All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 7, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
October 7, 2010, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now they tell us, folks, what a day.
What a day this is.
Here's the headline of some Reuters.
Job losses in 2009.
It's last year for those of you in Port St. Lucie, Rio Linda.
Job losses in 2009 likely bigger than thought.
Who knew?
Now they tell.
Cut the music for a second.
The economy likely shed more jobs last year than previously thought.
But analysts say the undercount by the government should prove less severe than it did during the depths of the recession.
Okay, bring the music back.
Oh, it was over then?
Okay, kill it.
The labor department on Friday will give an initial estimate of how far off its count of employment may have been in the 12 months through March.
The government admitted early.
Can you imagine if Bush were president and this story were worded this way?
The government admitted earlier this year that its count through March of 2009 had overstated employment by 902,000 jobs.
Now, there's a way for those of you in Rio Linda and Port St. Lucie to understand this.
What this story is saying is that the government is admitting they cooked the books for 12 months.
They lied.
They knowingly lied, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
And get this.
I love the qualifiers in this story.
The economy likely shed more jobs last year than previously thought, but analysts said the undercount by the government should prove less severe.
The Labor Department on Friday gave an initial estimate of how far off its count of employment may have been in the 12 months through March.
The government admitted earlier this year its count through March had overstated employment by 902,000 jobs.
The department blamed its 902,000 miss on faulty estimates of how many companies were created or destroyed.
Destroyed.
Not when businesses actually are honest about this.
Destroyed.
What a day.
Let me read this again.
The department blamed its 902,000 myths on faulty estimates of how many companies were created or destroyed.
Who destroyed them?
Reuters, we want to know.
And it's not yet made any changes to the so-called birth-death model that produces this projection.
The birth-death model of businesses.
Once a year, the government compares payroll data from its monthly surveys of employers with unemployment insurance tax reports, which gives it a much more comprehensive view of actual employment.
It uses these tax records to produce a benchmark revision to adjust for discrepancies.
That adjustment is probably overstating the employment gains because we're in a very subdued recovery.
The likelihood is that the birth-death factor making the data look better than it otherwise would, said Neil Dutta, an economist at the Bank of America American, Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York.
Now get this next one.
Tax records will probably show more businesses closed than initially estimated by the Labor Department, analysts said.
Imagine, imagine, I'll say BP.
Imagine, imagine.
Imagine ExxonMobil coming out with a story, you know, we underestimated our tax obligations for 12 months.
We underpaid by 2 billion.
Now, we're going to revise this.
We understated our taxes.
Imagine the hoots and hollers that there would be.
Job losses in 2009 likely bigger than thought.
So government lied, jobs died.
Government lied, businesses died.
They actually used the term businesses created or destroyed.
Government lied, jobs died.
Government lied, businesses died.
Yeah, there's more to this.
There's more to this.
And I will get to it.
Look at, I got an audio soundbite roster here that I got to touch on because it's.
Who benefited from the government lie that 902,000 jobs were missed?
In other words, job losses likely bigger than thought who benefited in 2000.
Who benefited?
Let's see.
Well, that's a good question.
Who would benefit from this lie?
Who would benefit from it not being reported to be as bad as it was?
Hmm.
Hmm.
That, Snerdley, is a brilliant question, one that we're going to have to examine.
We can't knee-jerk our answer to this one.
We need to research this.
We need to get the best minds, best experts, the most unchallenged professionals we can find to give us this answer.
Who benefited?
Who benefited from the fact that a million more jobs were lost than we thought?
Government lied, jobs died.
Government lied, businesses died.
Now, who would benefit?
Another way to look at this, who would benefit from talking up the economy?
It's not just who would benefit from lying about how bad it was.
Who would benefit from talking it up?
I mean, how many times did we hear we're coming back from the brink?
We're turning the corner.
The worst is behind us.
The economy is never talked up during a GOP administration.
So to the audio soundbites.
Back in February 22, 2008, this is a year before Obama is emaculated.
And I had people calling me saying, Rush, don't you think that it'd be great to elect Obama?
