All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 18, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As Al Rushbow said to you yesterday, on Monday he will be back and things get back to normal around here, but it is Friday.
And it is open line Friday.
It is open line Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
It is indeed.
That's the day typically, as you know, where Rush takes the biggest risk in the history of broadcasting, second only to inviting me here to sit in the place.
Which is the biggest risk.
We're talking about all kinds of things today.
Open line Friday, 1-800-288-2, 1-800-282-288-2.
You can also go to the website, RushlandBall.com.
The main thing I was the main point I was making in the last hour, I'm going to wrap up with this, is that Obama is operating right from the uh from the um playbook of Rahm Emanuel.
You remember the famous comment, never let a crisis go to waste.
And the second part of the comment is my point, is that the second comment, which we've ignored for the past two years, is worth revisiting.
And it's worth revisiting because the comment says, and what I mean by that, meaning you never let a serious crisis go to waste.
What I mean by that is that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
In other words, he can push through anything he wants.
They can use a crisis, they can elongate a crisis, they can create the by the way, a lot of people suffer in situations like this.
A lot of people suffer.
The White House is going to push straight ahead, using this crisis with their intention to get whatever it can get passed into law, and then have a further victory dance about it.
Now, there are some of us who say this is a ploy, because what on earth is cap and trade got to do with this oil spill?
Nothing whatsoever.
The New York Times actually has a word for this.
They call it ROM-ism.
Grotesque, isn't it?
ROM-ism.
Rahm Emanuel pushed President Obama to go for a scaled-down version of the health bill, especially after the defeat in Massachusetts that the president experienced at the Senate race in January.
And that defeat, as you recall, cost the president a filibuster-proof majority.
Emmanuel's advice happily was not the prevailing advice.
Obama kept forging ahead no matter what you and I wanted.
And he had his comprehensive health care bill.
The political context in which all these things are happening today now is entirely different.
Entirely different.
The votes may not be there in the Senate to get many of the things done that this guy wants.
Do you realize on Wednesday, the Senate took a vote for a bill that extended unemployment insurance and Medicaid assistance, and the votes weren't there?
The votes are probably not going to be there.
Thank goodness for Cap and Trade, which is also very much on his on his agenda.
You have to you do worry that once they turn into a lame duck session, will they push it through after the election before they're all sent home?
Cap and trade, as you and I know, puts a price on carbon emissions.
It will cripple the country.
It will cripple the economy even further.
It will drive the price of gas up.
It will move the energy economy, as they say, away from fossil fuels, and yet they do not have a working definition of what they actually mean by the words fossil fuels.
Look it up.
Look it up.
So Democrat senators on Wednesday, they uh they're saying that they're not going to pass this cap and trade legislation when they are lame ducks.
So the Obama administration has adopted a new strategy in which they're giving a sort of theoretical support to cap and trade, but the word they use is climate bill.
Climate bill.
How on earth is Obama going to change or affect the climate?
The climate bill, I tell you, I tell you this.
If they had to invent space aliens that were attacking the planet, they would have done that in order to take control.
The climate is the one thing that keeps us all glued together, And it's a great invention.
Robert Gibbs, the superb spokesperson for the president, said the president feels strongly that including a component to deal with climate is important in comprehensive energy reform.
How exactly does he also have a plan to deal with earthquakes?
Does he I mean, how does the president have a plan to deal with climate?
It's absolutely absurd on every level.
Um the prevailing thought amongst Republicans, my own ideas as well, perhaps yours, is that Obama is exploiting the oil spill so that they can push this through.
And uh John Boehner said as much as well the other day.
So here's the thing.
It's an old recipe.
Find somebody or something else to blame.
In this case, blame BP, in that case, blame Bush.
Always a blame to somebody.
Find somebody else to blame.
And then you follow that up by telling everybody that they really need to hate the people that are being blamed.
And then you tell everybody that if we give Obama more power and more money, he will fix whatever is wrong.
Sound familiar?
It should.
That's a centuries old technique.
It's been used for centuries.
It still works, by the way.
Polarize.
Polarize, grab any ground, declare victory.
That's the Rom method, the ROM ism, as the as the New York Times has called it.
Obama is losing ground all over the place.
You see the British media falling out of love.
Rush touched on this the other day.
