All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 5, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:20
November 5, 2010, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hiya, folks, how are you?
It is whoa.
Whoa.
It is way out of whack on my audio, but I'll nevertheless money through it's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Great to have you here.
You know the rules on open line Friday.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things I care about.
Because people tune into this program to hear what I care about, what I'm interested in, because they just do.
But on Friday, we open it up to people.
Talk about whatever they want, even if I don't care about it.
It's a golden opportunity.
And just another illustration of how you mean everything to us here at the EIB network.
We know that you are looking out for us.
Telephone number 800 282882.
Well, the um the jobs numbers are out, and of course, U.S. employment increased far, far, far more.
I mean, they are orgasmically happy.
Here in the state controlled media, U.S. employment increased far more than expected last month, as private companies hired workers at the fastest.
Why do you think this happened?
Now it didn't make a dent in the unemployment number.
I mean, the unemployment number is still 9.6%.
Uh now, if if this growth doesn't even lower the unemployment rate by one tenth of a percentage point.
If it stays at 9.6, even after adding 151,000 jobs in October, how can it be called a solid and strong jump?
Why do you think it happened?
I have a theory.
I think that one of the reasons that hiring is starting to take place is that the markets of people do investing know history.
They understand what the election of Republicans to power means.
They understand what gridlock might mean.
It might means might mean Obama destruction will brought to a screeching halt or at least slow down.
So if this is legit, and sometimes I think they just make up the numbers anyway.
But if the number is legit, I think it's a sign that people were happy and pretty confident that the Democrats were going to take it on the chin in the elections on Tuesday.
Ladies and gentlemen, it has been a long time.
We're going to go back to the grooveyard of forgotten favorites.
A feminist update.
The Feminazis are livid at me because of well, general principles, but what we did on Wednesday.
The uh vocal portrayal here of the song of the Forrester Sisters.
And that for those of you relatively new to the program and have not heard of this as our feminist update theme in a while.
That's actual audio from a pro-choice rally on the steps of the mall in Lincoln Memorial, somewhere, steps of the capital, somewhere at Capitol Building in Washington, way, way back in the 90s.
We're fierce, we're feminists win your face.
And all we did was speed it up, and we chipmunked it a little bit, but those were the actual words spoken.
Now the feminist update today comes from the Associated Press, even with many high-profile female candidates.
A just ended campaign was rife with sexism.
Ranging from snarky fashion critiques to sexual innuendo.
And when all the ballots are counted, women may hold fewer seats in a new Congress than the outgoing one.
And the problem is, would somebody...
This is presented as a problem.
Somebody tell me what the problem is.
The voters have spoken.
It's a free society, it's a republic.
And when the ballots are counted, women may hold fewer seats in the new Congress than the outgoing one.
Of course, this is all a slap at Republicans.
But the simple fact of the matter is if you dig deep, it was Republicans for whom women voted in this election.
The independence, a huge shift.
Voting Republican.
And I mentioned, I've got the story coming up here in the stack.
I mentioned to you that the Republicans, and I've been saying this for a long time, need to make arguments that are philosophical and ideological in nature.
And to that extent, to the extent that they have, it has worked.
The number of independents identifying themselves as conservatives has doubled since the last election in 2008.
That is crucial, folks.
I mean, that is huge.
No matter how you slice the electorate right now, the uh the you cannot say that liberalism outnumbers conservatives or even moderates at any any way you slice it.
Liberals are at the bottom of every category here.
But when you have the number of independents identifying themselves as conservatives, conservative independents, uh, going from 20 to 40 percent.
Uh this, you know, guarantee you in the private cloakrooms of Democrats looking at this and they're not happy about it.
They're not happy about much of anything that's happening.
Uh Bayon Bennett, who's president of the women's campaign forum foundation, said at a teleconference yesterday discussing the prevalence of political sexism, it looks as if we're going backward rather than forward.
Political sex is they now they can't be mad at me because I, of course, was the author of opposition reverse chaos.
And the purpose of reverse opposition chaos was to make amends for Mrs. Clinton.
