All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 15, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:04
December 15, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
By the way, you know that caller we had a moment ago who want to know where is our read, where is our Pelosi?
You know what he really meant was where are our strategic thinkers?
Where are people who think forward?
Where are people who make plans?
Where are people who have their ideology, have their grand design, and work daily to implement it with long range plans, anticipating obstacles as they go.
We don't have that.
Real fighters, people who have confidence, who are strategic, don't have to be unethical.
That's that's what he meant, and the guy is right.
Now let's take a look at this lame duck.
By the way, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
You you don't for a minute think that any of this lame duck stuff just popped up, do you?
You think the Democrats just decided a couple of days ago to try all this stuff in their lame duck session?
No.
This has been planned even before the election, because they knew they were going to lose.
So they've had a strategy.
They have had a uh a blueprint, if you will, for still implementing before the new Congress is sworn into law, their agenda.
The Democrat leadership planned to do things this way to achieve maximum confusion and maximum accomplishment.
They knew that it would be a hell of a lot easier to slip in all their pork with everything being in chaos.
They knew it'd be easier to get all this done with nobody paying attention.
It's the holidays, everybody wanting to get away from this stuff, people tired of politics, don't want to hear about it anymore.
Santa Claus is coming, the football season and nearing the playoff.
Can't we just forget all?
That's what they're counting on.
They do all this stuff knowing the Republican attitude is going to come on, let's get out of town.
We won.
We we can't wait to get back here in January.
That's what we want to come back here.
We won.
So they drop all this stuff on us when nobody is expecting it.
The problem is, well, one of the problems, many problems can be codified into this one.
Politicians of both parties, but the Democrats really know this.
They really only care what we think of them one day a year, and that's election day.
Every other day of the year, they are concerned about what the media says about them.
And so they position themselves for maximum media support, media attention, media approval, uh, what have you.
So the media gets their attention 364 days a year.
We get it basically one.
How how else could the Democrats pull out a nearly 2,000-page omnibus spending bill out of thin air in a matter of days?
Well, they didn't.
They've been writing this thing for months, in case they did lose.
This is the kind of thinking they have, and it is oriented around the fact that they desperately care about what they believe in.
They desperately care about having what they believe in become law.
However, they have to make it happen.
They don't care what we think of them now.
They couldn't care less.
They won't care about that until two Novembers from now.
From now until then, everything will be about getting done what they really believe in.
Now, our guys will be concerned about what the media says about them every day, and they might be more concerned about that than what we think about them.
This 1,924 pages of the of the of the uh uh what is the continuing resolution, whatever it is, they the the tax bill doesn't even have any of the earmarks.
They're laid out elsewhere.
The earmarks for HUD run to 90 pages.
For health and human services, 98 pages.
There are dozens of these separate categories.
This stuff just didn't get written yesterday.
These people have been planning this, and this is whether he knew it or not.
This is what our caller was talking about.
Where are the people on our side who do this kind of advanced strategic thinking?
Who care more about accomplishing their agenda than anything else?
And really don't even care about the process.
The process is, you know, you deal with that on a day-to-day basis, you manage it in advance as best you can, but you handle the process on a day to day basis.
Other people get bogged down in the process every day.
Follow the rules, do this or that.
These guys, they couldn't care less about the process, other than skewing it to their favor.
Imagine, let me put it this way.
Let's say that the Democrats throughout this past year had tried.
They didn't do a budget strategically.
Why?
They knew that their defeat would be even bigger if they tried to get all this done in the standard budget process, which takes six months.
If all of this that's in this omnibus spending bill was up for debate over six months, none of it would see the light of day, especially given the climate of the people last year or earlier this year, was no part of this.
Okay, so they shelve it.
And they say we're not even going to do a budget.
We're just going to shut it aside.
And they know nobody's going to say anything.
And even if somebody does say anything, so what are they going to do about it?
They're going to lose anyway.
So after they lose, they plan on a lame duck.
They know it's going to happen.
Nobody's going to stop the lame duck.
Not fair, who would do that?
Dump it all in the lame duck, try to get it all done or as much as they can in two weeks.