Because that would end all this racism.
It would end the racial divide.
And this is an answer I gave countless times during that campaign year.
If Obama gets elected president, wouldn't it be good to just get this done, Rush, so we can end the civil rights squabbles that we're having.
It wouldn't do that.
Folks, it wouldn't do that.
It might even exacerbate them.
Yes, I predicted it.
The race problems would get worse.
Does Drudge still have it up there?
Yeah, poll.
Race relations deteriorating sharply since Obama elected.
Once again, El Rushball thinking outside the box was correct.
Now, who's responsible for this?
Who, ladies and gentlemen, is responsible for the racial divide getting wider?
Well, for the answer, we have to go to WTXF-TV Good Day Philadelphia.
The co-host is Mike Jarrick and Chanel Jones.
And they're having this exchange about African-American support for President Obama and me.
A couple weeks ago, and we were all discussing the black protectionism.
Exactly.
I think that that's part of it, you see, with President Obama.
People feel that he's being unfairly targeted by the media, by the right wing.
And so there are some that are rallying around and saying, we're not going to let that happen.
We've got you.
I think that is.
I think there is black protectionism coming from a white guy.
Well, you know what?
You hear comments.
We're looking for it.
Rush Limbaugh.
He made a comment down to tell you, I think this is why.
You get the black protectionism.
Let's set it up just a little bit.
Rush Limbaugh was going on about President Obama's economic policies, and he said that he was an economic ignoramus.
But then he went further when he said, Jack, that is why you get people who will have this blind, you know what?
They're just hating on him.
I'm going to support him.
I don't care what.
Okay, so there's the answer.
We asked the question, why is the racial divide wider than ever?
It's because of me.
According to the experts in Philadelphia media, it's because of me.
They can't even say the word jackass.
They can't even quote me.
They go, Jack, eee!
In Philadelphia, they call Donovan McNabb worse than this in Philadelphia.
You know, what they're forgetting here is this polling data that I cited, 91% of blacks support Obama.
36% of whites support Obama.
Who's the racist?
Am I the racist because I don't support him, or are the blacks at 91% the racist because they do?
That's the question.
And it wouldn't tackle that question here at WTXF-TV's Good Day Philadelphia.
Instead, it had to blame me for the racial divide.
Not only, you know, I doubled down on this yesterday.
Not only is Obama an economic jackass, a neophyte, and an absolute ignoramus on economic issues, his policies are jackassian.
Jackassian policy.
Add that to the repertoire.
Jackass with jackassian policies.
Quick time out here, my friends.
El Rushbault.
What?
McNabb is going.
Well, McNabb was back, though.
McNabb was back last Sunday.
But McNabb, no, they still can't get me off the...
That was seven years ago, 2003, when all that happened.
But look at all the stuff I'm responsible for in Philadelphia.
The racial divide.
McNabb being booed.
Man, been a big year, big decade.
And I've only been to Philadelphia three times in this whole decade.
Look at the.
Look at the destruction I have wrought.
You know, we were just sitting here talking among ourselves this jackass comment.
Look how that cut through everything.
I mean, it literally cut through everything.
It was like everybody's dancing around it.
Everybody knows there's an elephant in the room and nobody's talking about it.
All of a sudden, I call him an economic jackass.
And it's like, yeah, yeah, everybody agreed with it.
It's like I validated what everybody, that's why it cut like a hot knife through butter.
Jackass in.
Try this headline.
This is a great news day.
Postal, it's from Foxnews.com.
Postal Union election delayed after ballots lost in the mail.
Irony alert.
The American Postal Workers Union has extended its internal election after thousands of ballots appear to have gotten lost in the mail.
Oh, what a day.
What a day.
It's not even Friday.
Folks, let's just be honest about it.
This jackass business, race relations, and so forth.
Let's just put our cards on the table.
Thanks to President Obama, we're having the best relations we've had in this country since a Rodney King beating.
I don't think that there's any doubt about it.
You can't, I don't think you could find another period in time we could show this much improvement.
Well, not even the OJ trial.
