All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
September 22, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You are listening live to the EIB Network and El Rushbow from Los Angeles.
Actually, well, yeah, it's Los Angeles.
It's a it's a subset of Los Angeles, a subterranean super secret location you couldn't find even if you had directions.
I have a quick question.
Does Barack Obama have to pay New York state and city income taxes when he is in New York working?
As many of the rest of us do.
Greetings, folks, great to have you with us from Los Angeles, the EIB Network, 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the uh program today, the email address Lrushball at EIBNet.com.
Barack Obama has just, I mean, he's he's voting present on Afghanistan.
He's not a senator from Illinois anymore.
40,000 troops.
40,000 troops is what the general wants, and Obama's, I don't know, I got my left wing base to worry about.
So put Afghanistan off to the side.
Afghanistan's all they talked about, folks, during the uh during the Iraq war.
We gotta go in and get Osama.
We can't have success until we get Osama.
We gotta go in there.
We gotta we've gotta take them out in Afghanistan.
So we're in Afghanistan.
Obama owns a policy, and he's putting it on the back burner for climate change.
He said, get this.
The President of the United States actually said the United States has done more to reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any time in history.
Now, folks, this is a perfect illustration of how Obama is lying to you about everything else.
We haven't reduced carbon emissions, diddly squat, except for uh whatever reduced driving and consumption there is because of his recession.
Because of his high unemployment.
But there has been not one government policy that has reduced one carbon emission from any footprint from any body orifice from any cow fart from any has not happened.
And I'm d uh some people express dismay that I would use such length.
Folks, that's mild compared to what you hear the president talk about.
I mean for crying out loud, it's real here.
Now, so he says he's done more.
We've done more, and he's telling the world this.
Now we gotta all work together to reduce the carbon footprint.
Even the New York Times today reports that temperatures have stagnated for the past decade.
They haven't gone up, and it may even be getting cooler.
And it may have to do with the fact that there are no sunspots.
In fact, I read a chilling thing the other day.
I read Tuesday morning quarterback on the uh ESPN page two every Tuesday afternoon when it comes out, Greg Easterbrook.
Uh, and you know, Greg, he's a fineest brother, is a judge Frank Easterbrook and Chicago Federal Judge, but uh, I think he's a pellet judge.
Uh brilliant family.
But Greg's a little bit of an environmentalist wacko at some point, but still is a brilliant guy, and he's he's uh he's very much into astronomy.
In every Tuesday morning quarterback piece, he's got some long dissertation on astronomy.
And he said there's really something to panic about out there.
No sunspots uh could mean that we are on the verge of the sun dying.
Now that's something to be genuinely frightened about.
If if astronomers, and we have we we're in a very, very weird sunspot cycle.
There aren't any.
And the sun is the major factor in whether we're warm or cold.
And if the sun can you imagine the panic if the sun went out?
I mean, we've we we'd have about a week, maybe a month, and that's it.
We don't have any spaceships ready to take anybody to Mars.
Uh but he said that's something to genuinely be frightened of.
So that's down the road.
I'm I'm I'm not trying to hype anybody up about that.
But back to this statement.
Obama says the U.S. has done more to reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any time in history.
The last eight months happens to coincide with his immaculation with his presidency.
But there hasn't been one policy.
We haven't done diddly squat.
There are no reduced carbon emissions.
Just like we've never had a greater stimulus plan than one I've got now.
Our economy's coming back from the brink of disaster.
Uh, we're gonna all the all the the health care reform, we gotta fix it.
We're on the verge, we're gonna have the everything the man says is a lie, and this is the greatest illustration of it, and this perhaps is the is the one that's most understandable because all the other stuff is a bit esoteric.
Obama can say, well, the economy's coming back, and some people, well, uh, okay, he said so.
Uh, and I'm looking at stadiums, football games, baseball games.
A lot of people there must be okay, but this one this one is easily understandable as a flat out PRI.
Because people say, What have we done?
Well, well, how have we if if if we've done more to reduce carbon emissions in the last eight months, any time in our history that we don't need cap and tax, do we?
We don't need the stupid legislation.
It's happening by our own uh initiative on our own volition, we don't need to do anything additional.
Then he went, but he wasn't through.
He had to keep piling on.
He said, It's possible to reverse the tide of climate change, but time is running out.
Now we got that full-blown idiot, Prince Charles, suggesting that everybody get rid of their cars.
He has eight.
But everybody get rid of their cars.
