All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:23
November 12, 2010, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Obama's economic view rejected on world stage.
Obama's economic view rejected on American stage.
Obama's economic view is rejected everywhere but Moscow.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
It's a huge career risk.
We turn over the content of the program to lovable but nevertheless rank amateurs, not highly trained broadcast specialists.
And whatever you want to talk about on Friday is uh is fine and dandy.
So we'll see.
If you if you I've got a lot of people this week telling me, well, objecting to various things I've done the way I've done.
If this is your opportunity then to do the program the way you think uh it should be done.
Yeah, I I have I have said in the past that presidents don't go to summits unless they have deals already in place.
Uh how could this happen?
Well, we're dealing with an entirely different animal.
We're dealing here with a narcissist type ego who thinks still just by showing up, he's gonna get what he wants.
Honest I mean, honest to Pete here, folks.
Look, I have been doing some serious thinking about where we are in this moment here after the uh after the election.
Especially since this deficit commission panel report has come out.
It has focused some thinking, focused my my view on where we are, and if we're serious about returning this nation to its rightful owners, i.e.
those who believe in liberty and freedom, we have a mountainous project ahead of us.
And it really became clear as I went through all of the mishmash, the details of the deficit commission panel.
As I said yes, the whole thing should be ignored.
All it does is cement everything that's wrong in place, and that is the premise.
For example, uh, if we're really serious, and we must be, if we are really serious about reducing the size of government, we can't we can't accept the notion well whatever was passed in the past is permanent and can't be removed.
And that we can only tinker around the margins.
Well, Russia can't do anything about social security.
I mean, it's there, it's people expecting it's people their own money.
That attitude is prevalent, and we're never gonna really get to the meat of the problem.
If if you rush, you can't really cut the National Education Association of teachers' unions to go crazy.
Okay, if we can't, then we're forever going to be piddling around the margins on this and never really get to the crux of what is wrong.
And we're up against people who use government to create loyalty via pressure groups, constituencies, and this is gonna have to be addressed too.
It's not just a uh an important fiscal matter, it's it's a matter of re-establishing the republic.
The country was never set up, it was never envisioned to have one political party use the public trough as uh as significantly as the Democrat Party has to cement itself in permanent power.
I mean, the country was not set up for the Democrat Party to use federal tax revenues to buy off unions, to pay union pensions and all this, to buy car companies.
That's not what this country was founded to do.
We cannot keep funding public sector union campaign war chests.
We we are allowing tax revenues, income tax revenues to pay for the campaign war chests of unions and other groups.
And on the other hand, we're trying to slash government.
But in the process, we are funding, we are paying our our opponents.
We're paying unions, we are funding their operations, and all these other left-wing special interest groups.
Now being serious about reducing the size of government is going to be a mammoth task that nobody is really even talking about now.
And I'm not trying to be negative.
I'm trying to be, in fact, exactly the opposite.
Now, Paul Ryan, I'm happy as I can be that Paul Ryan and people like him are working on the numbers.
And that is crucial.
But there are broader issues than just the numbers.
Strategies that have to be conceived relating to reasserting the Constitution.
And chief among them, we have to we have to end the whole notion of tax dollars being redistributed to left-wing public interest groups.
Unions, acorn, this kind of thing.
If we don't do that, we're never going to really get to the heart of the matter.
We are funding.
These people are 20% of our population.
In any poll you look at, self-identified, but they are made to look more prominent because of where they are.
They are in the media, they are in education, they're in academia, and they are propagandizing the youths of this country.
From high school, junior high, uh grade school on.
We've all heard horror stories.
Kids come home from school and hear what their teachers are teaching them.
If people are afraid to go to school and do anything about it, because it might affect the grade.
Don't want to cause any trouble, don't want to don't want to make any waves and so forth.
Meanwhile, kids aren't being taught, they're being propagandized.
They're being indoctrinated.
And that's being done with your own tax dollars.
And the solution to it, many people say, okay, I want to get my kid out of the public education since I want to go to private schools.
And guess who objects to that?
