All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
September 16, 2010, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings and great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh in the fastest three hours in media.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Doing what I was born to do.
And so are you.
I was born to host you were born to listen.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
If you don't, forget the number.
Email address L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
All right, we keep hearing, uh, ladies and gentlemen, and you heard in the sound bites that we've played from uh cable chat shows that you and I, uh Christine O'Donnell, uh conservatives are out of the mainstream.
That we are out of the mainstream.
And everybody is talking about wondering what the October surprise.
By the way, did you see this?
I can't describe, I mean I can describe it, I can't show you on the radio other than diddle cam, but the Democrats had a big, big big announcement yesterday.
You know what it was?
They've got a new logo.
They've got a D inside a circle.
Honestly, that is their new logo.
A D inside a circle.
The circle is supposed to be an O, obviously, for Obama.
I mean, it's pathetic.
But we keep hearing these people of the mainstream, we're not.
We're cooks, fringe, what have you.
Let's examine what who is who is mainstream.
Let's just pick an issue.
Pick an issue.
Let's let's pick Obamacare.
The mainstream of America, the majority is against it.
In fact, there's a Rasmussen poll out today.
More Americans than ever before want it repealed.
More Democrats are spending more money in campaign ads opposing Obamacare than they are spending money saying they voted for it.
If the mainstream is the majority, and it is, the majority is dead set against Obamacare.
The Tea Party is dead set against it.
What's the mainstream?
The liberals, the people who are in favor of it, are not the mainstream.
They are the minority.
They're the fringe.
We're being governed, we're being ruled by actually very tiny minority.
How about borrowing and spending?
How about stimulus, bailouts, all of that?
Well, the mainstream of America is against that.
No matter what poll you look at, everybody's against it.
Or the vast majority is against it.
Tea Party is opposed to it.
And one of the primary reasons the Tea Party exists is because of all this spending.
People are rising up against it.
But the liberals are the authors.
They're all for it.
They're in the minority.
We are the mainstream.
The stimulus that didn't work, I mean, it doesn't matter.
Issue after issue.
Cap and trade.
The mainstream's against it.
The vast majority of Americans across the aisle, across the spectrum, is against it.
The more the left makes in or out of the mainstream, the more they feed their base in their journals, but the more they make our case, because it is they who are out of the mainstream.
Their judicial nominees are out of the mainstream.
Their candidates are out of the mainstream.
Their president is out of the mainstream.
Oh.
Guess what?
Now Jacob Tapper said that First Lady's spokesman denied that the first lady said that the job of first lady is hell.
And now Carla Brunei's book is denying that it said it.
Well, that book's not out yet, but they're denying that the book says this.
So now both sides are denying the report that the first lady said the job of first lady is hell and she hates it.
It reminds me of the time when one of these Clinton guys was called up to testify about something, and it turned.
Craig Livingston, Craig Livingston lied to his diary.
Remember.
That was Josh Steiner.
Some Clintonite had lied To his diary.
And Charles Barclay was misquoted in his autobiography.
And now Carla Brunei's book is lying.
Carla Brunei's book does not say that Muchel Obama said the job of first ladies hell.
One in seven Americans live in poverty.
This is unacceptable.
There is no excuse for this.
Now, poverty in America is not like poverty around the world, but still, there's no excuse in the most prosperous country in the history of civilization, there's no excuse.
There's no excuse for one in seven of Americans living in poverty.
And the number is that high because of our command and control economy.
The problem is that the longer Obama's in office with these policies, then it's going to be two out of seven, it's going to be three out of seven, and pretty soon is going to be five out of seven are in poverty.
Because that's the design.
So this is not supposed to happen.
We're supposed to have stimulus, rebound, summer recovery.
We're supposed to be a fat city now, right?
That's what they keep telling us.
But the story's out that one and seven are in poverty.
So the vast Democrat media complex has to get in gear here.
And they have, I have a story here from MSNBC Allison Lynn.
Many say poverty rate is a poor measure.
Okay.
One in seven live in poverty.
That's not the way to look at it anymore.
Critics on the left and the right argue that the calculation is simplistic.