Planners, developers need to plan cities and communities where the primary hub is a mass transit thing, be a train or bus, and everybody gets to where they're gonna get rid of cars.
The Fruit Loops nutcases, the absolute wackos that are in charge of the environmentalist movement, uh, and they're in charge of much else in the Obama administration as well, are just illustrating it for everybody one and all to see just how ridiculous everything in this agenda is.
Let's go to the audio sound bites this morning in New York City, United Nations Climate Change Summit.
Here is so we got let's see what it is.
We got three Obama bites.
Here's the first one.
The threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.
No, it's not.
Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history.
No, it won't.
For if we fail to meet it boldly, swiftly, and together, we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.
Every policy item, every agenda is a crisis, life-threatening.
It's like the Jerry Lewis telephone.
Look at that poor child.
Won't you do something?
Aha!
Aha!
He's going to die unless you do something.
How can you sit here and watch this telethone and not give?
That's the it's the Obama administration.
We're all gonna die.
We're gonna die if we don't do health reform.
We're gonna die if we don't do climate change.
We're gonna die if we don't do cap and tax.
We're gonna die if we don't do whatever.
Never ends.
Here's the next little clip.
We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.
Tell the other way.
We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, on a path to sustained growth.
Like your responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations.
Adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low carbon development.
They already have low carbon development.
They live in sewers, like your father's village where your brother lives in the hut.
Where you're where your your great-grandmother stepgrander, just the first person in town to have water and electricity actually run to her multi-hUD compound.
You go to these places that are underdeveloped like that, and they have a low carbon footprint.
There's no progress, but they live in squalor.
Uh we must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations, the poorest and most vulnerable, on a path to sustainable growth.
Why don't you show us how?
Why don't you show us how using your father's village over there in Kenya?
Here's the next little clip.
Our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to build a better world.
Yeah, right.
Okay, so our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas.
We know if we put the right rules and incentives.
You know, this guy wants to run everything.
Because the New York Times, unbelievable.
As UN meets on climate, momentum is elusive as the headline.
Here's the uh the nut of the story.
The world leaders who are meeting at the UN to discuss climate change today are faced with an intricate challenge.
Building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.
The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown, and some climate experts worry it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon emissions in the United States.
Scientists say the last decade of climate stability, which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 90s, is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up of the of course not.
Of course not.
Ten years of no cool, it doesn't mean anything about global war.
Well, everybody understands that.
Oh, yeah, it's just a just a temporary weirdo cycle the oceans are going through.
Not to mention the sunspot activity being wavy.
Yeah, but those are just temporary.
We are destroying our planet, nevertheless.
The evidence is all there.
Well, no, the evidence isn't all there, but you're supposed to ignore that and listen to what we say.
This is a tough I I uh I think the the way these people are overreaching encourages me.
And I I really, this statement that we've done more to reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months and any time in history, there's only one way that's true.
And it is if Obama, if you want to give credit to Obama for destroying the U.S. economy.
And let that be your uh your lesson as to how to reduce carbon emissions.
You destroy economic growth.
You reduce it.
And this is what uh this is what they have in mind.
Now, while all this is going on, oh, let me read to you the Reuters wire.
I mean, it's just it's it's Obama says cannot address climate change unless world's biggest nations cooperate.
Obama says developing nations must do their part on reducing CO2.
Obama says to work with G20 to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel use.
Obama says U.S. has done more to reduce carbon pollution in last blah, blah.
Obama says if the world does not address climate change, that 1007 Obama farts.
That is a live Reuters wire.
Twelve bulletins in two minutes on what Obama said at the climate thing.
Uh it's desperation.
Desperation on patrol.
And as I say, meanwhile, Afghanistan lurks.
Let's play audio sound number 16, CNN's Anderson Cooper 180, with hardly any audience, which is why we're going to play this bite for you.
Spoke with the international correspondent at CNN, Michael Ware.
Cooper said, everybody seems to admit, look, there's no military solution, and yet politically, there's hardly any civilians on the ground in a lot of these areas, and the Afghan government is riddled with corruption.
We're trying to bolster in these areas a government which has not represented its people.
We're now at the point where we could lose this war.
The Taliban will continue to fight as long as U.S. troops or foreign troops want to be there.
So the whole idea is to put enough military pressure on the Taliban war machine to poly that pressure at the negotiating table or to bring a political solution.
Now, President Obama has to man up and decide is he gonna fight this war, or is he going to oversee an American defeat?
Uh CNN reporters says to Obama man up or lose Afghanistan?
Man up or lose, or is he going to oversee an American defeat?