We see here that Barack Obama is losing popularity, and McClatchy has done a fabulous, fabulous piece by.
I talked a little while ago about the fact that he's got the economy he's facing, he's got Afghanistan he's facing, and he's got the oil, the oil problem.
They say everyone is positioning themselves for the post-American struggle.
It's our July 11th, 2011 withdrawal statement that is fueling this stuff.
This is the problem in Afghanistan.
We've told them that we're leaving on July the 11th, 2011.
And everyone in Afghanistan is worried about a civil war.
Now you never have heard the words yet that Afghanistan is turning into Obama's Vietnam.
So this guy makes his decisions on a very slow basis, and he confuses everybody.
He's kept his distance in the Gulf for weeks and weeks and weeks.
He announces a date for beginning to withdraw the U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
He's got his Chicago School of White House advisors and his primary legislative tactics and political strategy are to bully people around.
The papers tell us that in addition to these challenges, the economy remains a problem for him.
The papers tell us that in part, while the recovery is taking hold, it remains a largely jobless recovery.
Well, the recovery is taking hold.
I don't know how that works.
When the recovery is taking hold, it remains a jobless recovery.
There's a poll that Obama's overall job approval ratings are hovering around 50%, but the same poll from McClatchy newspapers tells us that only 33% of Americans approve of his handling of the oil spill.
33% think the country is headed in the right direction.
Only 33% think the country is headed in the right direction.
And only 12% of Americans think the economy is turned a corner.
Only 12%.
I said it before, two words.
Community organizer, community organizer enough said.
Here's the explanation for what is puzzling so many people who just don't get it, Obama.
Let me tell you this.
This is what McClatchy had to say.
They said the president's decision to keep his distance from the Gulf oil spill for weeks to announce a date for the beginning withdrawal of U.S. troops reflects the dominance of what one senior official called the Chicago School.
I just mentioned it.
And primary the primacy of legislative tactics, political strategy, and public relations over policy expertise in their decision making.
So in short, Nothing matters at all except how Obama looks.
How long he can keep his job.
When you understand that none of what Obama's done, none of what he's done is designed to solve problems, then you can understand fully the administration's goals.
The top priority of this administration, you start to wonder, is it the well-being of America?
Is it the well-being of Americans?
Or is it solving problems?
Is it creating real jobs?
Or is the top priority November's elections?
You know, by the way, they'll go as far as you can possibly as your imagination can let you go to win.
That is how they work.
That is their goal at the moment, with that in mind.
We need to think about um how these elections go the right way.
Take nothing for granted as we go along this road to the elections.
This is for them about staying in power, how they can gain more power, how they can institutionalize power, and none of what is being done benefits you and I. It benefits the progressives.
So George Bush, bumper stickers, smiling and waving.
That's what you're getting.
You know, I think Russia's been right all along that there is this aspect of Obama's administration that is trying to collapse the country.
You can put the entire financial crisis right on the Democrat shoulders, all the way back to Clinton, by the way.
Bonnie Frank, Chris Dodd, whatever role George Soros plays.
When Bush, in the last day of his uh days of his presidency, signed TARP, supposedly to bail out the country.
Then Obama came in.
Then came the porculus on the back of TARP.
Using money that we did not have, using money we will never have.
Next was health care, which use all kinds of false numbers.
Every time we look at the numbers on that, it gets worse and worse.
Using money we don't have and never will have also.
And now cap and trade.
And they keep talking uh amnesty for illegals.
They keep talking about internet censoring, journalism bailouts.
I tell you, folks, it's deliberate.
It's Douglas Rabansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
The phone number is 1-800-282-2882.
We'll be right back.
Douglas Rabanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back on Monday.
And it is open line Friday.
If I mention it, not only is it fair game, but this is the day where one is instructed that you can call in on anything that's of interest to you.
And those calls come straight through.
If it's of interest to you, you call 1-800-282-2882, and then you will be dealt with in our own special way here at the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You know, we were talking the other day about incumbents and incumbents.
We've heard this whole idea that it's the season of getting rid of the incumbents.
Well, two stories appear, of course, immediately.
One yesterday, one the day before.
The United States of Throw the Bums Out, a story in the Wall Street Journal by Doug Schoen and Pat Cadell.