The very people who run the public schools, the government, the unions.
Evidence of this we've we tend to forget, but there was a uh a voucher program of sorts in Washington, right when Obama was immaculated, and it was aimed at low-income poor minority students being allowed to attend private schools, the likes of which Obama's kids go to.
And El Gore's kids went to, and Chelsea Clinton went to.
And it was working.
The test scores, the results of these uh urban kids were going through the roof.
And the education was being paid for via philanthropy.
Obama's immaculated and cancels the program.
It wasn't about education.
It was about protecting his union buddies.
And we all know this.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
But if we're going to be serious about slashing government and reducing its size and getting it out of people's lives, this is what we're going to have to attack, not the deficit commission panel and their ideas.
I mean, that's that's just more of the same.
As I said yesterday, that this draft report, I don't care if the commissioners went out and did it without the knowledge of the other participants on the committee.
I don't care if they f if they did it to float a trial balloon.
I don't care.
The point is it's nothing different than what's already in place now, just with different numbers.
It accepts every premise that has been established that has built government into the Leviathan that it is.
So I want to talk about this in some detail today while melding all of that in with your exciting phone calls on open line Friday, plus juicy items in our audio soundbite roster today.
I mean, I you know that the the opening of yesterday's program where we quoted, we played audio soundbites, Martin Frost, Democrat, claiming that the race between Hoyer and Jim Clyburn for the number two leadership post in the House is all about a car and a driver and so forth.
Well, if you read the media today, you would think I'm the one that said that because they are so ticked off over driving Miss Nancy.
There's a website out there talking points memo that even for limbo, this was just beyond the PL.
Why can't we?
This is a outrageous.
I didn't do anything but react to what the Democrats are doing and make a little humor out of it.
Go Kleiburn instead of being in the back of the bus, let him drive Nancy Pelosi around if that's what leadership is about in the Democrat Party.
Perks, a car and the driver, given the car, let him drive it, Pelosi in the back, driving Miss Nancy.
I knew it was going to irritate them, and it did.
They knew it was going to irritate them, and they let it irritate them.
But now you would think that I'm the one who said, not Martin Frost, I'm the one who said that this is all about perks, a car to driver.
Am I bothered by it?
No, folks, it's a part and parcel of the way things are.
I actually I actually love it.
California.
We've been talking about California.
Next on their hit list is circumcision.
They've actually, somebody uh has has uh proposed a ballot measure that would ban circumcision throughout the city.
When did I first warn you people about this?
In fact, I when this program was aired exclusively in Sacramento in 1980 uh eighty-four through eighty-seven, I first heard of an outfit called No Circ, headquartered in San Francisco, the national organization of circumcision information resource centers.
And their idea was to stamp out circumcision.
And I wondered how does, you know, and they quoted they got some guy leads the group, president of no circumstances.
I wondered this guy's a little kid, you know, 10 or 11 years old.
The adults say, Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?
Well, you know what?
I really want to have uh organization to a women ain't circumcision dead.
Really?
How do you end up running such an organization?
Well, here it is, that's maybe 85.
We're 25 years later, and they this is an illustration of how they get an idea, and it doesn't ever go away.
And now it's come to the full circle, if you will.
Well, the ballot initiative in San Francisco.
And since the global warming fraud's dying out, we got a new one, global dimming.
I kid you not, this is from the UK Sun newspaper, Global Dimming.
Uh, all the soot and pollution in the air is keeping sunlight from getting through, primarily in India and uh and China.
And this is, of course, is going to exacerbate global warming because all this soot is trapping the heat that's already being trapped.
Well, it does reflect the heat that some teat doesn't get in, some heat does get in.
It's all a hoax.
You know, it's all to perpetrate and the notion, and here is what it really is all about.
Uh Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations environment program, will call for action at a conference this month in Cancun, Mexico.
Translation, they're gonna call for a tax increase on the United States.
And this is just the latest vehicle uh to push that notion.
And now Obama.
Obama says he's not caving on tax cuts.
He's thrown Axelrod under the bus.
