All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
October 8, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Making more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be talking about, documented to be almost always right.
99.6% of the time, except at home, rush limbal at 800-282-2882.
At home, it's about 28%.
800-282.
That's what I was told.
800-200.
Yeah, last night at dinner, that's what I was told.
800-282-2882 is the number on Friday, live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
We expand the limits and boundaries.
And pretty much discuss whatever you wish to.
We're going to get to the phones quick this hour, I promise.
Our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville, has a question about the $72,000 in the money that went to dead people.
The $250 checks that went to the dead.
He asks if the dead will now get periodic cost of dying increases.
Which is a valid, valid question when we consider the direction that this regime is taking us.
Ladies and gentlemen, here's the audio soundbite.
This is Wednesday night on a radio show.
Where is this Obama's?
Yeah, I, uh, anyway, the host of the radio show said we, as Americans, some of us anyway, have short-term memory when it comes to how horrible a situation this country was in before you took office.
Would somebody care to call here and define for me, explain the horrible situation we were in before Obama was immaculated?
I would really, because I'd love to go back to it.
I would love to turn back the clock 20 months and pretend that these 20 months didn't happen.
And I'm sure you would too.
So anyway, that's a question.
What can we do to make sure and assure that we have you for a second term?
Now, this is an interview with the president.
What can we do to make sure and assure that we have you for a second term?
What is it that we need to do?
They've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration.
And that means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill.
Now, I don't think this is insignificant.
First off, hand-to-hand combat is like Obama saying, they bring a knife, we bring a gun.
They hit us, we hit back twice as hard.
This is like we're going to keep our boot on the throat of BP.
And I'm looking for whose ass to kick.
We're going to call you out, this kind of stuff.
Now, this guy talking this way, I want to see.
I want to see.
I can predict what the outcome is going to be.
The media will find nothing wrong with this.
The fake media, the real media.
When Bush said we wanted bin Laden dead or alive, you're either with us or against us.
I mean, you went nuts.
How can you talk that?
When Reagan said, joking, the bombing starts in five minutes.
Poly evil empire.
They had a cow.
Now here's Obama, the president of the United States, who is encouraging hand-to-hand combat.
You suggest that some bring a gun to a knife fight.
This is rabble-rousing, and look who he is rabble-rousing.
He's rabble-rousing the unions, a whole bunch of different minorities.
Hand-to-hand combat.
Now, the second point I wish to make is remember that yesterday I told you that I spoke to a ranking Republican who was very fervent in his belief that if the Republican victory in the November elections was as big or bigger than people expected to be,
that Obama would have no choice but than to moderate Allah Clinton in 1994, that Obama would have no choice to move back to the center or to at least triangulate and abandon his agenda.
Now, I don't believe that's going to happen anyway, but I really don't believe it now when you got a guy out there on a friendly radio show talking about hand-to-hand combat.
If the Republicans win and they threaten to reimpose their own policies, it's going to be hand-to-hand combat.
It doesn't sound like a guy who's going to moderate.
It doesn't sound like somebody who's going to matriculate to the center.
But as I watch Obama, I'm watching him now.
He's announcing another staff departure from his regime.
The national security grandpuba, James Jones, is fleeing the scene, and they're doing the replacement announcement right now.
And as I listened to Obama this morning in his jobs numbers speech in Maryland, there's no life.
There's no energy.
There's no emotion anymore what this guy is saying.
And one of the reasons is he's lying.
And the facts are now becoming known.
And it really is hard to continue the illusion, to keep it going.
The illusion of purpose is what I think he's having a tough time maintaining here, at least in public.
Now, in private, we know he doesn't care.
I mean, the fact that the country oppose him more and more, issue by issue, it's expected it.
He knew that was the case.
He knows he's governing against the will of the people.
When he goes out there in public, mouths all these platitudes and all these words how we're coming back from the press and everything's hunky-dory and everything's going great out there.
And he knows it's not.
And he knows his audience knows it's not.
So it's just, to me, a little fascinating to watch all of this play out in public.
Douglas Holtz Eakin, he's president of the American Action Forum, used to be at the Congressional Budget Office, National Review online, the corner blog today.
The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.
The news today, 89,000 stimulus checks, $22 million got sent to people who were dead or in jail.
Now, my first instinct was, he writes, to giggle.
I mean, seriously, dead people?
And my second thought was to wonder about the policy implications.
What are the multiplier effects for dead people?
You know, it might not be so bad.