And they're putting forth this theory that um that it's all an anti-incumbent mood.
And I think this has been sold to you again and again.
I think it's being sold to you in order to confuse you into voting against whoever you think your incumbent is, but of course uh the general population is not is not that dumb.
Pat Cadell says the anti-incumbent mood is what is pushing voters to the GOP.
And of course, this is faulty, completely faulty logic.
They write in the Wall Street Journal, this anti-incumbent anti-Washington mood is pushing voters to support Republicans and widening the enthusiasm gap between the two parties.
Okay.
Put simply, he says that Republicans are winning support because they are not Democrats.
By the way, that's the whole point that I was making and that I'm going to continue to make.
It is not incumbents that are being put out.
It is Democrats that are being put out.
They say frankly, the greatest asset to President Obama and the Democratic leadership.
And they do refer to it as democratic.
I don't like that.
Let me read that again my own way.
Frankly, the greatest asset to President Obama and the Democrat leadership is the lack of a clear Republican message.
Now this is what they believe and what they want you to believe.
They're salesmen of this idea that there's no Republican message.
They are salesmen of the idea that the GOP is A party of no, which, by the way, if if it if that's all they were, we would be a very happy people.
If that's all they were, they should wear it proudly.
But of course they're much more than that.
They say the leaders of the Republicans are not offering hope.
Well, we've seen Obama's idea of hope, haven't we?
They're not offering innovative ideas or any sort of agenda based on free market policies or economic growth.
How can they say this about Republicans?
Those of us who are interested in free markets, free enterprise, and economic growth.
Rush did a whole magnificently brilliant hour yesterday about Laffer, explaining how this all works.
It's available on Rush 24-7.
You can go there and get it.
They say Republicans must offer a clear set of core principles, if not a comprehensive set of bold new ideas.
We do not want these bold new ideas.
They say if they do not, their hopes for winning both houses of Congress in November, which at the moment is a goal well within reach, could be dashed.
Well then across across town at the roll call, Stuart Rothenberg makes a different point.
His point, he says, let's poke holes in the anti-incumbent hype, which is the point that we've been making here.
His point is that not all incumbents have lost.
His point is that it's the anti-in-power party which is leading to a GOP wave.
He said the mood out there has not resulted in voters engaging in a scorched earth policy against incumbents, a points that Russia's made, a point I have made.
He says, or in its most establishment candidates falling in primaries.
It simply hasn't happened.
Incumbents, he says have lost, and so have some establishment candidates.
But the results have many explanations, most of which have nothing to do with incumbency.
We're going to touch on Mr. Alvin Green later in the show.
You know he's my favorite candidate, my favorite Democrat candidate.
They did not vote for him because he was an outsider.
They voted for him for the silliest reasons, as you may if you're not aware, you will be by the time we're done today.
He says, as I've already noted, incumbency support from Washington, D.C. or being a member of Congress aren't the assets this cycle that they have been in previous cycles, that is clear.
But fitting every result into an exaggerated narrative doesn't help anyone understand what is happening.
This is the point where Mr. Rothenberg misses.
It is the whole point of the media, the whole point of the White House to fit everything into their exaggerated narrative.
He says, but come November we will have a rather traditional midterm election.
Angry voters will turn there's the word again, angry voters, angry voters will turn out against the party in charge, and that's why ultimately 2010 will be remembered as a Republican wave election, not an anti-incumbent year.
And of course he misses the point entirely.
He misses the point entirely.
Where on earth do voters who are interested in liberty have to go, other than to the Republican Party?
Where do they have to go?
If you're a libertarian or moderate or an undecided, or one of those people known as a swing voter, heaven help us, where else do you have to go?
You've got no place to go.
It is open line Friday, I'm being reminded.
So let's take a call.
Let's go to uh Patty in Atlanta, Georgia.
Patty, welcome to the Rush Limbo Show.
What's on your mind, Patty?
Hey, Doug, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
And you too.
I have two points to make if you don't mind quickly.
Um during this during the Inquisition yesterday, um, how easy would it have been for the BPC uh CEO to say, uh listen, the golf wouldn't be having this much oil wash ashore if your president had repealed the Jones Act and allowed other countries to come through and assist with the cleanup.