Anybody stands in the way as an obstructionist, is um wasting the time of the people, what have you.
This is too important not to deal with all of this stuff.
Now they have the added advantage of knowing they're going to have media cheerleaders every step of the way, and that's something our side is never going to happen.
But that doesn't mean we can't have this kind of strategic thinking going on.
Well, the Democrats knew was very simply that after the election, we're going to spend a lot of time patting ourselves on the back and thinking, hey man, we showed them.
Tea Party rah-rah.
We won big time hunk hubbahub.
Meanwhile, they're down in the labyrinth of their dungeon and are putting together all of these plans and they're waiting to spring it on everybody, and Dingy Harry does this yesterday on December 14th, with Congress slated to leave town Friday.
On a Tuesday dumps this stuff when everybody thinks they're getting out of town on Friday.
Now nobody thinks they're getting out of town on Friday.
Now we've got to stay in town to stop Reed.
And stopping read and Pelosi means stopping to debate all this stuff.
That gets the media involved in it.
And all this is going on, and they are convinced that the people don't even want to hear about it.
For crying out loud, we just had the election.
Can't you guys put it aside?
We got other things going on.
We've got our lives to live.
Half of us can't find jobs, so they okay, well, we'll make sure we think you're working on that.
So we'll get we're gonna do the Obama tax cut extension.
And we're gonna extend your unemployment benefits.
So don't worry, you're we'll we got your job search handled.
Oh, okay, fine, have to worry about that, cool.
People forget about it and read dumps his omnibus, and here we go.
They say Jim Dement, wasting time, reading the bill on the floor of the Senate.
How about this?
Actor, poet, musician, performer, rocker.
John Bon Jovi can now add one more title to his impressive resume, White House appointee.
Today, President Obama signed an executive order establishing the White House Council for Community Solutions, and Bon Jovi appears as one of the individuals appointed to the group.
The council, according to the release, the council will provide advice to Obama on the best ways to mobilize citizens, nonprofits, businesses, and government to work more effectively together to solve specific community needs.
These impressive men and women have dedicated their lives and careers to civic engagement and social innovation.
Yeah, that's what I've always thought of when I hear John Bon Jovi's name mentioned.
I've always, when I would somebody says Bon Jovi to me, I've always, yep, dedicated his life to civic engagement and social innovation.
By gosh, that's right.
That's Bon Jovi.
Obama says I commend them for their outstanding contributions to their communities.
And I am confident that they'll serve the American people well in their new roles on the White House Council for Community Solutions.
Community organizers, so Bonjavi is basically been solicited here as a community organizer.
From the stage of his rock concerts, who better and where better to implement the Obama socialist agenda than from a rock icon preaching between tunes, maybe even writing tunes, oriented toward this objective and performing them in concert.
It's Bon Jovi.
Bon Jovi says, Rush, we gotta, we gotta get along that the Tea Party's a rotten thing.
Bon Jovi says so.
He knows.
But Obama putting this thing together, pointing Bon Jovi, that's not a waste of time.
Dement wanting to read the start treaty on the Senate flats.
That's that's a waste of time.
That's making a mockery of national defense.
It's a stunt.
It's a political stunt putting stunts ahead of national security.
Speaking of the media in the Congress, shouldn't shouldn't the Tea Party have been the person of the year?
Time magazine.
No, it's just this guy Zuckerberg, who's been guilted into giving away half of his fortune now by these other rich guys.
So he's agreed to that.
How did how did Zuckerberg change the U.S.?
Hell, folks, everybody knows that Facebook was nowhere until I put up a page.
Nobody cared about Facebook.
Facebook never had any delays till I put up a page.
If you're gonna give Zuckerberg the person of the year, give it to me.
I made Facebook.
Everybody knows this.
But the media does not want us to realize how important a Tea Party's been in our lives.
Because they're they're uh set up for constant ridicule and what have you.
Our friends at Heritage have done some more insert or insightful research into uh all the pork that is in uh Harry Reed's spending bill.
Here's some examples.
$18 million in spending for charities named after Senator Ted Kennedy.