I mean, I steadfastly had myself on her side, and yet the feminazis are mad at me.
If you read all the way through the story, you'll find that they are livid at me.
Even though I've called nobody a bitch, I called nobody a whore.
I called nobody a slut, as some called Sharon Angle, as some called uh Meg Whitman.
I mean, all Republican women were called B.I. itch slut and whore.
I didn't do it.
And yet, in this story, sexism remains a problem for women seeking office.
The focus of the nags is me.
You know what I know why?
One simple reason.
On Wednesday after the election, we happened to play a tune.
After opening with Wipeout, we played the fifth estate.
Now, stop the music.
Let me get the idea.
When we played the song on Wednesday, we did not even identify about whom we were playing it.
Did we?
We didn't say we didn't, we didn't mention a name here.
We just played Ding Dong, the witch is dead following wipeout, and the Feminazis have all assumed us talking about Pelosi.
And that's at the end of the story, you find here women's groups monitoring campaign sexism, felt that some of the GOP attacks on Pelosi were misogynistic and were irked that conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh played Ding Dong, the witch is dead on his radio show Wednesday to celebrate the Pelosi's impending demotion.
But we didn't mention her name.
What liberal wasn't playing it about O'Donnell?
What liberal wasn't out there actually calling O'Donnell a witch?
Or worse, a B.I. itch, a slut or a whore.
It wasn't I. We didn't even identify the song as being aimed at Pelosi, and yet the Feminazis did.
It was the Feminazis who assumed that we were calling Pelosi a witch.
We didn't say we were.
This is how easy it is to tweak these people.
Two years after Hillary Rodham nearly captured a Democrat presidential nomination, Sarah Palin was the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Female candidates dealt with comments about their hair and seamy anonymous web posting.
Speaker Pelosi, second in the presidential line of succession, was widely vilified by Republican candidates in ways that often seemed gender specific.
They're serious about this.
They are serious.
You can run around and you can call Republican women anything in the book, and the feminazis will not speak up.
More women voted than men in this election.
We got a story about how there's fewer women in elective office.
Well, whose fault is this?
Are we supposed to repudiate the will of women who voted?
Who ended up electing more men than women?
I mean, I agree with the Feminazi.
Sharon Angles should have won.
I agree with the Feminazis.
Christine O'Donnell should have won.
I agree that Linda McMahon should have won.
Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina should have won.
But now the Feminazis clearly supporting witches.
As in the case of Pelosi.
If anybody got burned at the stake out there, it was Christine O'Donnell by the Feminazis.
At any rate, we're going to have fun.
I got people in California, friends of mine begging me to move there.
It to help California fix itself.
My friends think that my presence in California could go a long way toward reversing the fortunes of that state.
Well, it didn't help in New York.
Yeah, but I haven't lived in New York since uh what, 196, 1997.
And when I was there, Rudy got elected.
When I was there, Giuliani got elected, and crime was dealt with.
Well, I said California is, I yesterday I said, when it when the San Francisco bans a happy meal and starts talking about food justice.
I mean, you have to figure at that point, just saw the state off and let it float out there.
It's over.
But there are still people who live there, folks, friends of mine, very good friends of mine, who are asking me to move out there.
If not for the full year, for six weeks, eight weeks.
And I keep telling them, you think I'm an idiot?
Why don't you people leave there?
I don't want to go out there, face all that confiscatory taxation.
And now they're accusing me of having tax phobia.
You gotta, you gotta get past it, Rush.
You gotta get past this tax phobia of yours.
I mean, for crying out, Rush, why don't you take the money that you were going to sink into the St. Louis Rams and buy a little place out here?
What does it matter?
I'll bet the money you were going to spend on a Rams would cost more than whatever house you'd buy in California and whatever taxes that would accrue.
And in the strictly dollars and cents calculation, that would be true.
Well, no, they I did they didn't specify a place.
Well, they said they did actually make some suggestions.
They suggested Montecito, Malibu, uh Santa Barbara, Newport Beach, the northern part of Malibu, northern part, the stately.
So I no, this isn't the last couple of days.