It's like Dr. Spencer says, are they now in line for cost of dying increases? just as there are cost of living increases.
Stimulus did not work for the living.
So is it really any worse to try it for the dead?
Having checked those boxes, I turn to the fact that 12 million of the invalid checks were returned.
$12 million were returned out of 22 million.
This is truly astonishing and a tribute to the character of America.
It's a silver lining in an otherwise bad news story.
And get ready because the bad news is going to turn horrific.
With stimulus checks, the goal was to send seasoned citizens $13 billion in checks one time using a well-honed checkwriting machine, the Social Security Administration, to an easily defined group that wasn't going to get a cost of living increase.
And it didn't go so well.
They're trying to buy votes.
And maybe in a couple towns, the dead vote, in some numbers, Chicago and other places, but for the most part, is a waste of money if you're buying votes.
So Mr. Holtz Eaken wonders, imagine what will happen with the new health care law.
Recall, the goal is to distribute about $466 billion in insurance subsidies over the next 10 years.
This will require identifying who is eligible based on their income and whether they're employer insurance or perhaps offers unacceptably costly insurance.
The subsidy amount will depend on income.
It will have to be sent to the state of the individual taxpayer's exchange.
It will have to be transmitted to the insurance company by or of the recipient's choice, and it will have to be sent monthly in advance of the payment due date.
So the U.S. Treasury will have to parse through 300 million Americans, verify their income, their employment, their insurance status, their location, their potential insurer.
They will then have to correctly cut over 10 million checks for just under $4 billion and do this every month.
It will never happen.
The first duty of any committee doing real oversight of the new law should be to ask the Treasury if it can implement the law as written.
The honest answer will have to be no.
Perhaps this will be part of the unraveling of Obamacare, which is essential because it's an integral part of the excessive government overhang that is dragging down the private sector.
We've got to do something about this.
It's unsustainable, even before it's fully implemented.
It's a destroyer.
It is, in its own way, a nuclear weapon aimed at the American private sector, aimed at the American way of life.
And there's no way they can do it.
His point is if they can't successfully send out $250 checks to 89,000 people, what in the world makes us believe, and then there are other examples you could cite as well, government errors, mistakes, inefficiency.
How in the world are we to believe that they are going to be able to cut 10 million checks for just under $4 billion to the right people in the right state every month to comply with the law?
And then what happens when they can't do it?
What happens when it doesn't happen?
What happens when these people don't get what they're supposed to get, which will compensate them for their health insurance, which they won't have?
What will happen?
I'll tell you what will happen.
You can see it for yourself.
Go to any major metro area, top 50 city, top 75.
Go to the federal building.
Go to the Social Security Administration office and try to get something done.
Take a look at who's there.
Ask yourself how long you want to stand in line there.
And then ask yourself, if you endeavor to stand in line as long as it's going to take, when it's your turn at the counter, is what you need going to happen correctly?
It's not just DMV, but everybody takes a shot at a county motor vehicle offices and so forth.
Go to a federal agency.
Go to the VA.
Go anywhere.
Stand in line.
Go wherever you have to go.
If you are dependent on what happens in that building to eat, to live, if you're dependent, go in there, pretend that you can't live without making monthly trips to that building and see if you want to know what healthcare is going to be like after it is implemented as written.
Quick time out.
Your phone calls are next right after this.
And we're back open line Friday and we start on the phones in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
This is Frank and welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Well, good day, Rush.
Ditto's first time caller listening since my brother Fritz and Boise told me about you in 1991.
Great.
Thank you very much.
And I'm calling today heartfelt asking for your help.
I love the NFL, but this year's push for breast cancer money seems over the top.
I don't mean to be cynical, but my mom had a mastectomy 25 years ago, and I don't see them making real progress no matter how much money they have.
And when I'm watching the game, it feels like there's a guy at my door banging on it with his hand out and he won't go away.
I'm hoping you would have some insight or some help to get me past this.
You basically saying you're not happy with all the pink on Sunday afternoon NFL games.
You don't like the guys wearing pink shoes, pink chin straps, pink towels, pink gloves.
Basically, you don't think the color pink works well with the National Football League?
There's some of that, and I would be very happy with a pink ribbon on the back of the helmets, but, you know, who paid for this stuff?
I mean, did the Breast Cancer Society buy this stuff?
I know they're going to auction it off at the end of the month and hopefully make the money and get in the black on that, but it just feels like...
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean?
Who buys what stuff?