$18 million in spending for charities named after Ted Kennedy.
There's also a Kennedy Education Center, totally funded by this bill in the billions.
I think 10 billion.
$3.5 million in termite research in Louisiana, $2.5 million for a new runway in North Dakota, $300,000 for swine waste management.
There's a bunch of these little $300,000, $500,000, $800,000 projects.
They add up easily to eight to ten billion dollars in earmarks.
10% of the bill is earmarks.
10% of the spending bill is earmarks.
You just, as I've said, you just don't write a 2,000-page bill in a week's time.
This has been long in development.
Talk about strategic thinking.
Now, if here's the here's the key, folks.
If the Senate does not adopt it by Saturday night, this is why the getaway day was Friday.
Reed dumps this yesterday.
If the Senate doesn't adopt this by Saturday night, the government supposedly shuts down due to lack of funding.
So people have been asking Manimba, well, how can we stop it?
How can we stop it?
We call their bluff.
We shut it down.
We won the election.
We shut it down.
Folks, I don't care.
But rush, but rush with the media, the Democrats won't get blamed for it.
I don't care.
We won't be held accountable until November of 2012.
Don't, folks, remember what I just said.
They know that they're not going to be held accountable for anything until November 2012, and we won't be either.
What if there is a shutdown?
It's gonna, it's gonna be short-lived, and the government will get running again, and everything will be hooked.
What would you rather do?
Accept all this as blackmail.
This is pure and simple extortion.
It's blackmail.
So call their bluff.
You know, Reed saying, well, I'm I'm prepared to keep here keep us here until January 4th.
Fine, you can stay, we're leaving.
Session's over.
Whatever doesn't get done, if this stuff isn't adopted, because the current spending bill that we're living under expires on Saturday.
That's why he introduces it yesterday.
Four days here To decide what to do about it.
That's why everybody said, call his bluff, shut it down.
If you want to see all of the details, every one of these little nitpick earmarks.
That will you the government is being held hostage by the Democrats.
That's the way to put this.
You can do a continuing resolution to keep spinning levels until next year.
You could.
You can do a continuing resolution till next February.
You can do one for as long as you want.
You don't have to do one for all of next year.
That's that's my point, Snerdley.
It's exactly right.
Do a CR through the State of the Union show.
Do a CR up until Obama's State of the Union.
We hold the cards here.
If we're willing to shut this thing down, call their bluff.
That's what this means.
Look at Askheritage.org.
That's the website.
You can see all these earmarks, every penny of it, where it's going, all these Democrat plans, and 99% of these earmarks are Democrat earmarks, folks.
99% of them.
Byron York, big story, the Washington Examiner on this today.
Here's Paul in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Sir, hello.
Yeah, good to speak with you, Rush.
Uh earlier in the program, you mentioned that uh some had characterized you as an old fuddy duddy for uh pointing out that uh some unconstitutional provisions are in the so-called Obama tax cut bill.
Well, exactly.
I just saw something on the screen that reinforces it.
The tax bill has just passed the Senate and now heads to the House.
Sorry, that's back asswards.
It starts in the House and goes to the Senate.
But Obama Obama sent Biden over to talk to Mike Mitchell about this, I'm sorry, Mitch McConnell about this, and uh so we're doing things 180 degrees out of phase.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct.
Uh Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says all bills for raising revenues shall originate in the House of Representatives, quote unquote.
Well, we'll find out, I guess, whether the whether the Constitution is in fact the supreme raw law of the land, as it says in Article 6.
Um in addition to all the other outrages that are in the continuing resolution, uh there's one particular outrage that uh hasn't gotten much attention that I'd like to bring up.
What is that?
That should be a deal breaker, and that is the virtual takeover of the U.S. agriculture and food industry in this country, as well as related food supplements, in what has been euphemistically called the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
Okay, this is a piece of legislation that uh was uh originated in the House uh back early last year, went into committee, never got out of committee because there was no support for it, uh, even amongst the Democrat-dominated committees.
And yet, at the last minute, the Senate version of the bill is slipped into this uh continuing resolution, uh literally at the last minute.