What do you think the answer to the question is?
He's willing to oversee an American defeat.
He came out and said victory is uh something, it's an it's it's an uncomfortable uh proposition word uh in Afghanistan.
So, meanwhile, the general who Obama wants and who Obama appointed and who Obama got confirmed wants some more troops.
Uh Mr. President, you are not a state senator from Illinois.
You are the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.
Do your job, drop the politics.
We got heroes on the battlefield giving their last full measure of devotion to this country, and your voting present.
All because he doesn't want to upset the Apple cart, the precious balance in Congress on his health care bill.
Well, on a health care bill, because of the radical left.
And now the politico is fascinated with who leaked this news.
That Obama's not going to come up with the troops that the general wants.
The funniest thing, it's the most incredible story.
I'll have it for you, plus lots of other things.
We come back.
El Rushbow in Los Angeles back after this.
Don't go away.
President Obama wants more time to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan.
His general wants 40,000 more troops.
Otherwise, the general says we and the Allies run the risk of losing the war.
Would agreeing to 40,000 more troops, jeopardize liberal support for Obamacare.
Stop and think about that.
The President of the United States is teetering.
He's flirting with the actual concept of defeat in Afghanistan.
Forty thousand troops, the general says makes the difference.
40,000 troops in one hand, or losing or jeopardizing support of liberals for Obamacare in Congress.
What does this tell you about the man?
These are the domestic political questions that haunt Barack Obama.
He's playing politics when he ought to be fighting and winning a war, acting like a commander-in-chief who gives a damn about his troops in the field.
He's playing golf, he's yucking it up with letterman, he's got his stupid health and human services secretary telling people how to sneeze on their sleeves.
He's sitting on a report from his commanding general in Afghanistan that says we either boost troop numbers there or face the distinct possibility of defeat, and he wants more time to study a new strategy.
He's doing nothing.
He has the reports.
He won't make a decision.
He's voting present.
It's a dereliction of duty.
What are we going to do in Afghanistan?
I thought that was settled now.
Now it's not.
Afghanistan was the central theater.
That's where we had to go.
That's we're going to beat these guys.
Taliban, Al-Qaeda.
Bush made a mistake, should have gone in there, wasted all this treasure, all these resources.
Now we're there in Obama.
Flirting with defeat.
All to make certain his Obamacare is not jeopardized in the House.
This is what you get when the radical left runs every branch of the federal government.
He's in on the golf course.
He's making jokes on Letterman, lame jokes at that.
And now he's spouting additional lies, threats, the end of the world.
We're all going to die at a climate change conference, which is nothing more than a meeting of worldwide leftists who seek to implement a worldwide government that has control over every aspect of every person's life on this planet.
That's the end game.
Now this Afghanistan report, this this is this is this is hilarious in the political today, Bob Woodward's Monday morning exclusive.
On the 66-page report from General McCristal to Obama about Afghanistan policy was a right of passage for the new administration.
The first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporters penetrated yet another administration.
So now the story is who leaked this?
Who did it and why did they do it?
The simplest theory, and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal's policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow the suggestion and increase troop levels.
But not everybody in Washington believer in this theory.
So all manner of other theories flourished.
There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to damage McChrystal or his position by inducing White House anger at the general.
There's the fake leak in which the White House may have been trying to back itself into a corner.
They actually write this, that the White House did this on purpose to back itself into a corner.
Or what what there were constant leaks during the Bush administration about Iraq war policy, and there was never this hand-wringing.
Why who's doing this?
Why are they doing this?
Who wants to damage our beloved President Bush?
Now, oh no, the first major foreign policy leak.
Who's trying to do this and why?
For what purpose?
Could it be Obama leaked it himself to back himself into a corner?
It actually says that.
Yeah.
He wants to back himself into a corner, so he's got his buddies at CNN openly telling him to man up or risk losing the war in Afghanistan.
Or I totally believe, by the way.
I totally believe the possibility that somebody in the White House leaked to discredit McCrystal.
Remember, these guys, the left, the far left, they don't like a victorious America.
That's imperialism.
They love it when the U.S. military loses.
Look at look at their um their efforts to secure defeat during the Iraq war.
They're all about the America, American military being humbled and being defeated.
So it's entirely possible to me that somebody would leak this to make McChrystal look bad.
Uh as a way of damaging him and making Obama look good to the left, as he's trying to do by not caring about defeat or victory in military conflict.
Greetings, welcome back, El Rush both serving humanity.
We are in Los Angeles.