You mean the gloves, the pink stuff?
Yeah, who put out the money to buy the shoes, the gloves, the chin straps to later on be auctioned off?
Now you've come to the right place.
Now I can help out.
Please.
What?
Somebody warning me not to go any further here?
Is somebody in my IFB telling me not to go any further?
Okay.
The NFL has an agreement with Reebok.
If you'll notice on every NFL jersey and every NFL pair of pants and almost every NFL pair of shoes, you'll see the Reebok logo.
Now, the NFL, in their arrangement with Reebok, some people think that Reebok totally donates all that equipment to the teams in exchange for the exclusivity in use of the product.
That's not a it's not a total donation, but it's a combination of Reebok and the NFL spending what's necessary to outfit as a charitable donation.
It's an outreach to women by the group, by the league, as much of what's happening in the league now is an outreach to women.
In fact, I didn't tell you this.
I'm going to announce it now.
If he has time, the Hutch, Ken Hutcherson, is going to call a program in the next hour to talk specifically about, and he played the Dallas Cowboys, Seattle Seahawks.
He's very concerned about the chickification of the league.
And he's going to call here and share his thoughts on this.
Now, I have to tell you something, Frank.
It's...
Now they're saying, now be careful.
Why?
What do you think I need to be careful about?
What do you think?
Well, I'm just going to say, I don't know.
I'm watching the games.
I had the same feeling last year as I did this past Sunday.
It's just a little too much pink out there.
I don't know.
I just, you know me, I'm not into symbolism over substance.
I'm into substance.
And I remember once on my immensely popular television show, one night, I wore every colored ribbon that there was at the time on my suit jacket.
The pink, the red, the yellow, whatever.
And I pointed, see, I'm wearing all these ribbons.
I care more than you do.
Just like I drive this hybrid.
That means I care more than you do.
And you don't really know that.
You don't know.
It makes you feel good.
But this is a marketing thing the league's into here, it's an outreach to women, trying to broaden the overall base of the audience, the NFL.
Do you know, I'm going to look this up and confirm it.
I've heard it from a number of different people, that more men come down with prostate cancer every year than women do with breast cancer.
But you don't see, I mean, what color would the NFL have to wear to raise consciousness for prostate cancer.
Now, on the other side of this, last year, Ben Rothlisberger, the quarterback of the Steelers, had a great game.
First game in October, wearing the pink shoes.
He wanted to wear them the next week because he thought the pink empowered him.
Sort of like long hair and Samson before Dawyla came along.
That's more like 15 and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Look, I don't mean to impugn the people who wear the ribbons.
I'm sure there are a lot of people that wear the ribbons and it's just as a private thing.
They believe in the cause and they it means something to the people that wear the ribbons.
But at the same time, there are a lot of people who are doing it to make a statement, to make a political statement.
People who drive certain cars do this, wear certain color ribbons.
Now, we looked it up here in the break.
From the National Institutes of Health, the estimate is in 2010, over 209,000 men and women will be diagnosed with breast cancer.
Far more women, of course.
40,230 will die from it.
217,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer.
32,050 will die.
So the total for men and women breast cancer is 209,000.
The estimate this year, prostate cancer, men only, 217,000.
Now, Snerdley is our resident sexist, and during the break, he was weighing in on this.
He said, you're dancing around the point.
I understand even you, you're getting afraid of this stuff.
I can tell, Rush, you're getting afraid.
I'm not afraid of it.
Yes, you are.
Snerdy, if you had guts, what you'd really say is there's not one single male endeavor that women haven't invaded now.
They are invading virtually everything.
They've invaded the country clubs, the business clubs, and now the National Football League.
And Snerdley said, I'll believe all this when I see the WNBA wear latex gloves for prostate cancer month.
So this is the range of emotion out there.
I did think it was pretty clever.
Latex gloves for prostate cancer.
Cancer month.
September, we just went through September.
September was prostate awareness month.
Prostate.
Did you hear anything about it?
You didn't, did you?
Because men are not a minority.
Women are considered an oppressed minority.
So breast cancer.
And folks, there's one thing you have to say.
I mean, it works.
No matter what people think of it, everybody saw pink in the NFL that was watching it.
No matter what they thought of it, they saw it.
And they said, what the hell is that?
And they want, if those who didn't know what it meant, found out, breast cancer awareness.
Oh, okay.
Now, at that point, people's own personal beliefs then take over as to what they think of it, how they react to it.