And nobody can make head nor tails out of this.
Nobody knows what the real position is.
Axelrod tells the Huffing and Puffington Post, well, we got to deal with reality as we find it.
And we want these tax cuts for the middle class, or these dastardly Republicans are only gonna do that if uh if they get to continuation of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
But we're not gonna do it permanently.
We're just gonna do a temporary extension.
Obama says, no, no, no, no.
He declared today that his number one priority is preserving tax cuts for the middle class and sharply denied that comments by Axelrod suggest his administration's about to cave into Republicans who also want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Obama said, yeah, I'm gonna study those uh carefully.
I'm gonna consult widely and see what we can do on the on the spending side to make a dent and a deficit.
Well, that's comforting to study it, probably have more breakout sessions.
So meanwhile, the the there's an undertone, there's an undercurrent throughout the Democrat Party.
This guy is gonna kill them, finish them off as a party.
Larry Saboteau has a column today about how Obama is uh is not only is he gonna be a one-term president, that he's one half of one term president, that he's already the biggest lame duck president that we have ever had, that there's no hope.
Pelosi is saying Obama's gonna have to be perfect to be reelected in 2012.
So as you see, oh, and Las Vegas casinos are the last bastion of smokers, this the New York Times.
That means that there's now a bullseye on casinos in Las Vegas.
Because you can, if you go to casino, you will see people smoking cigarettes and cigars.
And you know what's interesting about it?
I never see anybody complain.
Nobody in the casinos, I'm sure they do, I just haven't seen it.
Nobody makes a big to-do about it.
I'm sure there's some private complaints.
But the people who complain are told will go somewhere else.
Which is the way it ought to be.
Speaking in a strictly liberty sense.
So anyway, lots to do here today on Open Line Friday.
Some of you think we take the day off, sort of, and kick back and sort of mail it in on front.
Not true.
Snerdley might, but I don't.
Back after the...
He has the most powerful on Friday than on the other day.
Rush on the EIB Network.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Thursday suggested that Representative Jim Clyburn, the highest ranking African American in Congress, serve as chauffeur to Nancy Pelosi in the event he fails to win the race for House Minority whip.
Clyburn's worried about not having the perk of a big office, a driver and so forth, Limbaugh said.
Well, the way this can all be worked out, Clyburn's new position, driving Miss Nancy.
He gets to keep the car, he gets to go everywhere she goes, parties, everything else.
He's not in the back of the bus, he's in the driver's seat.
She's in the back of the car being chauffeured.
Solved problem.
Now, if you didn't know anything but this, you would read the story and think that I originated all of this.
You would think that I started talking about the fact that Kleburn's upset he doesn't have a car, won't have a driver, and won't have perks.
My point here is that the Democrats do not want to give the keys of the car to Kleiburn.
They're all upset the Republicans had the keys to the car, they drove it into Bush.
Kleibern now wants to be number two in the House.
Steny Hoyer, rich white guy, doesn't want him to have it.
Once again, black guy takes it on the chin, Democrat Party.
They don't want to give Kleiburn the keys.
They want him to get in the back seat.
I'm the one trying to put him in the front seat.
But here's how it all got started.
I didn't make, I mean, I just reacted to this that aired on uh MSNBC yesterday morning.
Here's the thing.
The top two leadership positions get a car, a driver, they get more staff, they get security, they get an office in the Capitol.
When it was the three in the majority, did Clyburn also have all that.
When you're in the minority, caucus chair doesn't carry any of the stroke or the perks that it carries, even in the majority.
Caucus chair doesn't care any of so uh this is Martin Frost.
A former Democrat member of Congress, a former leader.
Uh, he's now a commentator, he's from Texas, and he's the one that pointed out the top two leadership positions get a car, a driver, they get more staff, they get security, they get an office in the Capitol.
I didn't say it.
Martin Frost did.
So anyway, I just wanted to illustrate once again how all of this uh takes place, and how all of this happens.
Yeah, I'm I also you remember we told you this.
This is back in April of 2009.