Uh be here today and tomorrow or off Thursday.
I've got to finish up Family Guy and do Leno.
And we'll be back uh on the Friday back from our our uh Southern Command location in South Florida.
Mark Stein will be here on Thursday.
Grab a quick phone call, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mike, hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
How are you today?
Thank you very much, sir.
Very well, sir.
I got a little bit of a problem uh hearing you when you're uh bouncing your hand on the desk.
Yeah, I uh wanted to take your call here to uh provide a proper transition for discussing this because I've been overloaded with emails today from people who say that when I pound the desk uh that is echoing all across the country very thumping like, it's very distracting and so forth.
Extremely.
Yeah, uh, and I don't want to distract uh from me, uh my content, my brilliance, but yet I have this uh I'm very I gesticulate wildly when I'm passionately explaining it.
Sometimes I do pound the table.
So we're gonna try to find a shock absorber to uh to put on the microphone at some point to limit it somehow, because I'm I'm gonna do my best out there, Mike, to uh discipline myself not to pound a table.
Well, I appreciate that Rush.
No, I knew you would.
That's why I took the call, and I wanted to address this personally with uh a listener who personifies the anger and rage that I am experiencing in my email over this.
Uh my friends, we this is a professional program.
This is broadcast access, but I have to tell you, if you've ever if you've ever been to a uh pancake breakfast, if you've ever gone into a polling place and the people sitting there, I'm I'm sitting here at a folding table with a black tablecloth on it.
Uh it is not a built-in desk.
If it were a built-in desk, and I did that, you would not hear it.
If it was granite, you wouldn't hear it.
But I am working on a what is this?
Plaster board?
I mean, I did plastic particle board, particle board.
It's not even for Micah.
Uh I didn't even know this until I just uh kind of like the old days in radio.
No, I must I must say this is a first.
Uh uh I've I've never worked on a particle board desk.
This uh this uh but it's things like this.
Mike, I'm glad you it's things like this that keep me grounded.
Take me back to my roots, and understand that even under the most cheap conditions, I can thrive and prosper because this is broadcast excellence.
So, Mike and everyone, thanks for the call, and I'm gonna do my best.
Are we working on that shock absorber thing for like this program, or we're gonna get it done for the next trip to LA?
With it at the top of the hour.
Okay, so theoretical I'll be able to pound the desk uh for the last two hours of the program.
I've got to discipline myself and not do it now.
Umce we started on the phones, let's stay there.
We'll go to Hilliard, Florida, and Roger, thank you for calling, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
I'm very well, sir.
Thanks much.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Yes.
I think basically what's happened there is the White House didn't leak a thing.
It was the general himself or one of his staff members to to be sure that Obama wasn't gonna sit on his glutes uh because he considers Afghanistan a distraction right now.
Well, it's possible I uh it what I tell you what's what's uh fascinating to me about this is that all during, even Watergate, let's go back to the the number one leaker was Deep Throat.
And nobody cared what his motivation was.
Because they all knew he was out to destroy Dixon, which was fine, that was cool.
They all focused on the on the substance of what Deep Throat had to say.
And you know what Deep Throat really was?
You know, I'll tell you the real lesson that nobody draws, the correct lesson that nobody draws from Deep Throat.
Deep Throat was not so much bringing down a president, although he did.
What Deep Throat was doing was actually manipulating and controlling media, and he showed how easy it was to do it.
Woodward and Bernstein, of course, have these great journalistic reputations as the as the two kings of investigative journalism.
They are the models, they're what's taught in journalism schools.
But Deep Throat manipulated those guys.
He had them going everywhere he wanted them to go.
They would, they they found out nothing on their own, or very little, other than what he led them to or fed them.
And the real lesson of Deep Throat is how leakers can manipulate the media.
But in this case, in this case of the leak about the need for more troops in Afghanistan, uh the drive-bys are other, well, who's doing this?
And what is their motivation?
Who's tampering with our beloved president?
You want to hear some of the other theories about this?
It's um it's most likely somebody who has or is cultivating a personal relationship with Woodward and positioning himself to look good in Woodward's next book.
So the leaker might just be engaging in that because he wants to be a star in Woodward's mind.
The Pentagon hasn't changed, and there are a lot of people within the Pentagon who understand the strategic use of the leaks, and Heather Hurlbert, the executive director of the Democrat-leaning National Security Network.
Democrat leaning.
Anyway, uh one possibility you have to look at is this being leaked by somebody who is in league with the neocon assault on Obama, where anything short of all in is framed as weak in defeat.