I have been inundated with um, I could buy Rio Linda, but I don't nothing's changed there.
Don't want to live there.
Would not make it worth.
Before you poo-poo the idea of moving to California, I won Florida.
I live in Florida, won Florida.
You could even say that I won New Jersey without even going there.
Chris Christie, so for Virginia, uh Massachusetts, we're on the air in all these places.
And you would not believe the entries that my friends are making.
I mean, it's it's it's a serious push that they are making.
I'm thinking I could get maybe get a three-bedroom house in California for the money I was gonna put into the St. Louis Rams.
Maybe, right, maybe get a three-bedroom house, maybe a two-car garage, not sure, for the money that I was uh that I was gonna put into Rams.
You know, where were the feminists, by the way, attacking Chris Matthews?
Ruby's mocking Michelle Bachman, or maybe that was considered girl-on-girl action and they decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
The United Nations is calling today for increased taxes on carbon emissions and international transport to raise 100 billion dollars a year to combat climate change.
You see, they never stop the full court press.
They never stop coming at us.
Here we are, just a couple of days after an election where liberalism has taken it on the chin huge.
And make no mistake, liberalism was rejected, Marxism, socialism, Obamaism, Sololinskiism, it was all rejected throughout much of this country on Tuesday.
And so here's the United Nations, 100 billion dollars in higher taxes to combat climate warning.
And yet, over here from the Associated Press, see if this doesn't surprise you.
People around the world are healthier, richer, and better educated than ever, with most developing countries registering huge gains over the past 40 years.
This according to a UN report released yesterday.
Asia progressed fastest in terms of human development since 1970.
The Chicoms and Indonesia were leading the way.
Some Arab countries, especially Oman, and many Latin American nations showed marked progress as well.
It said in its annual report on the quality of life worldwide, the United Nations development program said such strides often go unnoticed because development traditionally has been measured only by income.
Growth alone does not always lead to human development, said Jenny Klugman, the report's lead author, will try it without growth.
Such studies often go unnoticed.
Correct.
You know why?
Because it would hurt fundraising to put out good news like this.
Have you ever realized, folks, one of the number one reasons that every day is filled with crisis is the people behind the crisis news are fundraisers.
If you put out news, the world's people's healthiest ever, I mean, what's that gonna do for the UN effort on the other side of the building to tax everybody a hundred billion dollars to save the climate?
How can the world's peoples be the healthiest ever if we're destroying the climate?
How can the world's people be healthier and richer and better educated than ever if on the other side of the building a UN says we are destroying the climate?
But growth alone doesn't lead to human development.
We'll try it without that.
So it's always follow the money.
Keep in mind, obesity is contagious among friends.
This is in USA Today by Tim Sloan.
The more obese friends you have, the more likely you are to also become a fat slob, according to a new study.
This confirms previous research that gaining weight may be socially contagious.
The research also shows if nothing changes significantly in the environment and culture in the USA, about 42% of adults will be obese in about 40 years, and then the obesity rate will level off.
Obesity is contagious.
What would that mean?
Quarantine.
Going to start quarantining people, ladies and gentlemen, to contain this rampant contagion.
Sweeping our society.
From the Daily Beast, Fat Studies go to college by Eve Binder, or binder, I'm not sure how she pronounces it.
She is a senior at Yale, currently serves as managing editor for the college blog Ivy Gate.
A handful of colleges now offer classes entirely devoted to the overweight and the obese.
But are they intellectually topical or just feel-good pro-fat propaganda?
I am none making this up.
This is an actual story.
Jack Willand Johnson knows what it's like to be shunned because of her weight in the early 2000s.
Fat activism was edging into existence, and Johnson, a weight studies scholar.
You mean to tell me that parents are paying $25,000 a year to send kids away to school to become weight studies scholars?
I guess it is a natural progression from women's studies, lesbian studies, African American studies to now weight studies.
You know, I went to college for one year.
And I flunked speech in my uh in my first summer.
I did all the speeches.
I just didn't outline them.
Uh, which they should have called, of course, outline 101.