Story from Pravda.
American capitalism gone with a whimper.
It must be said that like the breaking of a great damn, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple.
Excuse me, my dear reader, I mean people.
This is Pravda.
Communist Party newspaper talking about how Obama was destroying American capitalism in April of 2009.
We're not the only ones who noticed it.
For the last 75 years, ladies and gentlemen, the Democrat Party has simply used the federal budget to buy patronage jobs for its political machine to redistribute tax dollars to its political machine, and to stock the government and the bureaucracy with its own like-minded people.
And now we've gotten to the point where bureaucracies can simply issue edicts without having to go through Congress.
That can affect the way you live, what you can do with your own property.
All of this is going to have to be dealt with if we are serious.
Look at this story from near to my adopted hometown, Sacramento, California, Denaire, California, 13-year-old Cody Alicia, rides with an American flag on the back of his bicycle.
13 years old.
He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans like his own grandfather Robert.
He's had the flag on his bike for two months, but this past Monday he was asked to take the flag off the bicycle.
A screw official at Daener Middle School told a kid that some students had been complaining about the flag.
And so it was no longer allowed on scruel property.
The 13-year-old kid said, in this country we're supposed to be free.
I should be able to wave my flag wherever I want to, and they're telling me I can't.
Cody's grandfather says the scrual was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the American flag.
He feels if there was really a problem, it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans Week.
Racial tensions or uprisings because of the American flag?
This is what a school administrator in California said.
Who are they afraid is going to rise up?
What racial tensions are they talking about?
Are they are they worried about offending some illegal aliens?
Is it African Americans?
I mean, aren't we told illegal aliens love America as much or even more than U.S. citizens do?
No action should be taken.
We don't want any repercussions, said uh Roger.
We just want Cody to be proud of what he's doing.
I don't know who Roger is in this story, but what repercussions is he afraid of?
I mean, this is the kind of thing that we laugh at, we hear this, and we get temporarily outraged by it.
But you have here a kid being told he can't even put the U.S. flag, the American flag on the back of his bicycle because it's going to offend somebody.
Why is it that the offended always win?
I don't care who they are, the offended always win.
Whatever somebody says offends them, whoever the person doing the offending is has to stop it.
I remember the good old days, folks, and they weren't that long ago.
I was uh dining one evening at the famous 21 club in New York.
Back in the good old days when culture and refinement were on full display.
And while dining afterwards you could light up a great cigar at your dinner table and consume your postprendial beverage.
And I was doing so one night.
And a guy next to me called a mater D over.
You've got to get him to put that out.
The mater D said, sir, if you don't like it, we can move you to a different part of the restaurant.
Oh, that offends me.
Well, if it offends you, we'll take you some other part of the restaurant.
Now, of course, those days are gone.
Um, you can't even smoke outside.
Cigarette cigars or what have you.
Principal said, by the way, in his Cody Alicia case, our Hispanic, you know, kids they'll bring their Mexican flags, they'll display it, then of course the kids would do the American flag situation.
It does cause kind of a racial tension that we really don't want to have to deal with here at school.
What do you mean?
How does he have a job?
It's California.
What do you mean how does he have a job?
This is this guy is considered enlightened.
This guy is preventing racial tensions.
The very appearance of the American flag produces racial tensions.
This is where we are.
This is the kind of stuff.
Look at this is not an isolated incident.
This we've chronicled this kind of stuff for you for the entire 23 years of this program.
Let me get into some of this in detail to give you an idea what I'm talking about.
Since the New Deal.
Since the New Deal, we have operated from the premise that whatever is in place stays.
But we'll work around the edges.
We'll try to uh streamline it, make it more efficient on the margins.
If we are serious about reducing the size of government and returning the whole concept of freedom and liberty as founded, we need to go after the foundations of the left.
We need to explain to the American people why they are destructive, why they are dangerous, why they spread poverty, why they spread illiteracy, how they destroy the American family.
I do it all the time.
We talk about a welfare program, don't care what it is.