So of all the theories, three of the four are we're gonna nail Obama.
Somebody and the other the other theory is Obama's backing himself into a corner.
But here's the thing you have to remember, let's get back to the substance of this.
Not only was Afghanistan the war, the liberals said we should fight, we are fighting it exactly the way they said we should, and the way they wanted us to.
That is, we have given charge of the thing essentially to NATO, and NATO is now screwing it up.
We have begged other countries to go in with us, and very few have.
And those who have only have sent trainers or medical or other support personnel.
Very few troops.
And now most of this wonderful multinational force are pulling out or threatening to.
And we're fighting the war with both hands tied behind our backs.
We're not even allowed to attack the enemy near houses.
It's it's the left's dream war.
It's it's this is this was this is the prototype.
This is the way they wanted us to fight the war.
This is where they've taken us.
How could we possibly lose?
The world was asked to ch to participate a world body or a multinational body.
NATO is running the show, not the United States.
Uh that we're gonna showbuddy house, we're gonna capture Osama and we're gonna kick butt and we're gonna show that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And we're on the verge of defeat, and Obama.
Look, I t I told you yesterday I was in Coach Zorn's suite at the Redskins Rams on Sunday, and he had as his guests, he and his wife Joy, four handsome, young Marines who were being deployed soon.
It was put a fifth buddy of theirs was on the phone with me in uh 29 Palms, California.
And some of them are going to the hellhole areas of Afghanistan, some are going to Camp Lejeune.
These people volunteered.
They're out there defending and protecting the U.S. Constitution and this government and the people of this country.
They're fighting for freedom.
And we got this guy fighting the perfect war the way the left said we should do it, and we're on the verge of defeat.
And the balance here is, oh gosh, do I send 40,000 more troops and risk losing my base in the health care debate?
Or do I not send 40,000, lose in Afghanistan, but get health care?
That's the question.
Our commander in chief is asking himself.
Meanwhile, the media is obsessed with who leaked this.
And why are they out there trying to damage our beloved young president in the Washington Post?
Get this.
I love this is uh an editorial.
Wavering on Afghanistan.
That's the headline.
Now get this subhead.
Washington Post.
President Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments for a counter-insurgency campaign.
Obama forgot his position.
This is constructive criticism.
Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments.
Why, yes, it was only last March 27th that Obama outlined in a major speech when he called a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan that he said marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.
That strategy unambiguously stated that the U.S. would prevent the return of a Taliban government and enhance the military governance and economic capacity of the country.
Washington Post says we strongly supported the president's conclusion.
Those goals were essential.
So it was a little startling to hear Obama suggest in several TV interviews on Sunday that he had second thoughts.
We're in the process working through that strategy.
First question is, are we pursuing the right strategy?
On NBC, if supporting Afghan, the national government is building capacity of an army.
Well, we'll move forward.
If it doesn't, well, I'm not interested in being in Afghanistan sticking being in Afghanistan.
By the way, I'm not thumping the table.
My arm is just hitting it.
Are you hearing it?
My arm, I'm not thumping the table.
I've been very good about this.
So basically, we have incompetence on parade.
We have indecision on parade.
We have inexperience on parade.
We got a man with a five-minute career who has no experience running anything but a bunch of community agitators and organizers, now in charge of victory or defeat in Afghanistan, and he is forgotten.
The Washington Post allows that he has forgotten his own argument.
Forgotten his own argument.
Not only is it naive, it is dangerously generous.
And will encourage more of this kind of indecision if the media is he just forgot.
I guess he just forgot his politics.
We're a little troubled by this, but maybe he'll end up doing the right thing.
AP in USA Today, Obama may change Afghanistan course again.
Now the headline suggests that Obama changed policy from Bush and has to change again.
That means he's already failed.
The White House is looking at expanding counterterror operations in Pakistan as an alternative to a major military escalation in Afghanistan.
Oh, so I guess the march policy, which Obama has forgotten, according to the Washington Post, is already a failure.
So now we gotta go to a different policy, this one counter-inter insurgency, counterintelligence insurgencies in Pakistan.
They're gonna branch out.
Don't forget, during the campaign, am I the only one to remember this?
Obama said he'd nuke him over there.
Even if the Pakistani government didn't know about it.
Well, we had to dial that back because folks, the man is a walking threat to this country as we've known it in every way possible.
Domestic, foreign policy, this is incompetent boobism on parade.
We'll be right back.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
All right.
We have now um uh put the shock mount on the microphone boom, and we're now ready to conduct the thump test.
