrender.
You are to go to them and say, I give, I give up, I'm going to become one of you.
Now, let me tell you who you're dealing with.
You're on a college campus.
We had a phone call yesterday from a college student at George Mason University in the journalism department.
And I spent 35 minutes and what was it, three segments with this guy to close the program yesterday.
And it was highly instructive.
He's a journalism student, and he's got to do a report on me based on a chapter on me in his textbook.
And he named the textbook, but I can't recall it.
And you know what?
One of the most common reactions I got from people, I mean, in all people I know, people I don't know who heard that, you know, it was so great.
You treated him like an adult.
You treated him like he had his own brain.
Do you realize how no college professor ever treats their students like they're adults, or very few of them do?
Well, I've always assumed that anybody listening to this program has a brain.
You have to to understand what happens here.
You have to to keep up with it.
But I always have respected the intelligence of people who listen to this program and call it and want to talk to me.
But when I, it's an interesting thing to follow kids.
I was one.
I rebelled against all the conventions that I was raised against, pretty much.
But now, I didn't rebel against my parents and try to make their life miserable, but I rebelled against what I thought was a conformity, that everybody does this.
I said, no, everybody doesn't do that.
And I don't want to be everybody.
Well, you can't go anywhere if you don't go to college.
Yes, I can.
I don't like school.
I hate it.
I am in prison when I'm in school.
All I do is look out the window and see people who have freedom that I don't have.
My mom and dad lived through the Great Depression, the most formative experience of their lives.
And my dad, because of what he went through, knew that in his era, you didn't have a chance of getting a job, decent one, if you didn't have a college degree.
So his view was that being a responsible parent was to see to it that his two sons went to college.
And if they didn't, and I didn't, I went one year and I couldn't handle it.
Once they made me take ballroom dance, taught by a former drill sergeant in the wax as a required PE course, I said, this just is not for me because I had known since I was eight what I wanted to do and all this stuff was standing in my way.
So I rebelled.
I didn't rebel against their morality.
I didn't rebel against their authority.
I followed their, you know, I minded my manners and that sort of thing.
I didn't burn down buildings.
I didn't become opposite of them with their political ideology and their morality.
But I did rebel against conformity.
I rebelled against the notion that everybody has to do everything the same.
You might say that I rebelled against an establishment.
Now, the establishment, when I was in school, was being protested.
And the people protesting the establishment when I was going to school wore tie-dyes and blue jeans that were blowing up bank buildings.
And they were getting wasted on whatever substance they could find every night.
And somehow they were getting passing grades in college, never showing up.
I was never going to be able to pull that off.
But that was not the, I wanted to be part of the establishment they were protesting.
So I never wore a pair of blue jeans, and I never wore my hair long, and I never wore a t-shirt, tie-dyed.
And I always tried to make sure that because I wanted to make my place in quote-unquote the establishment, I rebelled against the counterculture establishment.
I rebelled against people my own age in little university I went to and wherever else.
No Valentine's Day because everybody does it.
Why do I want to go out and be, okay, it's Valentine's Day, got to give somebody something because this says I should.
And of course, the person on the receiving end expects it.
And if you don't come through, then you're in trouble.
If you do come through, it's not as sincere as if you just picked your own day.
You disagree with me on this?
See, I'm just, I'm sorry, I'm not, and I never have been a conformist.
I worked for the Royals, Cancer Royals, for five years.
Now, the first three, I loved it because it was a change.
I thought I'd failed at radio.
I spent the first three years there.
I grew up wanting to play Major League Baseball like every kid does, but was making $12,000 a year to start and $15,000 a year.
So $13,000, yeah, $15,000 a year after the third year.
I'm in my 30s now.
I said, this isn't enough.
And it was corporate.
It was very corporately structured.
Plus, I wasn't on the baseball side, which means I wasn't going anywhere.
It's a baseball team.
I was on the marketing side.
But it was five years.
I wouldn't trade them for anything because I saw aspects of life I would have never seen if I remained behind a glass booth microphone, met people I wouldn't have otherwise met.
Oh, it worked out.
I wouldn't have pieces.
Do you have any regrets?
No, wouldn't change anything.
It's all led me to where I am.
But I had no conformist desires whatsoever.
Yeah, I wanted to be in the establishment.
I wanted to stand out even there.
I've always been an individualist.
And I've always been an individualist because I've always believed I had the freedom to be.
And I've always believed I'm different.
I know I'm different from people.
And anybody else honest with themselves knows they're different, but way too many people want to be like everybody else.
Or they want to be like somebody.
And the real trick is liking who you are and being who you are.
And you had, have the freedom in this country for a little while longer anyway to do that.
Now, you think I've lost my place on this whole college thing, but I haven't.
I think in many ways, I mean, there are a lot of kids in high school going to college who are conformists.
They do it because it's still considered to be the tick, the ticket, and the track, the ladder that you climb.
Others do it because they don't know what to do.
They have no idea what they want to do.
So that's the next phase.
Others do it because dad and mom went there and you get a legacy admission into some great university, go to the football, whatever.
It's a social thing for a lot of people.
It's keggers and whatever else.
And it's an opportunity to enjoy as you're getting a little older without any real responsibility.
You can put that off until it's time when you graduate.
But even so, even so, there are still people, and it's quite normal and natural, I think, for teenagers to rebel against their parents and authority.
It's quite normal.
Parents get freaked out about it, even though they themselves did it.
It's like John Hinckley.
What his dad said after Hinckley took a shot at Reagan.
His dad said, guys, we're so surprised.
He was always such a good boy.