The OJ trial, there weren't, no, no, no.
I thought about that, but that was just one jury.
I mean, this, this, we had a whole nation.
I mean, guys are being dragged out of their trucks, set on fire, jaws broken, half of cities burned down.
We've come a long way since the Rodney King beatings.
Thanks to President Obama.
You have to admit that.
All right, who's next here on the phones?
Where are we going?
New Harmony, Utah.
Brian, welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you here.
Greetings from sunny southern Utah.
Rush, great honor to speak to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
I would say that they've misinterpreted or misdone these jobless numbers in order to keep them from backing into that magic number of 10% unemployment.
I mean, they got right up to 9.8, 9.9, and then it suddenly, you know, leveled off and went back down just a tiny bit.
I wouldn't be surprised if these numbers were manipulated to keep that bad, bad news from getting worse.
You think?
I really do.
Hmm.
Well, it's a good thought.
You know, I got 10%.
That was a threshold they didn't want to cross.
And, Rush, if I might take one more moment of your time when football season is over and you go back to being exposed to the Bachelorette again, Monday night is my favorite night of TV on the History Channel.
Two programs, Pawn Stars and American Pickers.
Once you watch them, you'll be hooked.
Pond.
This is the History Channel, you say?
Yes, sir.
Pawn Stars, as in Pawn Shop, P-A-W-N.
Pawn Shop in Las Vegas, Nevada, all the stuff they take in.
And the other is American Pickers.
They're both on Monday night, and I wouldn't miss either one of them.
Well, can you explain on this show what American Pickers is?
It's a couple of guys that go out in the little farming communities and go through people's old barns and stuff, finding old cars and bicycles, picking through what some people would say is junk and finding treasure and then reselling it.
Really, one of your favorite shows is people going through trash.
It's cool, buddy.
You got to see it one time.
All right, I'll look forward to that.
I'll try to remember to set the TiVo up on Monday nights when football season's over.
Okay, Rush.
Thanks very much for the suggestion, Brian.
Have a wonderful day.
I wasn't going to say anything more about America Pickers.
Again, the staff is warning me to be very careful because a lot of people love the American Pickers show.
Would somebody tell me, maybe there's something else?
Is there the paint-drying channel?
Am I missing anything there?
I mean, you got 250,300 channels out there.
I've got to be stuff I don't know.
If I didn't know American pickers existed, there's got to be stuff I don't know that people are watching.
Folks, Heritage Foundation researchers have also weighed in on the report yesterday from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Now, the White House, the White House saw this report before the rest of us could see it.
The essence of it is that government officials were not prepared to deal with the event from day one.
Now, the Heritage Foundation is going to follow this story to the conclusion, though, including helping you answer the question, did the federal government create the impression that it was, A, not fully competent to handle the spill, or B, not fully candid with the American people about the scope of it?
Or is there an option C maybe that wasn't included in the preliminary report that would be the phrase all of the above?
In other words, did they create the impression they weren't competent to handle it?
And were they not fully candid about the scope of the problem?
Or all of the above?
Now, you can read the Heritage Foundation's timely analysis of the preliminary report prominently featured on the Heritage website, askheritage.org.
It's for everybody to see.
All you got to do is log on there and you can see it.
Now, they can produce it quickly because they've been following this spill since day one.
If you look back, the people at Heritage have actually been turning out recommendations long before this administration did anything at all.
I mean, what was it, 50 days before Obama really got serious about this spill?
Because they wanted the tragedy.
So Heritage was on the case from day one.
This is how involved the Heritage Foundation is in getting the details and the facts right.
They sent their own team of experts to the Gulf to get a first-hand look at what was going on.
And there was so much misinformation.
They wanted us to believe how bad it was.
They had to shut down all drilling.
The whole Gulf could have bumped a giant pool of oil.
He showed that camera with all the oil just pouring into the Gulf.
Nobody knew what to believe except those like me and people at Heritage who instinctively know not to trust the first two, three, maybe five things a liberal Democrat administration says.
Make yourself a member at the Heritage Foundation before or after you read the report.