I'd already had my technique for delivering speeches, and it didn't outline them.
I adlibbed them all.
So that I flunked it.
They refused to follow directions.
And then when I second semester of college required ballroom dance.
Taught by a former drill sergeant in a wax, I said, this is not for me.
But while I was there, and that would have been 1970, we had classes for fat women.
It was called feminist studies.
And now they're just now look at it at Yale University.
This is amazing.
Listen to this.
Today it's a different story.
Johnson, who teaches a course on weight and society at George Washington University, currently a professor with 25 students of all heights and widths.
Her fat studies class is one of a handful popping up on campai across the country, teaching students to think about body size critically, politically, and regularly.
Think about body size politically.
But despite such courses popularity among students, well, who wouldn't take a course like this?
How in the world do you flunk this course?
Fat studies?
You parents are paying 25 grand for your kids to go take fat studies at major institutions of higher learning.
Despite such courses popularity among students, critics worry that such classes emphasize bleeding heart politics over intellectual rigor.
How in the world do they get that?
Despite such courses, popularity critics worry such classes emphasize bleeding heart politics.
Fat studies.
As I say, it's an it's a natural progression out there from women's studies, lesbian studies, African American studies, and now fat studies.
The Democrats have decided to uh now this is interesting.
Just two days ago, a full-throated defense of liberty on this program based around this idea that people in Washington, Barack Obama, are going to decide at what level of income people will be exempt from being blamed for all the economic messes created by Democrats like Obama.
The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year.
Anybody making $250,000 a year or more will see their taxes rise to a 39.6% rate.
Anybody below that ostensibly will not see their taxes rise, although that's a lie, they will.
Everybody's taxes are going to go up.
Nobody's taxes will be cut.
And now, from the politico, an income of $250,000 a year is dead as the dividing line for distinguishing the middle class in extending the Bush tax cuts, the centerpiece issue of the upcoming lame duck session of Congress.
This, according to nameless Democrat aides.
Instead, negotiations will begin around a threshold.
And again, this is important, 500,000 a year to one million a year.
President Obama said this week that he would make it a new push to protect the middle class from the tax cuts scheduled expiration at the end of the year.
The new figures, remember now we're talking 500,000 a year or one million dollars a year.
The new figures mean a broader swath of Americans would be considered middle class during the negotiations.
So in the midst of all of this, they're just going to proclaim that the middle class has grown.
And that now the middle class extends to incomes all the way up to a million dollars a year.
Do you see the folly of this?
See how irrelevant all of this is?
The middle class, all this is is Obama and the Democrats responding to having lost the election and knowing full well that if these tax cuts expire, there's no prayer, there's no hope of any economic rebound.
But now they have to cast it in political terms, and all of a sudden, just for the stroke of a pen or the waving of a magic wand, the middle class is now defined for the purposes of this legislation's anybody making up to a million dollars a year.
I remember back in 1984 when Walter F. Mondole was promising to raise taxes in the presidential campaign.
$60,000 a year was rich.
If you made $60,000 a year or more, you were going to get soaked.
You were responsible for all the problems that occurred.
And now it's a million.
Anybody over a million dollars is the one gonna get punished.
You are to blame for the economic malaise that we are in.
And you are gonna have to pay a higher cost for it.
Arbitrarily.
In an absolute total blow to any liberty or freedom.
Arbitra, a bunch of people who have no knowledge, the most unqualified guy in the room, whatever room he walks into, a guy who's never met a payroll, doesn't know the first thing about the private sector, is now sitting there saying, you know what?
I'm gonna say little class now, million dollars.
Whereas last week, rich was 250,000 or above.
Now middle class is one million.
A higher threshold is more inclusive.
It doesn't make an enemy out of households that may be slightly above 250,000, but are still firmly in the middle class.
This, according to a senior Hill aid.
It also simplifies the contrast message by making it clear what Republicans are fighting for, a tax cut that is literally for millionaires.
So you see, it's all still about politics.
The Democrats, okay, fine, you want to exempt people from the tax increase, fine.