The latest national poverty rate data are scheduled to be released today, and they have been, and that means there's finally one thing both liberals and conservatives can agree on.
That's the way we measure poverty is flawed.
Everybody's dissatisfied with the poverty rate, although not always for the same reason, said Nicholas Eberstat, a researcher at AEI, conservative think tank, when the data are released later today, the poverty rate is going to be about 15%, an increase from 13.2% 2000.
So poverty's gone up significantly since Obama was immaculated.
So of course we now have to be told it isn't that big a deal.
In fact, liberals and conservatives both agree that uh it's uh that's flawed measure here.
Now we're counting it up all wrong.
If those estimates are correct, about 45 million Americans or more than one in seven were poor last year.
It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959.
In fact, it'd be higher than when the war on poverty began some what, 50 years ago.
The numbers are staggering, it says here, but researchers on both sides of the ideological fence argue that they don't paint the full picture.
Liberals argue that they are understated, and some conservatives worry that data are overblown.
Experts on both sides say the current method of calculating a number of Americans living in poverty is too simplistic and fails to account for a wide swath of factors beyond income that could influence whether a person's having trouble making ends meet.
Some researchers already are arguing that even those more robust supplemental calculations won't be enough to give Americans an accurate.
You see where this is headed.
Poverty has never been worse in this country, but we can't have that with Obama in office.
So it's this simplistic.
The way we're calculating this, instead, what we need is a hardship index.
We need to replace the poverty rate.
This is in the story with the hardship index that looks at income but also takes into account other factors such as a person's housing situation and nutrition levels.
Whereas their income may not be that high, could qualify, but they might be eating well because of food stamps.
So are they really in poverty?
Remember that Gallup poll from last week?
There's only, what is it, one piece of legislation Congress has passed financial reform the public supports?
And that's Only because they don't know what's in it yet.
The new record poverty rate is actually good news for the regime and the Democrats who are hellbent on creating a permanent underclass to be their permanent power base.
So now that they've got this this rising poverty, let's come up with a new name for it.
We like having it, but we're just going to call it something other than poverty.
They need a permanent underclass.
We have discussed this on several previous occasions.
They need a previous under uh uh uh constant underclass as their permanent power base.
Pure and simple.
This is desired.
We've gone from 13.2% in poverty to 15% on purpose.
And that's why the Tea Party exists.
And that's why Christine O'Donnell won.
And that's why all the because people aren't ready to tolerate this.
People do not want to passively sit by and watch their country decline.
Presided over by a president who seems to enjoy the nation in decline.
The American people do not like hearing their presence say, you know what, the days of the American economy leading the world are over.
I don't like hearing that.
That's where we are.
Quick time out.
Back with more El Rush Ball and the EIB network, back before you know it.
Well, Christine O'Donnell's website now reporting that she has raised over one million dollars.
Christine O'Donnell of She Can't Win Fame has now raised over a million dollars, which means uh, ladies and gentlemen, Christine O'Donnell is not in debt now, unlike some of our friends with their websites.
She is out of debt.
A one-day pledge drive that she didn't even orchestrate.
She started out yesterday with 50 large.
Today she's got over a million.
What?
It is amazing.
It is amazing I guarantee all the political pros are looking at.
Whoa!
There's no question they notice it.
Identity thief pleads guilty, stealing a half million dollars to buy Rolex watches, designer bags, jewelry.
Every consumer's nightmare, an identity thief with exquisite taste.
And when you lose your credit card, what's your biggest fear?
And somebody's gonna rack up gazillions before you get to the phone call and get the $50 limit imposed on it.
What happens if you don't lose your credit card, somebody steals the information, starts using it?
What happens if somebody starts using your credit card and you don't know what's happening, and you can't bot you I call a card credit card company and somebody's using my card, it's not me.
Oh, really?
Have you lost it?
No, I've got it right here.
You are up a creek.
A, you gotta pay off a lot of expenses.
B, somebody's racking them up on your credit card and you don't know it until it's too late.
You can take steps to prevent that from happening to you.
And it's happening more and more.
Identity theft is a huge enterprise out there.
It's called Life Lock.
They have the best and the most trusted identity alert system in the country.