But women are the only genuine majority that get by as a minority.
There are more women at any one time in the country, any country, except China, than men, by design, by efficient, intelligent design.
Adam in Riverdale, New York, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to reach you today.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, I wanted to talk to you about the American voter.
You know, I'm convinced at this point that most Americans are a great deal of them.
They don't have the sense to reason things out about the economy.
I think they see they're angry at Obama because they're waiting for him to fix things.
But a lot of them don't understand about Marxism and socialism.
Some do, but many more don't, because as we know, the Republicans, it's going to be an earthquake in November.
I've been reading all these articles about how it'll be handing Obama a gift if he goes along with the Republicans in Congress.
Now, why would Americans hold on?
I mean, they should not, they should, on principle, they should realize what Obama has done and vote him out regardless in 2012.
You know, I just don't think most Americans really know that he's responsible for ruining the economy.
Yeah, I have to sadly agree.
I don't know if it's most, but it's a lot.
Earlier this week, I engaged, because I got a couple calls, I engaged in what for me was the most elementary explanation of how jobs are created, how people get paid, how taxes are collected, what the purpose of it is.
Basically, the most rudimentary explanation of capitalism.
Now, I went to a dinner party last night.
I had three people come up to me who heard it who said, you need to do that more often.
And I understand why, but it was basic.
It was, this is, this, to me, it's instinctive.
Once you've lived it, you ought to understand it.
But you said something very key.
People are waiting for Obama to fix it.
Yes, they're waiting for him to fix things.
But a lot of people, like I said, they understand that Obama's ruining it.
But out of principle, I mean, let's say the Republicans make things into a satisfactory situation going into 2012.
Out of, you know, all these horrible things, the healthcare thing, Obama ruining the economy with his Marxism.
You know, out of principle, are Americans going to wise up this time and say, this guy is just no good?
Get him out.
See, it is the age-old question.
I lived through the prosperity of the 80s.
And throughout the 80s and through the mid, you could even argue into the late 90s.
And during that period of time, the American left and the press was constantly revising history, denigrating Reagan, denigrating supply-side economics, capitalism, denigrating the sole reasons for the economic prosperity.
And yet, liberalism, socialism, Marxism has always failed wherever it's tried.
And yet, people continually are seduced by it.
And they are seduced by it, not so much it, but by its practitioners, as in Obama.
People like him personally.
If you look at the polling day, they don't like a thing he's doing, but they like him personally.
That would lead you to believe that if the Republicans do come along and make some fixes and get things going in the right direction, Obama will benefit from it, maybe get reelected because people like him personally and don't hold him personally accountable for this destruction.
On the other hand, if he continues to fight the Republicans and just continue being who he's being, and if things don't improve, he'll definitely be voted out.
Not automatic.
That depends on how the Republicans deal with it.
Oh, they have to be clever and they have to expose him better.
I don't even think they have to be clever.
They just have to oppose him.
They can't compromise with him.
They can't, they have to be able to empathize with their voters and understand why they're being elected, what their voters expect them to do.
And it's not to cozy up with anybody on the other side.
And it's not to walk across the aisle.
It's not compromise and bipartisanship.
It's to stop this.
Pure and simple.
But I'm still struck by your things that it's a profundity.
Because he says it and I can visualize it.
There are people out there waiting for Obama to fix things.
Not just Obama personally to fix things.
They are waiting for the government to fix it.
Those are people who have not the slightest idea that they hold the single greatest power over their destiny than the government.
They are more in charge of their own life.
And it's sad that's not taught anymore.
We're making victims out of more and more people.
We're groupifying.
We're balkanizing people.
And then we're making them victims.
Yeah, your life is what it is because of X, because of them, because of that group, because of those rich people.
You can't get a job or you can't get a Big Mac or you can't get chicken McNuggets unless you call 911 because of X.
So everybody is being given an excuse for mediocrity, for being mediocre.
Everybody is, I'm talking about the public school system throughout our educational system.
People's failures and their mediocre achievements, behavior is being excused.
And in fact, we're attaching self-esteem to it.
You're fine, little Johnny.
Two plus two is five.
Wonderful.
Wonderful little Johnny.
Rather than say, you stupid idiot.
We've been trying to teach you for two years that two and two is four.
When are you going to learn it?
Well, not you stupid idiot, but at some point.
But really, we are victimizing people, which is giving them an excuse to not account for anything, to not be anything.
And then we're teaching them how to blame somebody else or some other group or series of events for their plight.