We'll go ahead and up to a million dollars so they can say the Republicans fought to protect millionaires.
That's what they want to be able to get away with saying.
Now, here's the point.
This is where the Democrats have stepped in it, and you can you can put a bag of manure in front of them and eventually will step in it.
The Democrats from Obama on down have always said they're the guys looking out for the middle class.
These are the guys making sure the middle class grows and doesn't take it on the chin.
And now the Democrats are admit they want to tax the middle class so much so the middle class is going to be defined as anybody making up to a million dollars a year.
So the middle class is identified here by accident, I guess, by the Democrats, as a a target.
More self-identified gay voters chose the GOP in the midterm elections than in previously recorded totals.
This is according to CNN exit polls.
Thirty-one percent of self-identified gay voters cast their ballots for Republicans on Tuesday.
Four percentage points more than in 2008, according to the exit polls then.
In 2006, 24% of gay voters chose the GOP.
In 2004, it was twenty-three percent.
So the um the percentage of gays voting Republican is increasing.
You look at this, more women are voting Republican.
More men are voting Republican, and now more gays are voting Republican.
More Hispanics are voting Republican.
The only group where we're not seeing any significant shift from Democrat to Republican is African Americans.
All right to the audio sound bites.
Uh, President, this morning in Washington talking about the jobs report.
I am open to any idea, any proposal, any way we can get the economy growing faster so the people who need work can find it faster.
This includes tax breaks for small businesses, like deferring taxes on new equipment so that they've got an incentive to expand and hire, as well as tax cuts to make it cheaper for entrepreneurs to start companies.
This includes building new infrastructure from high-speed trains to high-speed internet so that our economy can run faster and smarter.
It includes promoting research and innovation and creating incentives in gross sectors like the clean energy economy.
And it certainly includes keeping tax rates low for middle class families.
So here's Obama saying he's open to any idea to get the economy growing faster, except of course any ideas that actually work.
I mean, this this is all gobbledygook, deferring taxes on new equipment so they can get an incentive to expand and hire.
They want customers.
They don't want to borrow money.
They need customers, they need people working.
Small business needs customers.
They need sales.
They need people with jobs and income to spend.
Tax cuts to make it cheaper for entrepreneurs to start.
What?
Tax cuts.
Nobody is proposing a tax cut anywhere, especially not the Democrats.
Building new infrastructure.
We're going to have a tax cut so business can build new infrastructure.
High speed trains to high speed internet.
We're going to have tax cuts so that businesses can build high speed trains.
High speed internet.
Research and innovation.
This is sophistry.
This is idiocy, plain and simple, and it's totally irrelevant.
Now I want to go back.
I'm going to take a break here.
We come back.
I want to remind because all of a sudden this compromise talk is reaching a it's taking a new direction.
And I want to remind you what I said about all this earlier this week and point out some examples of what I meant when I said it's the losers who compromise, not the winners.
Be right back.
Say, folks, have you ever noticed something?
I mean, we're talking about fat studies here and lesbian studies and all this stuff.
We all know that fat studies is simply a new avenue to teach liberalism.
You want to start getting to politics of fat.
I mean, it's just that it's a way to disguise implementing uh liberal indoctrination, fat studies, food justice.
But it's all pointless.
Have you ever noticed that feminist studies do not make women any more feminine than black studies make people more black?
Is it something that's amazed me for as long as I've been studying higher education?
Feminist studies, and I haven't noticed any increased femininity out there.
Black studies doesn't seem to make people blacker.
And now fat studies.
What's the objective here to make more people fat?
Explain it away.
Anyway, here, oh, check this email.
Dear Rush, it's your fault we didn't win the Senate and win bigger elsewhere because you wasted so much time talking football.
If you took your position more seriously, we could have won big.
I kid you, I'm not even gonna Yeah, his name's here.
I'm not even gonna embarrass him by putting his name.
You'd be surprised this is not a minority opinion.
No, no, I kid you not.
You would not believe the number of emails I've received all week.