What generally happens is somebody ends up stealing your credit card information or your social security number and tries to use it.
Life Lock gets a phone call.
They call you.
They ask you, are you using they stop it in its tracks?
That's what the identity alert system is.
And it's this is ridiculously inexpensive.
The number to call is 800 440-4833.
And if you do that, mention my name, you'll save 10% off what is already a ridiculously inexpensive price.
Offer code is rush at LifeLock 800 440 4833.
Rockford, Illinois, Lyle, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next.
Long time since I've talked to you, but I listen to you every day.
Thank you so much for all that you say for all that you do, and for being an example both in what you say and what you do.
Well, thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate that.
I uh I want to point out a couple things.
One was that the rush uh you've actually exercised that yourself.
The callers, a lot of some other listeners may not remember, but in the I believe 92 presidential campaign when George Bush Sr. was running for re election, uh, he was opposed by Pat Buchanan in the primary, and you uh you made a statement that you had to go with the most conservative.
And at the time you thought that would be Pat Buchanan.
Uh you you followed your heart and you did what you said.
And uh that's the rush rule.
Well rose the Reagan rule, which is speak no ill of a fellow conservative.
And I don't understand that.
Well, a lot of people are trying to figure it out.
I it's one thing to be critical of somebody before the election after it's over, piling on like that.
Uh, people say, What he's just giving a Democrats campaign fodder.
It's what has people scratching their heads and wondering what it is.
Is it personal?
Is there something going on that nobody knows about?
Anyway, I had forgotten that, but you're exactly 1992, during uh the George Bush was running for re-election, Bush 41, and I endorsed Buchanan.
Snerdle, you were you were around.
You had not you had you had not split for Seattle yet.
Do you remember why I ended- I mean, I told everybody on the air why I was endorsing Pat Buchanan.
I said we needed to have conservatism as part of the primary debate.
There needed to be conservatism in the primary debate.
Don't forget Perot was out there, and everybody at the time except me was ignoring Perot, and I had half my audience saying you ought to be supporting Perot.
And I said, No, no, no, no.
Perhaps a fine man, but this is not I said, folks, he does not even want to win.
This is not what this is about.
I I called him a hand grenade with a bad haircut.
I know, but it was it was just that was just to be funny.
Uh I mean, even my broadcast partners at the time, folks, thought I was blowing it by not getting on the on the Perot bandwagon.
I said I endorsed Buchanan going into New Hampshire.
And remember, I'll never forget uh Buchanan after some election prior to done pretty well going into New Hampshire's on TV, and he says to his troops, just ride to the sound of the guns.
Just ride to the sound of the guns.
And if for that we started getting phone calls to Buchananites lock and load is how they would.
Instead of saying dittoes, this is lock and load.
And I I remember I had conservative establishment people calling me.
What are you doing here?
Uh there were meetings being held about this.
And I had endorsed Buchanan.
I was very simple.
Look, if we want to win this, we got Bill Clinton.
We need we need there needs to be a conservative debate, a conservative element of this campaign as well.
So yeah, I was he's right.
I was implementing a limball rule even back then.
I have not changed.
I am who I am, and I I've never put on airs, I've never phonied it up.
I've never said I believe something I don't, and I've never been somebody I'm not these entire 22 years.
So uh Don, who was not part of the program at that point, uh says you don't endorse people in primaries.
Uh that was true then.
That was I remember we started nineteen eighty-eight after the primaries were over in August of nineteen eighty-eight.
Well, I mean I think they were right on the cusp of the conventions, but I mean it was it was the loser, uh Dukakis, and uh and Bush, George H. W Bush 41.
I remember after that election, I remember we just been on the air three months.
Even then, the vast Democrat media complex that, well, that's it for Limbaugh, his guy won.
Three months they were burying me.
Uh I I endorsed Buchanan in New Hampshire, Dawn, in a single state race.
And Buchanan was ecstatic.
He was uh I remember there was a thing here on my boy, these memories are coming back.
There was a a celebration during all this.
Might have been 91 leading up to this primary.
Might have been 92, but in New Hampshire, there was a dinner to yeah, maybe 89 maybe to uh honor Ronald Reagan.
