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, 1-800-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
You can also go to the website, rushlumbaugh.com.
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 playbook of Rahm Emmanuel.
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 has 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 Emmanuel 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 and 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 agenda.
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'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.
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 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 New York Times has called it.
Obama's 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.
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 or 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.
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's headed in the right direction.
Only 33% think the country is headed in the right direction.
And only 12% of Americans think the economy has 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 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 Rush has 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 Democrats' shoulders, all the way back to Clinton, by the way.
Bonnie Frank, Chris Dodd, whatever role George Soros plays.
When Bush, in the last 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 healthcare, which used 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 about amnesty for illegals.
They keep talking about internet censoring, journalism bailouts.
I tell you, folks, it's deliberate.
It's Douglas Rebansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
The phone number is 1-800-282-2882.
We'll be right back.
Douglas Rebansky 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 Caddell.
And they're putting forth this theory 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, the general population is not that dumb.
Pat Caddell 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, the 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 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.
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 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 point 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.
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, 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 through 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 Patty in Atlanta, Georgia.
Patty, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh 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.
During the Inquisition yesterday, how easy would it have been for the BPC CEO to say, listen, the Gulf 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?
You know, 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 leadership 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?
Vaguely.
I don't think I watched it because you're not supposed to watch these things.
That is why Rush isn't 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.
He took no questions that were not prescripted.
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 Carey over things like this.
We don't do this in the United States.
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 didn't even involve the Tony Hayward was when, and forgive me, I don't remember the congressman's name, but he kept prompting Chairman Stupak, where is the MMS?
Why aren't they here?
Why can't we ask them questions?
And Stupak looked very irritated, kept telling him, well, we'll get to that.
They're coming later.
We'll post it.
Patty, I'm going to scoot.
The answer is conservatives plan and liberals scheme.
Douglas Zubansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be right back.
And continuing with your phone calls here on the Rush Glimbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882 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, 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 Glimbaugh Show.
It's Doug Gerbanski here.
Ryan, what's on your mind today?
Hi, Heidi.
Yeah, I'm calling first on the stance of not really being a big Obama supporter on how he's handling those issues.
And I do agree with you there.
Thank you very much for that, Ryan.
Thank you.
Yeah, well, the only qualms I have is that it being painted solely as a liberal problem.
I would say a Democrat and Republican problem.
Just because, you know, Afghanistan, you know, Bush-era flaws and that's the problem.
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 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 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 definitely don't.
I think it lies pretty nowhere near either of them.
I think there's a lot of libertarian.
There's certain people who stand out as a result.
Are you, sir, libertarian-leaning?
No, I'm not libertarian-leaning, but however, I do like Ron Paul.
I think he's an honest person, which I can't say for most politicians.
So there's people I like in different sides if they make sense to me.
For instance, with the BP oil spill, because you brought that up, 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.
But what about this idea, Ryan?
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 that the environmentalists won't let us drill there?
We had a spill in Santa Barbara County in 81.
Yes.
You know, that was a while ago, and that was on very safe, close to shore.
And how has Santa Barbara fared since then?
Is it okay?
Oh, I mean, obviously, they were able to clean up.
It was a much smaller drill.
It didn't have nearly as much oil.
But this wasn't just our 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 get a lot of people.
Your point about this, Ryan.
Go on.
Your point about this spill.
Well, I would just say it's not, you know, how it's being handled is very poor.
But I think obviously we need to look at this and consideration also that maybe we need to be more tighter on the regulations.
Yes, but answer.
But Ryan, but Ryan, seriously, Ryan.
My point about shallow drilling.
I made the point.
I'll make it again to you, that the environmentalists have pushed us into this.
Spills and shallower water drilling all the time.
It's not an uncommon thing.
There's several years in the Gulf Coast.
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.
Ryan, you must concede this to me, please, that they've contributed to the problem by pushing for deep water drilling.
I'm going to, they may have pushed, they have pushed for deep water drilling.
But you must 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.
Yes, but sir.
But, sir.
They also wanted it.
They cannot drill when there is no oil.
I'm sorry?
I think if they are going to do it, we need to hold them to a certain standard because 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 cause.
BP or many other oil resources.
Do you not think, Ryan, do you not think that when you're doing highly involved technical things, particularly 5,000 or more feet below the ocean, are you not open to the idea that accidents happen?