It was my fault we didn't win the Senate if I had spent less time talking football and all this other stuff, the golf channel, a Haney Project, if I spent less time talking about that, spent more time talking about the issues than we would have won the Senate.
I I I kid you not.
This is why I always say, if I didn't have the the strong sense of self that I've got, if I were totally dependent on what people think of me.
To be happy, I would be a basket case, and I would have been a basket case for years.
Here is going back in time, what I said on this program yesterday about compromise.
What is this obsession that we, the winners have to compromise with the losers?
When did that happen?
Let's go back to World War II.
It's MacArthur and the Japanese on the USS Missouri.
Now the last time I looked, the conditions of surrender were offered to the Japanese, and they had to sign it, and that was it.
I don't think MacArthur asked the Japanese what we, the United States had to do.
Where was the compromise with the Japanese?
Where was the compromise with the Germans in World War II?
Mm.
Limbaugh, Mr. Limbor, you're comparing the Democrat Party to the Japanese and the access powers in World War II.
What if I am?
Where's the compromise we did give the Russians Eastern Europe?
We compromised with the Russians after World War II.
And what do we get?
A Cold War and starvation and mass murder.
So yeah, we're not interested in compromising with left.
And as winners, you don't compromise with losers.
It's the other way around.
State controlled media is just depressed and angry.
They can't handle the fact they're gonna have to deal with the Tea Party now.
Here's a media montage on compromise.
The American people want bipartisan compromise.
It appears confrontation will Trump compromise.
There's no compromise.
Compromise?
That's a dirty word.
Doesn't seem like a lot of room for compromise.
To compromise.
I'm not gonna compromise.
A tactic the Tea Party hates.
Compromise.
Now, they're so upset about this because these people in their minds never lose.
They've lost the election, but they want to try to enforce and pressure the winners inside the beltway to compromise with the losers so that they will not be criticized, so that we'll love you so that we'll write nice things about you in our newspapers and our network news anchors and nobody watches will also say good things about you.
I have said that there will be gridlock and that gridlock is good, especially now.
Gridlock, when you have an administration hellbent on destroying the nation's economy.
Nothing better in the world in stopping that.
If gridlock is the way you do it, fine and dandy.
And now people, you know, people respond to me without mentioning my name.
There are news columns, articles all over the place today about how gridlock is bad.
Gridlock is bad, and not compromising is bad.
And I know these people are reacting to me.
But they don't mention my name.
And others deciding there have been times where losers and winners have compromised.
I'll give you an example.
In 1980, Rinaldo's Magnus wiped the floor with Jimmy Carter.
At the end of the 1980 presidential election, Ronaldus Magnus and the Republicans had the White House, but they did not have Congress.
And Ronaldus Magnus did not have a media.
There was no conservative media.
He had ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, you name it, he had no.
He had National Review.
National Review was the only media publication that was at all oriented towards supporting Ronaldus Magnus.
And yet, Ronaldus Magnus secured massive income tax rate reductions across the board.
The top marginal rate when Ronaldus Magnus took office was 70%, folks.
When he left office, the top marginal rate was 28%.
Ronaldus Magnus did this alone.
Now who compromised?
Who compromised to make this Ronaldus Magnus won in a 49-state landslide?
Tip O'Neill was the speaker of the House.
And every day Tip O'Neill was insulting Ronaldus Magnus as a dunce, amiable, but nevertheless a dunce.
The Republicans were talking about what a stupid idiot Reagan was.
And yet one succeeded in an initial round of major tax cuts.
Who compromised?
Tip O'Neill and the Democrats compromised.
And what were they?
They were the losers.
In terms of presidential politics, they had lost.
Jimmy Carter lost.
They might have won reelection in the House in the Senate, and they might have controlled both, but who comp Reagan didn't compromise on anything.
He was the winner.
The people who had a majority in the House against him.
Now that kind of compromise we're all for.
Not against that at all, folks.
Okay, first hour is uh Fini.
Total La Completa.
In the can.
Well, we've got two more straight ahead, my friends.
Take a brief time out here.
Go to bathroom, go in and grab a big Mac, whatever.
▲
Export Selection