I remember I went to this thing and I made a speech where I professed my uh my love and devotion to Ronald Reagan, and I said I you know we we've got to stop punishing achievement.
We have to stop punishing.
Yeah, I supported Bush in the end, of course.
Uh we've got to stop punishing achievement.
I I can remember I had a hotel room, and I had Republican uh candidates knocking on that door coming in.
It was it was I remember I was in, I was I was I was in Bill Bill Bennett was in the room.
Bill Bennett was in the room with me, and there's a knock on the door.
Somebody opens it, and it's Buchanan.
And Buchanan and Bennett were not getting along at the time.
And the body language on Buchanan's face, uh oh god, who's in here?
The door shut real quick, and Buchanan left, and I caught up with him later.
Jesse Jackson was running around.
I never saw him.
Uh, but he he was running around up there too.
I f I forget what year this was.
But I and I this is I've only been doing this two or three years at that point.
I don't remember if that was before the that was.
That was before the primaries where I endorsed Buchanan and uh in New Hampshire.
But Buchanan ended up, I mean, he did candidacy faded away, but there ended up being a conservative debate and element in the primary.
That was my purpose.
Okay, quick timeout.
More calls on the other side of the break here, folks.
Lots still to do, too.
Don't go away.
My staff, I am getting inundated with emails from the staff from all over the country.
You better tell people that you ended up supporting Bush.
Why is that so crucial?
Of course I supported Bush.
Not only did I uh I ended up supporting Bush, I actually introduced him at a campaign rally in New Jersey one day.
It was, it was a day or two before the vote.
A day or two before the election.
Might have been Monday before the election.
Um course I supported the nominee.
This is I guess people wanted to mention this in light of um some of the Beltway Republicans distancing themselves from Christine O'Donnell, who is over one million dollars on her side.
Wouldn't it be cool if she raised another million dollars in the next 24 hours?
What would it take for her to another million dollars in 24 hours?
I don't know.
Um what did it take for the first million?
I said I said yesterday when the program started if every listener just send her a buck, and that's the last I said.
And I I'm sure that other people talked about it during the busy broadcast day and and night.
Um yeah, I'm sure there was some who sent five.
I'm sure there was some some who sent twenty, twenty-five.
I don't know.
I just think it'd be cool if if it's two million in two days.
I mean, just to show them.
You know, just just okay, here you you inside the beltway cocktail party types.
Here, here's how you do it.
You wanna you want us to show you how it's done?
Okay, here you go.
From Lexus Nexus.
Republicans have to unite to beat Clinton.
Patrick Buchanan, a populist, but nice guy.
How the media portrays Republicans as sinister and liberals as associates of Castro.
And that's that's it was the story about me.
Uh Lexus Nexus, and that is from August 15th of uh 1996.
Yeah, the story about how I'm saying Republicans have to unite.
You know, I am a unifier out there.
It's not me.
It's not if it actually, folks, it's not us that are causing a divisions.
Here's Brian, Cooper, Texas.
Brian, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Good afternoon, Rush.
How are you?
I'm uh okay, Brian.
Thank you.
I think what you do to this country is a great thing.
Keep doing it.
Uh thank you very much.
I shall endeavor to do so.
I was just wondering if you had uh read an article or or seen where eight hundred million dollars of stimulus money went to Africa to teach uh African males to wash their penis after sex.
To stop HIV transmission.
Um it was not eight hundred uh million, but yes, I've heard the story.
Uh here are the uh here are the details.
I actually detailed this on a morning update that ran earlier this week.
The National Institutes uh Institute of Mental Health spent almost one million dollars in stimulus money on a project by UCLA researchers.
It's a study designed to teach uncircumcised men in Africa how to wash their genitalia.
The genital washing study was begun last year, it will continue into next year.
It's you know a moderately sized program for a large problem.
So it was not 800 million, but it it was to combat the um spread of AIDS.
So the way to look at this, Obama put Vice President Bite Me in charge of making sure porculus money would be spent wisely.
Almost a million dollars of the money was spent teaching people how to wash genitals.
Not even American genitals.