You don't have to become a member to read the report.
It's at askheritage.org.
Askheritage.org.
Big news, folks, out of Hartford, Connecticut.
The first lady, Moochell Obama, will become the latest high-profile Democrat to campaign for Richard Blumenthal, the state attorney general who's in a competitive race for Connecticut Senate seat.
He's running against Lyndon McMahon.
So Michelle Bell running in there to campaign for Skinny Dickie.
Guy that, it's something not right.
It just won't trust people that look like that.
I just hope, you know, there's a traditional on-stage hug.
I hope she doesn't hug the guy.
It will not be a pretty sight.
He might not escape the hold.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair, Rush Limbaugh.
By the way, folks, have you noticed the improved efficiency of this program?
No longer do we waste time at the beginning of the program telling you what you already know.
We just go straight into it.
You know, I figured this out.
I turn on golf channel, or not golf channel, but network coverage of a golf tournament.
It's 10 minutes before we get to action on the course.
We get the obligatory Tiger Woods highlight reel.
And then we get all the announcers around the course telling us what they think of the Tiger Woods highlight reel, even if Tiger's not in a tournament.
It's the same thing with any sports broadcast.
It takes you five minutes to actually get to what you've tuned in for.
So here on this program, no longer at the top of the hour, we start the program.
Greetings and welcome to EIB Network of Rush, because you know this.
And if you don't know it when you tune in, you soon will.
With just another service provided here with the EIB Network, broadcast efficiency to the audio soundbites.
Jeff Lord at the American Spectator blog made a point in his blog today.
Here is what Rick Sanchez at CNN, which by the way, is the paint-drying channel.
Oh yeah, it is.
CNN is the paint-drying channel.
And Rick Sanchez said the following on a satellite radio show.
This is what he was fired for.
And this is what he made tracks.
He got his wife on Facebook to apologize to Stuart.
And then he called Stuart personally and apologized for this.
I think Jon Stewart's a bigot.
I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stuart.
And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stuart.
And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority.
Yeah.
I can't see somebody not getting a job somewhere because they're Jewish.
So, as Jeff Lord at the American Spectator writes, you know, a farm club member of the liberal media, Sanchez, has to call a big league guy, Stewart, and apologize.
Hey, pal, I know we're on the same team.
I'm sorry.
You know what?
I should have called one of those other guys a bigot.
I'm really sorry.
I still want to be on the team.
And you can kill my chances of getting a job and still being on the team.
I'm really sorry.
I'm really sorry, John.
Can you forgive me?
I didn't mean to call you a bigot.
I'm sorry.
He said this about me as a quasi-apology over his role, along with others in the state-controlled media, in spreading untruths and lies at a time I was trying to purchase a portion of the St. Louis Rams.
One of the quotes that's been attributed to Rush Limbaugh is, slavery built the South, and I'm not saying that we should bring it back.
I'm just saying that it had its merits.
For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.
Among the news organizations that reported that yesterday was Arsha at 3 o'clock.
Limbaugh's response to this is, and we want to be fair to Rush.
He says, we've gone back, we've looked at everything else, and there is not even an inkling that any of the words in that quote are accurate.
It is outrageous.
So Rush Limbaugh is denying that that quote has come from him.
Obviously, that does not take away the fact that there are other quotes that have been attributed to Rush Limbaugh, which many people in the African-American community and many other minority communities do find offensive.
Not only was he not fired for that, which is pales in comparison to what he called Stewart a bigot, but that's what passes for an apology.
So Jeff Lord at the American Spectator was writing his piece.
We've linked to it, by the way, rushlimbaugh.com.
He sent me an email last night.
Before I write this, did Sanchez call you or send you an email apologizing?
I said, no, he didn't.
I said, I didn't expect him to.
So Lord's piece today is all about how the liberal media team hang together.
They do.
I mean, Sanchez even got his wife on the case on Facebook to ask for forgiveness for this momentary lapse.
Rick Sanchez is jackass.
Mark in Vienna, Virginia.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Quick question for you, and maybe you're going to have to refer to one of your legal counsels like Effley Levin for this answer.