I've railed a couple of times this week about the very fact that all of these supposed programs of compassion just bug me to no end because they destroy.
They destroy humanity, they destroy people's dreams, they take away their initiative, creating this dependency all for the sake of one party's political power under the guise of helping people, when in fact it's destructive.
Spread poverty.
They spread illiteracy, they dumb people down on purpose.
This is the kind of thing that's going to have to be attacked.
This is not a time since we've won the election, this is not a time to pull back on engaging the public.
Who is in charge?
Is anybody who is in charge of breaking up the NEA?
Who's in charge of breaking up the federal unions?
Who is in charge of digging into the bureaucracy and slashing it?
Who's in charge of developing a strategy for stopping the confirmation of liberal activists to the court?
Who is in charge of eliminating the Internal Revenue Code and making the case for a flat tax or fair tax?
Is there anybody on our side doing any of this?
You, the American people are way ahead of the politicians on all this.
This is what you are expecting.
I will bet a dollar to a donut that many of you were expecting this kind of plan to be in place and implemented shortly after the election.
I I can I can quote you some of my own friends, send me emails.
All right, Rush, tell me this is what they're gonna do, and they had a laundry list.
And I wrote back, I said, I'm not aware that any of this is going to be undertaken.
So you are expecting this kind of thing, whether you're Tea Party or not.
The victory on Tuesday, November 2nd, this is what it means to you.
Not just sit there and say, okay, uh, we won, you lost, and uh we'll we'll we'll tinker around the margins here, we'll we'll talk about the uh retirement age of social security.
Uh that's not what you're talking about.
That's not what you are expecting.
And if we allow the mission to be defined too narrowly, and then get bogged down in the weeds, and I'll give you an example of that is earmarks.
Earmarks is getting far more attention than it deserves.
Mere earmarks were one of McCain's mantras.
I mean, fine if you can get rid of them, get rid of them.
But it's not going to do a damn thing to cut the size of government, to cut entitlements, to comply with the Constitution.
Uh getting rid of earmarks distracts our attention.
Why do you think Obama is so much in favor of the debate on earmarks and banning earmarks?
They're just one part of what we have to deal with here.
I don't think we should gear up all of our political capital to fight earmarks, which amounts to what, a total of 15 billion dollars.
Instead of focusing most of our efforts and resources on an education campaign at the vast array of issues and programs that really are dragging down the nation.
I said the other day that one of the bad things about earmarks is that they are used as bribes, that in a sense they're anti democratic, and that we would not have had Obamacare without them.
That corn has cornhosker kickback and the Louisiana purchase and all that.
But looked at another way, which I was forced to do, looked at another way.
Ask yourself this question.
Why is it legitimate for a federal agency?
And you pick it, EPA, fish and game, fish and fish and wildlife, whatever.
You pick it at federal bureaucracy.
Why is it legitimate for a federal agency to issue regulations that deny me the use of my property rights?
Why is it legitimate for one of these federal agencies to impose costs or even create programs outside of Congress?
But when an elected congressman or senator uses the legislative process to do the same thing, that's illegitimate.
My point is that earmarks, the result of earmarks are happening all the time from bureaucracies, EPA, these mandates that come down to fish and wildlife service, how you can and can't use this area of a national park where you can and can't go in a national park or what kind of light bulb you're going to use.
And I mean, some people raise a little hell about it, but not much.
But when an elected official does the same thing via the legislative process, all hell breaks loose.
Now don't misunderstand me.
I'm just saying earmarks are a symbol.
But reforming and getting rid of earmarks is not going to substantively reduce the size of government at all.
The federal bureaucracy, I don't know how many people understand this.
Federal bureaucracy is issuing grants for tens of billions of dollars to do all kinds of things.
Look at what comes out of the National Endowment for the Arts.
They're issuing grant money to left-wing liberal wackos to do whatever in the term in the name of art and all it is is moral corruption, perversion.
So why should a senator or congressman who can be thrown out by the voters not be able to do so and let his record stand or fall at the ballot box?
You're going to be consistent about all of this.