It was passed last Wednesday and an hour and a half or so before the bill was voted on, in it comes.
And with party discipline, of course, the Democrats uh uh voted to uh to pass the continuing resolution.
But here's the point not a single Republican voted for the continuing resolution.
All 171 Republicans, and I think there were eight that didn't vote, voted against it, and 35 Democrats voted against the continuing resolution.
So the thing barely passes 212-206 with a a piece of legislation in it that had been sent over from the Senate that couldn't get out of committee in the House, and yet here we've got uh a virtual takeover of agriculture food and food supplements in the country that is now going to become law, and this uh unless this appropriations act is either stopped cold or they strip out uh uh this S510 provision.
So uh uh this is more than an outrage.
It's it's also unconstitutional to get back to another uh unconstitutional fact.
Uh uh again, getting back to revenue, be uh the uh S 510, the uh this takeover of the food uh and agricultural industry uh also contains uh entire sections devoted to collecting fees, all kinds of fees, and that's revenue, and we know from uh uh Article 1, Section 7 that all revenue bills have to originate in the House.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
Now, if the requirement, let me just play this out.
If the requirement to buy health insurance is a tax, as the government's insisting, then the bill's unconstitutional because the Senate does not have the power to lay taxes.
All tax bills must start in the House of Representatives.
So it it's unconstitutional because it is a Senate bill.
All taxes have to originate in the House.
So none of this is constitutional.
None of it.
And on that, we must take another obscene profit timeout.
Hey you, L. Rushbull, we're back.
We really don't negotiate with hostages, do we?
And the Democrats are a bunch of terrorists, and they're holding this country hostage to their silly little plans.
Now, this Food Safety Modernization Act that the caller was talking about.
It even has seven Republican co-sponsors, Lamar Alexander, Judd Gregg, Orin Hatch, usual suspects.
Now the White House, I'm sorry, the House tried to attach the Senate bill to the continuing resolution last week and it failed.
212-205, no Republicans voting for it.
That's what he was talking about.
So yeah, I'm dead serious.
Shut it down.
We run out of money on Saturday.
What alternative is there?
To go with what Harry Reid and the Democrats want and a budget all the way through next year that contains some of this outrageous unconstitutional stuff in it.
John in St. Louis.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Rush, it is a great honor to speak to you.
Megadetto.
Thank you, sir.
You have many fans in St. Louis.
Rush, you mentioned Vogue magazine, Russian edition.
I called Barnes and Noble, they don't carry it.
I call World News, they don't carry it.
Is it possible to pull up the picture of the cover on uh on the internet?
Yes, it's called a Drudge Report.
Drudge.
And uh and it's it's right there.
And the picture of the gymnast mistress is on the cover of Vogsky.
Rush, I'm older than you are.
I hope I die before you do.
The world will change when you're gone, buddy.
We love you, Rush.
Not that old.
Thanks.
Thanks very much for the uh for the call.
Here's Jim in Pittsburgh.
Jim, welcome to the program.
Great to have you here.
Rush, it is indeed an honor from the land of the Steelers.
And um, and I gotta tell you, I'm just uh I'm floored that I finally got through to you.
Um my comment is, you know, I don't know why anyone would be surprised about time's choice for person of the year, because every time freedom makes a comeback, you can leave it to the liberals and the elites to take li rich liberal people and celebrate how they're giving their fortunes away.
So this year you've got Zuckerberg giving his fortune away, um, and we're not having the the Tea Party as a person of the year.
Same thing happened in 2005 when the Iraqi people went to the polls to vote for the first time since the Stone Age, and they put Bono and Bill and Melinda Gates on the cover.
So it's the same old song and dance.
Yeah, uh, that's absolutely a good point.
You know, poor old Zu poor old Zuckerberg guy.
First off, he didn't know how he made billions, and now he's being guilted into giving half of it away, if um if not more.
That's exactly right.
And and you know, the other thing is, when are Republicans and conservatives going to stand up and make the moral argument against taxes?
That's something that it just uh it frustrates me to no end.
You know, it when are we gonna wake up and I know this is rhetorical, but when you know, whose money is it?