Um he had to have been thinking because he wanted to say something like that, because a lot of the oil that has washed ashore has been some of our president's lack of uh leadership in in repealing the act and getting other countries out there to help us.
You know, Patty, you're jogging my memory here.
Let me see if you remember this.
Do you remember when Al Gore was called up to Capitol Hill and he was to testify on climate change?
Uh vaguely.
I don't think I watched it because they're watching.
No, you're not supposed to watch these things.
That is why Russia's a here.
He watches them and we'll report to you what happened.
But I will tell you what happened there.
Al Gore went to Capitol Hill, and he took no questions that weren't prescripted.
Mm-hmm.
He took no questions that were not prescripted.
He and he refused to go there unless it was all prepared.
In other words, it was theater.
It was all a staged event with a staged outcome.
Yesterday was a different type of theater, and I think Rush was very accurate when he called it a Soviet-style public trial.
You know, in Japan, they commit Harry Carrey over things like this.
We don't do this in the United States.
It was sort of it was sort of horrible to watch.
Don't you agree, Patty?
Right, right.
And something else I thought was one of the most interesting exchanges yesterday that uh was didn't even involve the uh Tony Hayward was when I and forgive me, I don't remember the Congressman's name, but he kept prompting um Chairman Stupak.
Uh where is the MMS?
Why aren't they here?
Why can't we ask them questions?
And uh Stupak looked very um irritated, kept telling him, Well, we'll get to that.
Uh they're coming later.
We'll postponing it.
Douglas Ubanski filling in for Russian ball.
We'll be right back.
And continuing with your phone calls here on the Russian Limbaugh Show, one eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two is the number.
We will continue with your calls.
I'll get to the Quagmire in Afghanistan in a few moments, and we'll also talk about um well we'll talk about this growing idea that Americans are starting to view the government the way that the government views cooperation.
Fascinating story and admissions coming out about that.
But first, continuing with your calls.
Back to my home state, California, Ryan in San Diego.
Welcome to the Rush Glombaugh Show.
It's Doug Rbanski here.
Ryan, what's on your mind today?
Hi, howdy.
Um yeah, uh I'm calling uh first on the stance of not really being a big uh Obama supporter on how he's handling most issues.
And and I do agree with you there.
Um I do.
Well, thank you very much for that, Ryan.
Thank you.
Yeah, well well, uh the only qualms I have is that uh, you know, it being painted solely as a you know liberal problem.
I I I would say a Democrat and Republican problem.
Um just because, you know, uh Afghanistan, you know, Bush era flaws in that.
Ryan may ask you, may I just ask you a clarifying question.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course.
Thank you.
Would you say it's a Republican Democrat problem, or would you say it's a conservative versus liberal problem?
Oh no, I I don't think it's a conservative versus liberal problem, because I think either on the conservative side or a liberal side, there's a lot more constructive answers than are what are being applied by either Republicans or Democrats.
I think it's you know, it's very easy to see who's been there too.
But are you one of these guys that think the two parties are very much the same and the answer lies somewhere in the middle?
No, no, no, no.
I I I definitely don't.
I think uh it lies you know, pretty nowhere near either of them.
I think, you know, there's a lot of libertarian there's certain people who stand out as you know, are you are you are you, sir libertarian leaning?
Um no, I'm not libertarian leading, but however, I do like Ron Paul.
I think he's an honest person, which I can't say for most politicians, you know.
So there's people I like in different uh sides if they make sense to me.
And I for instance for instance with the DP oil spill.
Yes, because you brought that up.
You know, Obama, yeah, he was handling it all over the place very politically minded, you know, thinking of November very obviously.
However, I think this is a problem that obviously goes with, you know, we don't have enough regulations on drilling in the Gulf Coast.
I think it's a pretty obvious thing to say.
What but what about this idea, Ryan?
Uh-huh.
What about the idea that the regulations helped cause it by making us go into the deeper waters instead of the shallow do you know, Ryan?
That in the shallower drilling the caps are above the water level and the environmentalists won't let us drill there.
We we had a spell in Santa Barbara County in eighty one uh you know, that was a while ago, and that was on very safe close to uh shore.
I mean, and how is Santa Barbara fared since then?
Is that okay?