I don't don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying if it's okay for a bureaucracy to do it, it's okay for a congressman to do it.
That's that's and I don't agree with this.
I'm just illustrating a point.
The issue is who decides and how.
Because whether it's earmarks or whether it's the legislative process or whether it comes from a bureaucracy, the fact of the matter is it still happens.
And the whole argument on earmarks has now become mythical.
So maybe I'm wasting my time even with the counterpoint here.
I just don't think we should be distracted by it.
It's symbolic.
There's a lot more to go after than earmarks.
And I just think the left would love it if we spend all of our times on it.
I think the left will go nuts.
I think Obama is crazy to love for a debate on earmarks.
And while we're debating earmarks, they go out and they continue to steal the country.
Look at his czars, all these unelected people.
Don't know what they're paid.
Look at the fiat, look at the drilling ban in the Gulf, and look at the look at the fraud and the hoax that that was.
In fact, worse.
They lied in letters and publications about what experts said about the drilling moratorium.
That was a purely political move that cost tens of thousands of jobs.
So the federal government owns 25% of the land mass of the United States.
And it continues to grab more and more of it.
Why?
Where's the guy With the strategy to sell off a lot of that, sell off government buildings, close them down.
Cut the federal bureaucracy by 20%.
Sunset every single independent agency.
Require Congress to reinstitute them and on and on.
You make sure that all of this is done in the light of day so people see how their government is growing.
But right now, institutionalized liberalism is in the government.
And it's it's going to take a serious strategy to weed this stuff out.
And just nibbling around the margins, like the retirement age on social security or cutting defense here and there is playing their game.
I gotta go.
Be back in just a second.
Look, what I'm saying is that we need to be the ones that move the debate.
We need to be the ones that set the terms.
It's totally out of hand.
The federal government Obama ought not be able to dictate one dime's worth of spending.
That has to come from Congress.
The bureaucracy should not be able to dictate behavior.
The bureaucracy, some some agency.
This is what the elected officials of this country are all about.
We don't even make the case that we don't even mess around with debate.
Just do it.
Just suggest a 10% budget cut.
Make them defend all of this rotten stuff.
Make them defend the health care bill.
Send a veto bill up there every week.
Make, you know, cut federal taxes 10% across the board.
Just do it.
Issue a bill to eliminate the IRS to go to a flat tax, a fair tax.
Just do it and make them defend it.
Make them defend the status quo.
Make them defend what it is that's gotten us into this debt.
Make the left defend all of it.
We don't debate them.
It's I mean, it's pedal to the metal time here.
This is what we talked about all leading up to the election.
This is why it mattered.
This is what the Tea Party was all about.
We, the people are way ahead of the politicians on this.
All this talk about compromise, fine and dandy.
Compromise from our positions.
We propose.
We run the House of Representatives.
That's the people's house.
We propose.
What how about a 10% across the board income tax cut?
Just every rate, every bracket right now, cut it by 10%.
Make them defend this debt.
Make them defend all of this corruption.
Make the left defend all of the programs that have gotten us to near bankruptcy.
Make them defend.
Make them come out and say, yes, we believe we ought to be able to take federal tax dollars and give it to the SEIU union thugs.
That's what we think the federal tax we think federal revenues should be used to fund our community organizing groups, acorn.
Make them say this.
But Rush, but Russia, it's so controversial.
What are they going to say about us?
What haven't they said about us?
We're either serious about it or we're not.
But we set the terms of the debate.
Suddenly the Bush tax levels have to be defended by the left.
It's happened there.
They're the ones out there doing the debate on this.
We're the ones that want those tax cuts to continue.
Announce Obama and Axelrod that can't get on the same page.
Make them on defense.
Put them on defense and do it on every issue.
We're showing how it can be done on the tax cut issue.
It can be done on everything.
Let's go for more tax cuts.
Let's cut tax further.
We all know that's what's got to be done to revive this economy.
We can move the ball forward.
Make them defend this stagnation, is all I'm saying.
The public voted for massive change.
They did.
▲
Export Selection