He never, never got into trouble.
That should have been your first warning sign.
Never got into trouble?
This kid's brooding about something somewhere.
This is not healthy.
And we found out he's watching Taxi Drive who day and night and falling in love with Jodi What's Her Face, Foster, and wanted to impress her because if something had happened in that movie.
Now, so most kids, in their own way, rebel and yet conform.
They will conform with their peers, but they don't want their peers to know that they're doing what their parents approve of.
You have to, you have to, in order to have your peers think that you're independent, your peers have to think that you've told your parents, take a trip.
So they arrive on college campus.
This is the real point.
They arrive on college campus with the spirit of individuality.
They are unique and they're there and they're going to take the world by storm.
Yeah, they're conforming in a way because college is what you're supposed to do, but they still arrive for the most part as individuals.
And then it takes not but a split second and they get into these classes run by liberal professors and professorettes and all the individualism is gone and they become sheep.
They become little liberal marching robots.
They forget all of their spirit of rebellion.
They forget all of their spirit of individuality and they get globbed into some common way of looking at things because they look up to the professor with the same disdain they had for their parents when they left home.
And I don't mean this in a negative.
It's a natural thing.
Your parents don't know anything until you're 30.
You know, as Mark Twain said, then they become the smartest people you ever knew.
It's just natural.
It's like a husband and wife.
The husband's always wrong at home.
Everywhere else, people think he's brilliant.
At home, he's never right.
And the wife, I'm sure, can feel the same thing.
But I can't talk to my husband about this.
I'm always wrong.
It's just, it's families.
It's just, it's the way things are.
So you have these kids, and they arrive on campus, and they're full of individuality and full of the individual spirit.
They're full of the consciousness of self.
And they're there to do whatever.
They're going to make their and then it doesn't take but a week of the first semester and they are robots.
They are total conformists.
And it becomes a total return to childhood with the professors becoming the parents.
If a person does not leave college as an independent critical thinker, it was a waste of time.
And college is a waste of time under that definition because you don't have a lot of independent thinkers coming out of there.
You've got robots who've been programmed by liberal professors and whoever else that's gotten hold of them.
We all know that college is not about developing the individual.
We all know that college is not about preparing individuals to pursue their own happiness with confidence, to have their own unique solutions for the problems that await them.
College is about groupthink, not individual thought.
It's about behaving and thinking as the teacher says, just like you did in elementary school.
You go from first grade to high school, you go to college, and you willingly put yourself back in the first grade.
Teacher knows everything.
And you respect them and you look up to them.
And they've got you.
And they have squeezed every bit of individuality out of you.
Now, I know this.
See, I think young people, Michael over there at University of South Florida, you're dealing with robots.
You're dealing with people whose anger has been built into them and programmed either by their parents and or their professors or a combination of the two.
You're not talking to individuals.
You're talking to groups of people who don't differ at all in one thing they think.
You are unique.
You are an individual.
Do not be intimidated by a bunch of robots who say the world won't be right until you're dead.
You see, young people are the soulmates of true conservatives and individualists.
We want them to grow.
We want you to grow up, to screw up, to get back up, to learn from the screw up and be the best you can be.
We don't want you to suck up.
We want you to grow up.
College is about sucking up.
That should not be natural for 18 to 22 year olds.
That's embarrassing to be suckups at 18 to 22.
They're better than that, or they should be.
If they were true to their hormones, they would be sneaking off to listen to me rather than going to college.
No one figures out life from a leftist, indoctrinating college professor.
You can't.
They don't live life.
They're mad as hell all day, too, at how little money they make.
Have they talked to stupid little kids like you all day?
They should be running the world and they're stuck here on some campus.
I'm way long here, so I better take it back.
The thing is here, college professors want to teach the obedient.
College professors do not want to deal with independent thinking adults.
I mean, they will, but I've had so many of them call here, people who disagree with the professor, and they're worried sick what's going to happen to them because they disagree.
Professors want obedient children.
All these kids, all these kids do the standard rebellion to one degree or another, full of individualism.
They are going to take control of the world.
They're going to grab it by the tail.
And within a week of the first semester, they're robots.
Willingly.
And that's what this poor guy at University of South Florida is facing.
Mobs and mobs of programmed robots.
Filled with rage, hatred, irrationality.
Here's John in Las Vegas.
John, nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Dittos from wonderful Las Vegas.
Thank you, sir.
Just a couple of comments.
One, I am astounded that people are surprised that Emperor Giggles and his cronies for court jesters are doing exactly what he said he would do.
Who's surprised?
People that I listen to on the radio, people that I listen to on TV, things that I read in the paper, they're just surprised that he's doing exactly what he said he would do.
I hate to tell you here, but I don't run into anybody surprised.
I run into people like us who say, like you, hey, he's doing what he said.
What's the big deal?
The media is not surprised.
The media is ecstatic.
The media is ecstatic.
I know it.
I don't see that.
That's what's coming.
Now, there may be pockets of Obama voters.
Snurdley's got some friends who say, hey, I didn't go for this.
And some of the so-called conservative intellectuals saying, wait, wait, wait, he's not the guy we thought he was.
But they don't have any passion about anything, so they have no influence over anybody.
So you never hear about what they really think unless the toilet flushes.
You just, but, but, I mean, everybody on our side, hey, we tried to warn.
We knew.
We know this is coming.
The frustration is, is that right out in front of everybody's nose, still a lot don't see it.
We'll be back.
Why is it that when people find a lifestyle that they feel is important for themselves to embrace, why do they feel they have to impose it on everyone else?