Oh, yeah, I mean, obviously they were able to clean up as a much smaller drill, it didn't have nearly as much oil.
But it wasn't this wasn't just our regul regulations that push them out further into the coast.
This is because there's a much larger oil reserve.
Oil companies wanted to be able to do that.
Okay, and your your point about this, Ryan.
Uh huh.
Go on.
Your point about this spill.
Well, I would just say it's not you know, how the how it's being handled is very poor.
But I think obviously we we need to look at this and consideration also that maybe we need to be more tight around a regulations.
Yes, but answering, but Ryan, but Ryan, seriously, Ryan.
Um my point about shallow drilling.
I made the point, I'll make it again to you, that the environmentalists have pushed us into this.
But there's also spills and shower water drilling all the time.
Oh, really?
It's not an uncommon thing.
There's several years Here's the point, Ryan.
Nowadays those spills in shallow water are contained because the caps are above water level.
The environmentalists have pushed us out.
They've can you're not Ryan, you must concede this to me, please, uh that they've contributed to the problem by pushing for deep water drilling.
Um I I'm gonna they may have pushed they have pushed for deep water drilling.
All right.
But you must uh also concede to me that so have these oil companies, because there's much larger oil reserves in the deep water drilling.
They also wanted it.
It wasn't just environmental they also wanted it.
And they cannot drill where there is no oil.
I'm sorry?
I I think if they are going to do it, we need to hold them to a certain standard because uh of then I I'm for a free market, I'm for people wanting to make money.
But they also have to take into account what they can cost.
BP or uh many other oil.
Now do you do you not think, Ryan, Ryan Ryan, do you not think that when you're doing highly involved technical things, particularly five thousand or more below feet below the ocean.
Do you not are you're not open to the idea that accidents happen?
Oh no, of course I'm up open to the idea that accidents happen.
Yeah.
But I I also am well aware that the oil lobby and many and oil companies, period, are very open about pushing resisting taking extra measures, because it does cost more.
I understand that costs more.
I'm saying, unless the giants bill happen, they don't really have to care that much about what happens to our industry of fishing or the environment.
Because the bottom line is they need to make money.
Ryan, is that is there anything else you want to contribute?
I think you got the point.
Is there anything else?
Um, I mean, sure, Afghanistan too, you know, calling it Obama's Vietnam.
I think he's uh I've not I've not been happy uh it's sad to look at the Afghanistan thing from any time because I don't think it was taken care of initially during Bush.
Same with uh I I'll say that Clinton with the economics they downfall, yes, Clinton, but also Bush era spending was really bad on it.
So Ryan, essentially.
Essentially all of this is is much of this would you say is Bush's fault, would you think?
Um I think yeah, I do think a lot of it is Bush's fault.
I mean, I I wouldn't discredit myself or any other person who's do you think part of the economy is Bush's fault also?
Oh, I I definitely do.
I'm not saying it's not Clinton's fault also.
Do you think do you think, Ryan?
Ryan, you you've got a great gift for Gab, I compliment you on it and I do thank you for calling the Limbo show.
But do you think, Ryan, for a moment, uh that part of the problem is the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac problem that that the economy suffered.
Oh, oh, certainly.
And are you aware, Ryan, that Alan Greenspan warned the Senate banking committee back as far as two thousand and five, and they introduced a bill that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get rid of their risky assets, but the Senate never passed the bill.
They killed it.
And the main the main senator who killed the bill was Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who was the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee, and he received massive amount of campaign contributions from employees associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars.
But here is the thing that you need to know.
The second biggest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie funds was Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois.
Did you know that, Ryan?
Oh, I'm I'm I'm very aware of that.
I'm definitely not a fan of Democrats.
Oh, good.
And I know that Bush also in 2003 mildly tried to set up a kind of regulation form of banking, but I think it was kind of— It was mild.
Republicans also do this.
All right.
And are also taking tons of money from these people.
We're very polite here at the Rush Limbo Show.
Ryan, thank you so much for calling into the Rush Limbo show.
It's Douglas Sabansky filling in for Rush.
One more.
Wanda from New Orleans, Wanda.
You're you have a comment here.
You're in New Orleans.
Yes, sir, I do, and thank you for taking my call.
Um what I wanted to say is I feel what Obama's doing is criminal.