But with regard to this waiver, this corporate waiver that McDonald's got, and apparently dozens of other companies got, you know, at the very same time, the government is defending itself in lawsuits by a whole bunch of state attorneys general, and their defense is that this is simply a tax.
Well, if this is simply a tax, how can you exempt corporations from a tax?
Doesn't that violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Well, I don't think, now, you're right.
I am going to have to consult a legal mind that rarely I have to say this, that is more specialized in this matter than mine.
But I don't believe we're talking about the same thing.
I don't think a waiver, these companies having insurance, is the same thing as the government defending itself because the Commerce Clause suit is about the government mandating individuals buy insurance.
And if they don't, they can be fined and the IRS can find them.
This doesn't deal with individuals.
This is a waiver for companies.
Okay.
But overall, your point is still well made.
It's an excellent point.
And that is, we've got a law.
And in order for people to have health, we've got a health insurance law that's supposed to improve health insurance, had coverage for everybody, especially the poor and those who make low wages.
Now we come to find out that people who work at McDonald's and 29 other similar companies, in order to hold on to the health insurance we were told they didn't have because these companies are mean, now we're told that they have to be exempted from this new wonderful law in order to keep their insurance coverage.
I mean, to me, this is profound.
Here we have this benevolent, typical Democrat piece of legislation going to help you against these rich people who want to take everything you've got away from you.
We're going to pass health care, make sure you have the same coverage they do, the same care that they do, and then come to find out because of this law, you will lose it.
So you have to be exempted.
By the same token on this other side, here comes a law mandating that individuals buy health insurance if they don't have it.
So let's maybe, maybe here, we've got a what would have happened if this law had not, if they, if these waivers hadn't been granted?
Now, the provision to buy health insurance doesn't implement yet.
That's another one of these things.
This wasn't supposed to happen this soon either.
The only reason the waivers happen is because this is an election year, and the waivers are for only one year.
So if this were next year, there wouldn't be any waivers.
So if there were no waivers, what would happen?
These employees would lose their health insurance.
Then the question is, Would they be fined for not buying their own?
Would they be fined?
Would the IRS track them down, find these people who lost their insurance because their employers couldn't afford it?
Would the employers be fined?
Would the employees be fine?
Now, remember, we're asking questions here about a law that's designed, we were told, to streamline, make more efficient, make more affordable, and broaden coverage and care for everybody.
We're asking these kinds of questions.
That's how bad this is.
That's what a mistake this whole thing has been.
That's what an absolute disaster it is.
Now, this whole waiver thing, by the way, I got a note from F. Lee Levin who confirms I was right in my answer at a legal question.
Now, we also talk about equal protection, all right?
McDonald's, Jack in the Box, and a Teachers Fund bunch in New York, they get waivers, but we didn't.
Where's the equal protection?
How come these people get waivers?
They got waivers because it's an election year.
That's the only reason they got waivers.
Because Obama, the Democrats cannot stand for the piece of legislation they heralded be responsible for people losing health coverage in an election year.
Next year, perfectly fine when you lose your health coverage, because then you'll have to run to them to get it.
That's the plan.
Very simple.
Have you seen MSNBC's got a new slogan?
You know, MSNBC, oh, and this is interesting too, MSNBC.com want to change their name because they think they're very proud.
MSNBC.com is a website, and they're very proud of the professionalism, news content, and they feel that they are being unfairly categorized, a bunch of freak kook leftists because of MSNBC TV network, cable network.
They're thinking of changing it.
They're thinking of changing the name to NBCNews.com as though that's going to help.
Still, they want to do it.
So MSNBC, knowing they've got this problem that everybody thinks that they're lunatics on the left, they've come up with a new slogan.
Lean forward.
Honest to God, they have a new, it's a press release launching next week a new campaign called Lean Forward.
Well, I want to add something to it.
Here's every time if you see this in print, if you see it on TV, imagine that there are words in parentheses following it.
Lean forward, this won't hurt a bit.
That's the new slogan for MSNBC.