So here let me move some papers where I have direct hit on the particle board table serving as my studio desk.
Still hear it, right?
It's better.
It's better.
How's that?
I mean, if I really pound it.
Okay, now how about if at least rest my arms on the table?
Are you hearing that?
Okay, good.
Well, that's that's a uh A market improvement.
All right, so we're we're making progress here.
To the audio sound bites.
You know, there's a big argument raging in Washington now over what is or what isn't a tax.
George Stephanopoulos actually brings out a dictionary with Obama and reads from it to define a tax.
And Obama says, no, you can't use a dictionary to define tax.
George, come on.
That's many.
You gotta listen to what I say.
So yesterday on CNBC Street Signs, the co-host Aaron Burnett interviewing the chief economist on the White House economic recovery advisory board, Austin Goolsby.
And Aaron Burnett said when we see numbers like $900 billion to fix health care, $300 billion of that coming from taxes on medical device makers like tampons, insurance companies.
I called those CEOs off the record, and they all tell me that they're going to pass that increase in taxes straight along to consumers.
It seems that the truth is that that tax increase is going to hit regular Americans.
Doesn't it?
I'm sure they say many things.
And look, if you pass a rule that says a guy can't park his car in front of the airport and block everyone else, or else your car gets towed, it's not correct to call that a tax increase.
Nor is it correct to call things that aren't tax increases tax increases.
I mean, if we just go by what Rush Limbaugh defines as a tax increase, I mean declaring yourself to be a Democrat is a tax increase in his world.
Damn straight.
Damn straight.
But now stop and think of this.
Here I am.
I'm sitting at a particle board table.
I am in a subterranean location hidden in Los Angeles.
I'm just a guy on the radio who cannot raise anybody's taxes.
He's on CNBC.
The chief economic advisor, asked by a journalist.
How can you how can you say that there aren't any tax increases coming?
900 billion here, 300 billion there.
CEOs say any new expenses on us we're going to pass along, it's a tax increase, and Goolsby brings my name up.
I mean, if we just go by what Rush Limbaugh defines as a tax increase, declaring yourself to be a Democrat's tax increase.
He's exactly right.
Democrats equal tax increases.
I mean, it's it's it's there.
It's nobody has to make it up.
But to say that there aren't going to be any tax increases when there already, already are, and by the way, I think I'm also on Obama's mind, not just Austin Goolsby.
Last night, while we're on the verge of defeat in Afghanistan, while preparing to go before the world and once again lie and frighten everybody that the planet is dying and only we can save it by making ourselves poorer.
Obama stopped by the late show with David Letterman.
And Letterman was in full anal poisoning mode.
Meaning, if he keeps this up, he's gonna die of it.
He said, I think you're being eloquent and generous.
But I think when people show up to voice their opinions, there is a certain expectation of behavior on them as well.
In other words, Letterman saying these people criticizing you, they should be as eloquent and generous as you are.
Suggesting that somehow that's fascist, that you want to help people make sure that uh they're not going bankrupt when they get sick.
Uh I think probably misreads the situation.
What people should really be angry about is the fact that because of the lack of regulation, for example, we ended up having to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars to banks.
I can't.
We got in a situation ironically that we had too little government, too little regulation.
So people are justifiably, I think, frustrated and angry right now.
They've gotten a raw deal, uh, but they need to understand the source of it.
It's you, buddy.
I mean, it was fine until you took office.
And you just compounded the problems rather than let the market work itself out.
Suggesting somehow that's fascist, that you want to help people make sure they're not going bankrupt.
That's not that's not what we're suggesting is fascist.
What's fascist is you running automobile companies.
What's fascist is you taking over the student loan program.
What's fascist is taking over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
It is fascist.
It's not socialist.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.
They're not gonna they're gonna just tell everybody else who does own what they own how to run it.
They're gonna regulate them to say That we got into trouble because we didn't have enough regulation?
We got into trouble because of liberalism.
Pure radical left-wing liberalism from the likes of Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd on the subprime mortgage business.
The desire to lend money to people who had no way to pay it back and call it affordable housing.
Back in a second.
What a what a day.
First CNN tells Obama to man up in Afghanistan at risk defeat.
Now here's AP, state-controlled AP with a fact check.
And here's the first line of their story Memo to President Barack Obama.
It is a tax.
So Goolsby's out, now it's not a tax, just because Limbaugh says it.
Well, now the AP agrees with Limbaugh and says it's a tax, Gouldsby.
▲
Export Selection