We're talking African genitals, and bite me's summer of recovery was not supposed to produce jobs.
Now, when I looked at this, I saw this, it's a good thing that somebody's genitals are being washed because everybody's being screwed by this administration.
I'm surprised that Cooper, Texas, they heard about this.
Um, it i uh uh it it's a job Americans won't do.
Washington well, teaching people how to wash j I don't think that's true.
I think there's billions of Americans who would do that job.
Uh Elijah in Petersburg, Illinois, great to have you, sir on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, longtime listener, first time caller.
God bless the work you do.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, I just wanted to make a mention about the Mike Murphy piece.
It just makes me realize that uh Christine O'Donnell's Delaware victory seems to help non-conservatives in the Republican Party expose themselves as such.
Well, it is bringing them out of the woodwork, and they're showing their anger.
Is that what you mean?
They're identifying themselves as non-conservatives.
Exactly, exactly, and showing their true colors.
Well, it but but Murphy says he's a conservative.
Well, and that I guess that's for the rest of us to decide uh after listening to you read his article.
It makes me think maybe not as much.
Well, remember now these guys, as I say, they work in a very small confined area.
They work in fifteen to twenty percent of the electorate.
That's that's where they focus their efforts.
And uh I don't think very many of them actually use conservatism or principles as a way of getting those 15 to 20 percent to vote for their candidate.
I think I think they use numbers-based stuff.
I you know, whatever it takes.
I mean, their their job is to produce votes for people and and to raise money for people.
And I think that they kind of eschew uh the loyalty to principle or ideology because they think that's that's that's for the rubes.
I mean, uh my job is far more broad based than just that.
And they have to pay lip service to that.
But they look at their job as having some far wider range of importance than just rallying people to a candidate based on conservatism.
Far more involved than just that.
And so every time a candidate wins on the basis of loyalty and principles and conservatism and so forth, it kind of smacks them upside the head.
Look at the you know, there's a new uh uh Obama appointment, consumer protection czar, Elizabeth Warren, and she's a Harvard professor, another professor has been appointed by Obama, another academic to ride and massage this financial regulatory reform bill, the consumer protection czar.
And she's a professor.
And even the Senate banking committee chairman Chris Dodd, he said today the Obama administration is leaving a new consumer protection bureau vulnerable by circumventing a confirmation process because the way Obama's doing this, she will not have to undergo a confirmation process.
He's gonna be like a czar.
So she won't have to be confirmed, so she'll not have to espouse any views.
She will not have to answer any questions.
Now you might be saying, well, so what, Rush?
I mean, Chris Dodd, big lib, big Democrat.
Uh, he's the author of this legislation.
He still wants to put on a big show.
And he wants uh he wants hearings to show off what he knows and to broadcast all the great aspects of his bill.
He wants to make sure somebody's gonna be administering it that knows what they're doing.
Now, this this uh Warren babe, Elizabeth Warren is not just from Harvard, she is a lawyer, that's been named a consumer advocate czar.
So it's just it's it's it's typical of the way the regime is doing things.
Look at this.
This is from the uh political voters by this isn't amazing now.
Voters by a nine-point margin believe Republicans will pick up uh both houses in the Congress, even though they are evenly divided over whom they intend to back in six weeks.
This is a political George Washington University poll.
Nine points.
Voters see a Republican takeover by a nine-point majority.
And this from Fox News, a federal judge on Wednesday, overruled a small Ohio town that had blocked a local Tea Party group from holding a Constitution Day rally in the town's public square because it was deemed too political.
Honest to God, Judge Donald Nougart issued a temporary injunction against Andover Township until the merits of the case can be decided.
This clears the way for the Andover Tea Party to commemorate Constitution Day in the town square on Friday.
The town trustees who tried to block the rally need to learn the Constitution, Peg Slingliff said, a local Tea Party organizer.
She said it's very ironic.
Well, no, the attorney did.
It's very ironic that an effort to celebrate the Constitution results in a violation of the Constitution.
You can't you can't have a rally to celebrate the Constitution.
A town says because it's too political.
So you have a town.
A little town here is afraid of the Constitution.