Lean forward, this won't hurt a bit.
No different than bending over.
MSNBC.
Tellers at First Citizen Bank, College Street, Lacey, Washington, call the cops.
Guy tried to cash one stolen $470 check.
This prompted an investigation, and they found a car trunk full of stolen mail, probably some union ballots that are missing, postal union ballots, in addition to mail belonging to 214 identity theft victims.
I don't care what they tell you about the economy and how it may be coming back and people are going to start spending more for holidays, all this gunk.
The fact of the matter is, still in the recession.
There isn't any recovery.
And a lot of people take shortcuts and stealing identities to some people is easier than working hard.
They perfected schemes to do it.
If you lose your identity, it can cost you a lot of money and more importantly, grief.
And there's a simple way to keep it from happening to you.
Life Lock, the best identity alert system there is.
And it doesn't cost hardly anything.
It's very inexpensive.
100, well, it's not even that.
And you can save even more 10% off whatever it does cost by using my name when you call them.
800-440-4833 is the number at LifeLock.
Now, you will give them your social security number.
This is the one outfit you should give your social security number.
The identity alert system works this way.
Identity thief has your number, has your credit card, somehow gets hold of it, trying to use it.
Life Lock is informed.
You get a call.
Are you currently at the such-and-such ATM, blah, blah, blah.
No, I'm not.
Perps caught your identity save.
That's how it works.
Now, they're going to stop it 100% of the time, but they stop it more than anybody else does.
And they keep your information private.
LifeLock 800-440-4833 and 10% off with offer code Rush.
Paul in Delray Beach, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Rush.
Congratulations on your wedding.
I thought Family Guy was awesome.
Look, I'm a guy out here, a conservative guy.
I'm with two-thirds of the country that are giving the Republicans a mandate to go and stop this guy.
And then I tune into your show today, and it's clear to me that the Republicans really don't know who this is.
And if they don't know who it is, how are they going to formulate strategy to beat him?
No.
They know he's got to be stopped.
They know who he is.
When I say that they're putting him in a professional politician box, I only mean in the sense they're looking at him as somebody who's going to change and moderate his liberalism because he's going to want to be reelected.
This is their theory in 2012.
And I don't think that's the case.
I think he's going to try to ramrod whatever.
No, no.
No, they're just concerned that those of us who send them into Washington with these great majorities understand that they can't really overturn it and enroll him back until they get the White House.
They're not saying they're not going to stop it.
They're going to.
I'm not worried about them not being able to do it.
I'm worried about them not being willing to do it.
I think about the budget battle in 1995.
I think about power sharing.
I mean, these are not happy memories of the last Republican mandate.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the ranking Republican to whom I spoke today, I brought up that 95 budget battle and I said they're going to do it to you again.
They're going to let you exhibit the fiscal responsibility that they know has to happen.
They're going to blame you for it.
They're going to accuse you of starving kids with a school lunch cut and Social Security.
I said, you better have a plan better than you had in 95 dealing with.
The plan in 95 was nobody's going to believe this.
Who's going to believe we want to starve kids?
Well, by the time they had kids in New Orleans writing letters saying, I'm starving, why won't you let me eat lunch and so forth?
I think they don't look at they get it.
They get it.
And I think they're going to surprise you.
Especially if this victory is as huge as it is.
And don't fool yourself.
They know that it's not going to be this pledge that's attracting the votes.
It's helpful, but be confident.
I am.
This is just the first step of many of these steps going to have to happen.
One election.
after this election's won, it's going to get hard.
The other side's just not going to go away.
They're not going to say, oh, God, the country doesn't love us anymore.
Please forget.
They're going to ratchet it up.
Always happens.
Be ready.
Be prepped.
We'll be back.
Let me try to put this in perspective.
Rolling back, not just Obama, but the Democrats of the last 50 years, folks, rolling this back.
is going to take a long time, a lot of hard work, and it's going to be intense.
It's going to be the intensity of football with a 162-game schedule instead of 16.
That's how intense this is going to be.
People take it seriously.
▲
Export Selection