And why, you know, what right does a government have to take from my pocket and give it to someone else?
Well, uh that moral argument is made constantly.
And but I'll here, let me let me let me satisfy you.
Uh, in the interests of doing it the way you would like to hear it.
You want to hear the moral argument toward tax cuts and taxes.
The best way to do that would be to call income property.
It is whether it's your money or whether what you've bought with your money, it is your property.
In this country, the way we're structured, on a percentage basis, the more you earn, the less your property rights are.
The more you earn, the more the government, everybody else feels entitled to it.
What if with your money you build a 20,000 square foot house?
Is the neighborhood entitled to 10,000 square feet of it?
Is the town entitled to 60% of your house?
They look at it as though they're entitled to 60% of your income, depending on where you live.
Now, private property rights are determined by how much this government spends.
Property rights, bedrock principle of our country.
And property rights are always in flux because of tax rates.
Tax rates that are determined by earnings success, tax rates that vary according to how poorly the government manages our money.
Do you realize your property rights are directly related to how poorly government runs things?
Look at it this way the government, United States government funds its excesses using escalating tax rates that are determined by their need and our level of achievement.
The United States government funds its excesses by using escalating tax rates that are determined by their need and our level of achievement.
The more we achieve, the more they think they're entitled to.
Your money is as much your property as your house.
If you go out and spend $50,000 on a car, is the government get 25% of your car?
Do your neighbors get 25%?
No, but they get 25% of your money or 50% of your money.
And the more you earn, the more of their money, your money they think that they are entitled to.
Now, because the government is the worst manager of money there is, they have to invent creative rationalizations, i.e., class warfare to take what they need, and there's no end to it.
Government greed requires the force of law because their logic is absurd.
Income levels ought to have no bearing on their right to confiscate private property.
Just because you earn more than somebody else does not automatically should not automatically mean they are entitled to more of it.
Why when it comes to money is that true, but no other asset of yours?
Would you think the government's entitled to 50% of your investment portfolio?
You would have a you'd have a fit.
They already are entitled to the income of that portfolio every year in a percentage basis, capital gains, some of it is straight income.
The fact is, the less an American makes, the more secure his or her income is.
Property rights deserve much better in America.
The more you make, the less secure your property rights are.
Is this good enough for you, sir, on the morality of it all?
Well, he wanted a moral take on taxes.
The more property you have in the form of money, the less right you have to it.
What's just and fair about that?
Private property, money, should not be penalized due to its volume any more than free speech is.
Are you only allowed a certain number of words you can say every year before the government gets to start talking for you?
But the more money you make, the more dollars of yours they claim to be able to take.
Private property is supposed to be fundamental to a free society.
So what is the moral reason to take by force of law based upon volume?
The reason has to do with the disrespect government has for private property.
What is the moral argument for escalating tax rates?
What is the morality?
Where is the morality in a progressive tax system?
Where is it?
That's not a moral argument.
That you don't need it as somebody else does.
That doesn't...
I ask you again then.
You go out and you build a 20,000 square foot house.
Can the government take it, cut it in half, and give 10,000 to somebody else?
Not without compensating you for it.
Yet.
Here's John Adams.
The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the law of God.
This is one of our founders.
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
John Adams.
Now, there's no sliding scale for the law of God, folks.
Those who are the most moral are not required by law to give the most to charity.
They do it by choice.
But there's no religious law, there's no any other morality law that says the more you have, the more you must do away with.
Except in the progressive tax system.
Now it's only a matter of time before cities begin to use means tested fines, issue means tested fines for moving violations and other minor infractions.
In other words, your fine will be based on your income.
You don't think this is going to happen?
Okay, if you find that repugnant, if you don't rush, that'll never happen.
You mean a speeding ticket for me if I make a hundred grand is gonna be twice what somebody who makes 50 grand?
Oh Rush, they can't do that.
Well, they already do it with your income.
What's the difference in a speeding fine?
Don't give me this equal protection under the law.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
When it comes to your property, there is no equal protection under the law.
When your property is money, and I don't know how you can say your money's not your property.