And so we arrive at a point where a significant portion of the population is sitting around waiting for somebody, the government, to fix it.
There are some people, and you know, look, this is one of the, this is a tough thing to say because a lot of people don't want to hear this because it goes against everybody's desire that we all be the same, that there be no pain in life and that there be no suffering and that everybody do well and that everybody have what they want and so forth.
But there is no equality.
You cannot guarantee that any two people will end up the same and you can't legislate it and you can't make it happen.
You can try under the guise of fairness and so forth.
But some people are self-starters and some people are born lazy.
Some people are born victims.
Some people are just born to be slaves.
Some people are born to put up with somebody else making every decision for them.
Some people, on the other hand, are born and they're not going to take anything from anybody.
They're going to be totally in charge of their lives.
They're not going to sit around and wait for something.
They're going to make it happen.
You can see this throughout the American strata population.
Even in, well, born and raised.
I think both.
I think born and raised.
But even in down economic times, there are people getting wealthy.
In recessions and depressions, there are still people who are profiting from it.
Most people are not self-starters.
Most people, if you ask them as adults, think back, who was the best teacher you ever had?
They'll tell you almost without fail that there was somebody in their life that showed them they were capable of much more than they thought they were capable of themselves.
Because most people are not self-starters.
Most people don't push themselves.
They have to be pushed to be shown.
Yeah, it was the toughest teacher, one of the hardest, the teacher that they probably didn't like compared to other teachers.
But as they matured and got older, they realized that particular teacher showed them they were capable of much, much more than they thought they were themselves.
It's just probably a matter of intelligent design.
The vast majority of people are not self-starters.
And in a way, It all works out because everybody's needed for something.
Anyway, I'm a little long here in this segment, but you get the drift.
But I think that's very, very important and indicative.
People are waiting for Obama to fix it.
Did you, by the way, did you notice Obama's reaction to the problem of his presidential seal falling off of his podium?
Did you see videotape of this?
And did you hear about the aftermath?
He was fit to be tied.
He found somebody to blame.
He had to, and he did, find some human being to blame for that thing happening, that seal falling.
Because that was a personal affront to him.
He's president.
No other president's seal ever fell like that.
Who's responsible for it?
He's a perfect example of what I'm talking about here.
Blames everybody for everything.
Never accepts blame for his own actions.
You know people like that.
They're all over the place and they irritate the hell out of you, don't they?
I think it's just a fact of life.
70%, 70%, maybe 65 wake up waiting to be told what to do.
It's just the way it is.
Not criticizing them.
Just the way it is.
65, 70% of people wake up waiting for something to get fixed.
You don't think it's that high?
I'm not breaking it down, male-female.
I just think the population at large.
Now, I checked the subscriber line email, website email.
I got an interesting email here from a woman who thinks that the NFL is going about attracting women the wrong way with pink.
It ain't a way to do it.
The women they can attract to football are by definition not going to be the type to respond to pink stuff.
That the women, what they ought to do is give Sarah Palin a moose gun and do a commercial, and that would attract women to the National Football League.
But folks, look at there has to be some compromise here.
They're just, I mean, we can agree that there's too much pink in the NFL, but can we also agree that good-looking women wearing an NFL jersey is cool?
I mean, we don't want to bifurcate things here.
There has to be a way to bring us all together.
There has to be a way to bring all of us, men and women, together on this.
Men love football and women.
Should not have to choose one or the other.
There has to be a way to show our support for both without dipping NFL apparel into a paint bucket of pink paint.
There's got to be a better way.
We need a bi-gender.
Now, the cheerleaders don't cut it, Sterling.
I mean college football.
Don't cut it.
No, no, no.
We need a bi-gender plan, I think, to preserve the integrity of the National Football League while at the same time acknowledging the role of attractive women to bring us beer and wear sexy clothes while we watch.
And if we can find some common ground along these lines, then we could all get along.
Don't need to start running around wearing pink shoes during the games and that kind of stuff.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the fastest three hours in the media, two of them already in the can.
And snurdly, I forgot to tell you yesterday, but do expect a phone call from the Hutch.
He did say he wants to get on and talk today about the chickification of the NFL.
I think his concern is all his hands-off treatment of quarterbacks now.
Can't hit the quarterback.
It's not the way it was in his day.
Public policy polling, big Democrat from North Carolina, Obama's big drop in blue states.
It's got them all quivering in fear out there.
▲
Export Selection