He's putting well the oil spillers have put out thousands of people out of work now with the moratorium, he's putting not only uh oil rig people out of work, but the people behind all the oil rig that service the oil rig.
This is criminal.
If any of us would be doing taking over companies like he's doing, we'd be put in jail.
Hey, Wanda, did you catch the nuance that they want to make the oil companies pay for the people that uh who that who the government has decided should not work through a moratorium on oil rig pumping?
Exactly.
But it's not just BP people.
We're talking about shell, Chevron, Exxon.
How can they pay for all of these other people that are gonna be out of work?
That's criminal.
He who gives him the authority to do this.
Wanda, you sound very passionate about this.
Are you connected to it?
I live in New Orleans, of course I'm passionate.
This is driving me crazy.
Well, do you do you know people who work in the oil business?
My my family, yes.
Yes.
And are they working now?
Yes, they are working now, but they will not have a job very soon when they when he puts the uh when well when all these oil rigs leave.
No, They're not gonna have a job.
So you're telling us that the rigs are still working.
Some of them are, yeah.
And the full moratorium is not going in.
So your family is going to feel it immediately when they stop.
You wonder what they are thinking, Wanda.
Exactly.
You do wonder, you wonder, you wonder what they are thinking.
I can't even put myself in the place.
Thank you, Wanda, very much for calling the Rush Limbaugh Show words, Douglas Rabansky said.
See, this is the thing.
The difference between conservatives and liberals, this is the whole thing.
You hear this story.
There you heard firsthand Wanda in New Orleans whose family works in the oil business and And they're not going to have jobs as soon as the moratorium kicks in.
You know, it's a it's unacceptable.
And how that now we read, as I told you earlier in the first segment, the first hour, that the Obama administration wants BP to start paying for the out-of-work people that the Obama administration has put out of work.
I just want to get it straight.
Douglas Jabanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
It's open line Friday, 1-800-282-282 is the number.
We'll be right back.
Open line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
It's Douglas Yerbanski filling in.
The phone number, as you know, is 1-800-282-288-2, and you can also go to Rush Limbaugh.com.
Even the New York Times at this point has a story that says you can add the government to the list of fat cats.
So in other words, that uh the very sort of people that the Obama administration has targeted is in fact what the population is now starting to see the that is the role of government.
Obama casts himself as a sort of savior against the big corporate schemers, but the and against corporate abusers.
But then you have to ask yourself, and the New York Times asks as well, then if that's the case, why is there so much popular and I have to count how many times a day this word appears in the New York Times.
Why is there so much popular anger?
Why is there so much anger directed at him?
This word is being used to describe anyone who disagrees with this administration.
You do realize that, don't you?
Pick up any magazine, listen to any reporting.
The word anger is always used.
But the New York Times tells us that there is something fundamental going on here and that there's an underlying shift in what American populism means.
They say most Democrats, after all, persist on embracing populism as it existed in the last part, in the early part of the last century.
That means that it was a function of economic inequality.
In this world view, the New York Times points out, the oppressed are the poor, and the oppressors are the corporate interests that exploit them.
Now, that made sense 75 years ago when a relatively small number of corporations, oil and coal companies, steel producers, car makers, controlled a vast segment of the workforce.
And when government was a comparatively anemic enterprise.
However, the New York Times says in recent decades, as technology has reshaped the economy, more and more Americans have gone to work for smaller or more decentralized employers, even for themselves, while government has exploded in size and in influence.
So the point is it's no longer about the individual versus the institution.
It's about the loss of the individual entirely.
It's not just about business or big business.
The fact is, it's about government, large, huge government and elite universities as well.
Now, years ago, let us go back into the early part of the last century.
If you worked for one of the big railway companies or one of the big steel companies, we've all heard about them making you shop at the company store.
We've all heard about them docking your salary.
Everything you lived in company housing, you bought things at the company store up Main Street.
It was all deducted from your paycheck.
You lived in rather squalor-like conditions.
I want you to draw a comparison as I tell you that to what is happening today.
There's no longer remember the the song, what is it, sixteen tons and what do you get another day older and deeper in debt?
That was the song of the worker.
And you can take every song of the worker of those days and apply them, this land is your land, this land is my land.