You have to buy something with your money before you technically have property.
Fines are based on income in Europe already.
You think it's not going to come here, it's only a matter of time.
Cities, counties, states plunging themselves into bankruptcy.
That'll be their next rationalization to take money from those who have earned it.
If you earn more, you're going to be fined more.
Why?
Because they need it.
And their need trumps everything.
And their need is based on their incompetence.
Their need is based on their mismanagement.
Their need and their incompetence and their mismanagement is not based one thing on your earning power.
How you've earned your money has no effect on how they manage it.
But you pay for it.
Progressive tax rates are not going to be enough to satisfy this beast.
And then we know that there's a wealth tax being planned.
We know there's a VAT tax.
It's coming.
That's how governments work.
Sliding scale private property rights.
It's only yours until the government wants it or needs it.
And there's no upper limit on this.
That's why all this budget stuff matters.
That's why all this earmark stuff matters.
It is why all this mismanagement matters.
We have got to codify restraints on this monster.
They are the ones incompetent.
They are the greedy ones.
They make us pay for it.
There's always going to be Barack Obama's.
There will always be Harry Reid's.
There will always be Nancy Pelosi's.
Okay, how's that?
Is that okay for um guy says we're not doing enough to talk about morality and taxes.
Is that okay?
Okay, good.
He'll be back.
You know, one of our favorite guest hosts here is the uh lovable curmudgeon, Walter Williams.
And uh Walter Williams loved To recount stories, such as he gave his wife a new vacuum cleaner for Christmas one year.
He gave her a chainsaw for a birthday one year to cut down a tree in the backyard that was getting in the way of his view of the sun.
It might have worked for Walter Williams.
It won't work for the rest of us.
I would not recommend trying it.
Don't try, don't try vacuum cleaner or a washing machine or any of that.
Avoid gifts that can chew through paper.
You don't want to give anybody a little hamster or something or gerbil.
You don't know where they're gonna stop chewing.
The best thing, folks, really, 18 Christmas lights roses in a free glass vase.
It's only 1999 plus shipping from ProFlowers.
Upgrade from 18 to 24 roses.
These are Christmas lights roses, a free ruby vase, free chocolates for just $10 more.
That would be $29.99.
These roses are a great way to send holiday cheer to friends, family, co-workers.
Send it, send a family in advance of your arrival.
Or in case you can't get there, and you really, really want to get there, but you can't get there, send these.
Proflowers delivers anywhere in the U.S. The flowers are guaranteed to stay fresh for at least seven days, and the only way to get Christmas lights roses is from ProFlowers.
800 PRO flowers and mention rush.
But there is even a simpler way.
It's RushProflowers.com, a website dedicated just for you.
800 Proflowers or Rush Proflowers.com today.
The 18 Christmas lights roses, and you can actually see them at the uh at the website.
One one final little note here.
99% of all earmarks in the spending bill were Democrats.
From the Hill.com headline Senate Republican leaders take heat over millions of dollars in earmarks.
Some Republican leaders are taking heat for millions of dollars worth of earmarks they requested in a 1.1 trillion dollar spending package on deck for passage this month.
It's a John Thune and John Cornyn faced a barrage of hostile questions about their earmarks by reporters from NPR, ABC News, and NBC News.
Jonathan Carl ABC said to Corner and Thune, you know, going through this bill, there's earmark after earmark from the both of you, millions of dollars in earmarks for the two of you and from other senators.
How do you have any credibility on this?
Why do you have earmarks?
99% of the earmarks are Democrats.
Journalistic malpractice.
Brief time out.
We'll be back and wrap it up right after this.
I think our journalists are unaware of a little detail.
The uh the Senate GOP, and that would include Thune and Cornen, did vote to give up earmarks in the next Congress.
Two days ago.
They did not vote to give up earmarks in this Congress.
That still doesn't.
Excuse it, but 99% of earmarks are from Democrats.
Why don't you go ask them?
No, we got to focus on the Republicans to make earmarks look like a Republican problem.
When in this case, it's Democrats through and through 100%.
See you tomorrow, my friends.
▲
Export Selection