A little small Ohio town.
The three trustees initially agreed in May to allow the activities to hold a rally when they thought the fledgling group was going to have a picnic serving tea and cookies.
And then they rescinded the offer in July when they learned that the group was affiliated with the conservative grassroots movement that's taken the nation by storm in the last year and a half.
The trustees denied the group access to the park based on a township resolution that allows officials to determine public space usage on a case-by-case basis and to ban speech that they deem too political.
So a Tea Party pro-Constitution rally canceled.
Judge had to overturn them.
Now Hillsdale College is having a big Constitution Day celebration in Washington.
And they have a front row seat for you.
And I've been talking about a couple times already, but tomorrow is Constitution Day.
And this bears repeating one more time, especially in light of what went on in this little Ohio Town.
This is this is why.
It sounds trite, but this is why the people at Hillsdale College are vital and crucial.
You know, September 17th is Constitution Day.
It used to be called Citizenship Day.
It used to be called Citizenship Day.
Now it's called Constitution Day.
And now in America, in certain places, it's too political a day.
There's a good sized group, an over overflowing crowd of people assembled in Washington to celebrate the Constitution a couple of days of speeches, debates, discussions.
It's going on today, as a matter of fact, continues tonight, and on Friday.
The whole thing's available online for you, and it's free.
That's Hillsdale College's way of giving you a front row seat to this simp event, which is sold out.
Tomorrow is a full day of conversation capped off by a speech by George Will on why we celebrate the Constitution.
Easy to get this video feed.
Use the website Rushforhillsdale.com.
It'll lead you to everything to do with the Constitution Day celebration activities.
It's on demand.
You watch it when you want to.
Hillsdale College is paying for the video stream.
They are paying for the camera coverage.
They pay for the whole thing.
They are educators.
They want you to be educated on preserving our liberties.
It's what they do, even when they're away from the campus in Hillsdale, little community in Michigan where Hillsdale College is.com is the website.
Nobody in Washington has told them they can't do this because it's too political.
Only in a little town in Ohio was the Tea Party told they couldn't celebrate Constitution Day in public because it was too political.
I'm not kidding.
Constitution Day used to be called Citizenship Day.
And you know who...
William Randolph Hearst got that started.
1939, William Randolph Hearst advocated through his newspapers the creation of a holiday to celebrate citizenship.
So in 1940, Congress designated the third Sunday in May as I am an American Day.
On February 29th, 1952, Congress moved that observation to September 17th, named it Citizenship Day.
Or uh Constitution Day.
And then in 2004, Robert Byrd changed it from citizenship.
It was citizenship day.
Robert Byrd changed it from Citizenship Day to Constitution Day in 2004.
Now why, why would the Democrats want to get rid of something called Citizenship Day in 2004?
Why?
Because they were already setting out to blow up the whole concept of citizenship in 2004.
So get rid of citizenship day, call it Constitution Day.
Here's Beth in Cersei, Arkansas.
I have about 45 seconds, but I wanted to get to you.
Uh yes, sir.
I was uh calling to comment on uh Mr. Rowe.
Um you know, you were saying how he's a statistici uh he deals in uh statistics and numbers, and he has to tell politicians you know, tell you to get whatever we want here to get our vote.
Well, that's that's why he can't get it, because we want the truth.
I don't want a law from him from a vote.
I want the truth about the politician that I want to vote for.
And the American people are tired of being lied to.
And that's what he can't get.
My neighbors are tired of it.
People I go to church are tired with it.
We are fed up.
Well, I think one thing is true.
And I think that is professional political people, particularly inside the beltway just don't understand the degree to which a vast majority of the people in this country think that the American way of life is under assault.
That it's gone way beyond politics as usual.
We never had to deal with anything this destructive and this radical.
And it has to be stopped.
And they don't hear professional political people in Washington reflecting that at all.
They don't hear anything like that.
So that's why outsiders are rising up.
Talking about losing the language, now we're losing the language that they gave us.
The director of the White House Office of Science, John Holderen, says global warming, it's a dangerous misnomer.
Need to replace it with global climate disruption.
Means global warming ain't selling anymore.
▲
Export Selection