And you can apply them to conservatives today.
I want to take all the liberal songs and make them ours.
Because the new company store is the United States government.
They'll deduct right from your paycheck what it cost for health care, what it costs for anything they want to charge you for.
They are the big company.
They are doing precisely, they are exploiting you and I, the backs of our work and our labor, precisely the very thing that they grew up saying they didn't want to happen with with the corporations and the companies.
It's the exploitation of the worker.
This time the company store is the United States government.
And out of that movement, sixteen tons and what do you get another day older and deeper in debt?
It's no longer a labor movement song, my friends.
These are conservative lyrics at this point in the story.
You see what I'm saying?
So what does all of this mean for Obama?
Well, it means that they may be anxious.
It means that they may be concerned, they're clashing with BP.
They have governments standing up to a corporation, they're painting the corporation as venal.
You heard the caller Ryan a little while ago.
They don't people like this don't see such things as accidents.
But you have a sprawling institution called the United States government out there.
That's the old fashioned corporate structure.
It's the United States government.
That's the company store you are required to shop at and buy from.
Randy, in Indianapolis, you have a comment on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Welcome to the show, sir.
Well, thank you, sir, very much for taking my call.
My pleasure.
What's up?
Um this is in reference to uh Representative Barton.
I think the man should be complimented and commended.
Um I'm a twenty-six year uh retiree from law enforcement and have conducted uh numerous investigations and interviews.
And I think if you would notice his posture when he is apologizing to Mr. Hayward at the bench where he leans forward, his demeanor and his voice grow softer.
That apology was to Mr. Hayward as a man, not as a BP corporation.
That's right, because his con because the way he had been treated was unseemly.
Absolutely.
I'm wondering, fantasize with me for a second, Randy.
Can you imagine a world in which Henry Wattsman actually conducts hearings in the opposite?
What did the government know?
When did it know it?
And what did they do?
How do you like to see that?
Well, that'd be another farce.
This is a point that Rush always makes, however.
You don't you see these hearings about big tobacco, you he see these hearings about oil companies, but you don't see these hearings aimed at the government.
Correct.
You know?
A second point, I believe, would be that uh they knew that Mr. Hayward had already talked and had sought legal counsel through his corporation, and that he would not be permitted to give them some of the answers they were seeking.
However, they continued in a very unprofessional manner, just hammering the poor guy.
Yeah, the show trial method, we we talked about that.
Yes, the show trial.
And they knew he wasn't going to tell them anything, but they want to villainize him.
Did you um did you hear me when I told you I had absolute proof that the apology was appropriate?
Yes, I did.
And you agree with me about that absolute proof.
Which was what?
What was that proof, sir?
And if I could vote for the man, I would.
What was the absolute proof that what he did was right?
The absolute proof was that Joe Biden said it was wrong.
And that is take it to bank.
Perfect proof.
Douglas Rabansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh be right back.
Open line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882.
At some point in the next hour, we're going to talk to a remarkable Republican candidate from Southern California named Starr Parker.
I won't tell you when we'll speak to her, but you will want to hear what she has to say.
Very few guests on the Rush Limbaugh Show, as you know.
But we she has made it through the all of the systems.
We're going to speak to her.
Because Sarah Palin has just endorsed this remarkable woman.
Coming out on the airplane, I have two, I have three books I've been carrying.
I carry Sololinsky's rules for radicals.
I carry it with me at every broadcast I do, and it sits on the broadcast table.
I think there's nothing better than having Saw Linsky's book sit on the Rush Limbaugh broadcast table.
I hope Solinsky is rolling in his grave that it's there.
I'm trying to memorize the book.
The way that some of these children memorize the Karen.
Do you know that Solinsky's book?
It's a kind of a brilliant book.
It's a demented book.
It's a brilliant book.
But if you read it, you'll understand you don't need really to read it, because over time somewhere somehow people like me will explain it to you.
But I would tell you, it's it's a book about liberalism, and it tells you everything you need to know about Obama, including the ultimate secret, which is this.
Unless they can grab complete control over everything, the rules for radicals cannibalizes itself.
Because you and I become the radicals.
Conservatism becomes the new activism.
We talked about this the other day.
Conservatism ceases being passive.
We become active.
Activists.
▲
Export Selection