Oh, no, of course I'm open to the idea that accidents happen.
But I also am well aware that the oil lobby and oil companies, period, are very open about pushing, resisting taking extra measures because it does cost more.
I understand that.
It costs more.
I'm saying, unless a giant spill happens, 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 there anything else you want to contribute?
I think you got the point.
Is there anything else?
I mean, sure, Afghanistan, too, you know, calling it Obama's Vietnam.
I think he's, I'm not, I've not been happy.
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, I'll say that Clinton with the economics downfall, yes, Clinton, but also Bush aerospending was really bad on it.
So, Ryan, essentially, all of this, is much of this, would you say, is Bush's fault, would you think?
I think, yeah, I do think a lot of it is Bush's fault.
I mean, I wouldn't discredit myself or any other person.
Do you think part of the economy is Bush's fault also?
Oh, I definitely do.
I'm not saying it's not Clinton's fault also.
Do you think, Ryan?
Ryan, 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, that part of the problem is the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac problem that the economy suffered?
Oh, certainly.
And are you aware, Ryan, that Alan Greenspan warned the Senate Banking Committee back as far as 2005, 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 senator who killed the bill was Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who was the powerful chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and he received a massive amount of campaign contributions from employees associated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $165,000.
But here's 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 very aware of that.
I'm definitely not a fan of Democrats.
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 ignored.
It was mild.
Republicans also do this.
Oh, 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 Rybansky filling in for Rush.
One more.
Wanda from New Orleans.
Wanda, you have a comment here.
You're in New Orleans.
Yes, sir, I do, and thank you for taking my call.
What I wanted to say is I feel what Obama's doing is criminal.
He's putting, well, the oil spills has put thousands of people out of work.
Now with the moratorium, he's putting not only 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 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 going to be out of work?
That's criminal.
Who gives him the authority to do this?
Wanda, you sound very passionate about this.
Are you connected?
I live in New Orleans.
Of course I'm passionate.
This is driving me crazy.
But do you know people who work in the oil business?
My family, yes.
Yes.
And are they working now?
Yes, they are working now, but they will not have a job very soon when he puts the, well, when all these oil rigs leave.
They're not going to have a job.
So you're telling us that the rigs are still working.
Some of them are, yes.
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 Limbo Show words, Douglas Rubensky.
See, this is the thing.
The difference between conservatives and liberals, this is the whole thing.
You hear this story.
There you heard it firsthand, Wanda in New Orleans, whose family works in the oil business, and they're not going to have jobs as soon as the moratorium kicks in.
You know, it's unacceptable.
Now 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 Rushkalimba.
It's Open Line Friday.
1-800-282-2882 is the number.
We'll be right back.
Open Line Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
It's Douglas Schubanski filling in.
The phone number, as you know, is 1-800-282-2882.
And you can also go to RushLimbaugh.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 the very sort of people that the Obama administration has targeted is in fact what the population is now starting to see.
That is the role of government.
Obama casts himself as a sort of savior against the big corporate schemers, 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 worldview, 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 song, what is it, 16 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 costs 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 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, 16 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 government standing up to a corporation.
They're painting the corporation as venal.
You heard the caller Ryan a little while ago.
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?
This is in reference to Representative Barton.
I think the man should be complimented and commended.
I'm a 26-year retiree from law enforcement and have conducted 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 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 Watson actually conducts hearings in the opposite?
What did the government know?
When did it know it?
And what did they do?
How would you like to see that?
Well, that'd be another farce.
This is a point that Rush always makes, however, that you don't, you see these hearings about big tobacco, you see these hearings about oil companies, but you don't see these hearings aimed at the government.
Correct.
A second point, I believe, would be that 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 him 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 talked about that yesterday.
And they knew he wasn't going to tell him anything, but they want to villainize him.
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 the bank.
Perfect proof.
Douglas Rebaski 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 Star 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 she has made it through all of the systems, and we're going to speak to her.
Because Sarah Palin has just endorsed this remarkable woman.
Coming out on the airplane, I have two, three books I've been carrying.
I carry Saul Olinski'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 Sawolinsky's book sit on the Rush Limbaugh broadcast table.
I hope Saul Linsky 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 Solovinsky'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 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