All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:20
January 19, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You was expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right.
99.6% of the time.
We're waiting on the new opinion audit.
It won't be until February.
Uh the opinion auditing firm takes an extended holiday break and just this week got back into action auditing opinions.
So it'll be till February.
I wouldn't expect much of a change.
When you are already, I am documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
You gotta be you gotta be right.
A ridiculous number of times to move it up to 99.7.
Well, we'll see what the uh Sullivan Group says when the new opinion audit comes sometime next month.
Great to have you back, folks.
L Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone.
Happy to have you here, 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com, the House voting on the repeal of Obamacare bill today.
Got a couple of audio sound bites.
We'll delve into some details.
We have a mantra uh uh soundbite here.
A mantra montage of a bunch of Democrats and media types saying repealing Obamacare is discrimination.
Audio soundbite number six.
129 million Americans have pre-existing conditions and could lose their health care coverage if you discriminate.
The gross discrimination upon Americans for decades.
Pre-existing condition discrimination.
Dr. King also taught us the time is always right to do right.
Last March the time was right, and Congress agreed.
Getting rid of these discriminatory practices.
Repeal will allow insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.
Discrimination by insurance companies against the millions of us.
It prohibits discrimination, gives back to insurance companies discrimination.
Eliminating discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Do you want insurance companies to discriminate?
To discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.
I don't think any of us want to live in a country that discriminate against people when it comes to health care.
John Lewis, who was beat upside the head once, who says that I don't think anybody wants us to live in a country that discriminates against people when it comes to health care.
So you see the mantras out there.
This is all discriminatory.
And now, uh ladies and gentlemen, we turn to utter brilliance.
Rare do we have the opportunity to share with you such clarity of thought, such unique insight, such special intelligence.
This is yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives, Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Let's let's hear it for you.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process.
That is what HR2 does, and I rise in opposition to it.
And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.
Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law.
This bill is constitutional and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question must I die?
Must my child die?
Because I am now disallowed from getting insurance.
Well, there you have it.
I mean, that's that's such clarity of thought, such brilliance.
Brightness blinds.
That kind of brilliance from Sheila Jackson Lee.
Repealing Obamacare is unconstitutional and it is discriminatory.
CNN and the media is is launching uh a full salvo on this.
You know, I think Sheila Jackson Lee is a pre existing condition if you want to know the truth.
But that is just me.
Ed Hornik at CNN, Republicans have put the wheels in motion to try to repeal Obama's health care reform law.
CNN breaks down the issue and the effort's future.
First question from the analysis team at CNN, what's behind the push for repeal?
Simple, says CNN.
It's a campaign promise that Republicans are trying to honor.
Uh no.
Mr. Hornik, it's not just a promise.
Republicans are trying to honor.
It's something half the country does not want.
Mr. Hornik, you and CNN can put this in the crosshairs any time you want and try to destroy it.
But when a majority of Americans want it repealed, it's time to admit it is a bad idea.
For as many decades as the Democrats have run things in Washington.
The fact remains the majority of the problems we have on the cultural and economic, domestic economic side are simply the fault of Democrats' policies, pure and simple.
It's time to fix all of this.
And that's what the November election was all about.
And this effort today, the vote to reveal Obamacare is not the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
It is an attempt to fix something that will destroy the U.S. economy.
It is an attempt to fix something that will harm the U.S. health care system.
And the American people know this.
Mr. Hornick writes, during the run-up to the midterm elections, Republicans campaigned heavily on repealing and replacing the law.
They cited the will of the people, noting that voters, especially members of the Tea Party movement, overwhelmingly rejected the Democrats' policies.
After their historic gains in the midterms, Republicans now control the House, hold a large number of seats in the Senate, and they are living up to that promise.
The GOP has been saying that the law as currently written will hamper prospects for long-term economic growth while doing little to slow spiraling medical costs.
House Speaker John Boehner, who used to refer to the bill as a jobs killer, now says that repealing the job-crushing health care law is critical to boosting small business job creation and growing the economy, reflecting sensitivities in the wake of the mass shooting this month in Tucson, Arizona that critically injured a Democrat cow.
Is he yes, dead serious?
This is why Boehner is doing all this.
And the main thrust here is for you to know that Boehner has changed the name of the law.
What are the chances of repeal?
Mr. Hornik asks, and he answers his question with this.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that Republicans may have trouble moving ahead with defunding the law.
The measure includes 106 billion in new spending authorizations that Congress will eventually need to appropriate, according to CBO director Doug Elmendorf.
But 86 billion of those authorizations cover politically sensitive programs that were in existence before the passage of health care reform.
Mr. Hornick's next question, what do Americans think?
50% of all Americans favored repeal, even though only one in six dislikes everything in the bill.
Forty percent oppose such them.
It's 58%, Mr. Hornik.
At any rate, uh we we we've had a year to debate this.
Over one year, and no one can sell us that this is a good idea.
Nobody could sell anybody it's a good idea.
They had to ram this through on Christmas Eve.
They had to ram this through with parliamentary tricks.
They had to ram this through with a bunch of pork, a bunch of earmarks, they had to buy off members of the Senate, members of the House of Representatives.
CNN seems to forget how this steaming pile of garbage was pushed through.
CNN seems to forget this is the one reason, the one reason that the Democrats lost that Senate seat in Massachusetts to Scott Brown.
This Obamacare, the American people were never in favor of it.
Much more than just a campaign promise being fulfilled.
Now, Wall Street Journal, Douglas Holtz Eakin, Joseph Antoson, James Capretta.
Who are these people?
Holtz Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, former director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Antos, the Wilson Taylor Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a former assistant director at CBO.
And Mr. Capretta is A fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former associate director, the Office of Management and Budget.
So they either come from OMB or CBO.
Written well, clear and concise.
Here's a poll quote.
The history of federal entitlements is one of inexorable growth.
Once erected, more and more people get added to the programs.
Obamacare will be no different.
Spending will soar, and the tax increases and spending offsets that were cobbled together to get the bill passed will either wither away or vanish all together.
Repeal is not a budget buster, they conclude.
And this is the previous CBO director.
Repeal is not a budget buster.
Keeping Obamacare is.
Assertions to the contrary are audacious.
The CBO says that repealing the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, would increase the deficit by 230 billion over the coming decade and by a modest amount in the decade after that.
The CBO estimate has become the central defense by health care advocates fighting the upcoming repeal vote in the House.
They might want to rethink their strategy.
A close examination of CBO's work and other evidence undercuts this budget busting argument about repeal and leads to the exact opposite conclusion, which is that repeal is the logical first step toward restoring fiscal sanity.
It doesn't take an analysis.
It doesn't take a survey.
It doesn't take research.
It takes intelligence guided by experience, as these people point out.
The simple history of federal entitlements.
There isn't one that reduced the deficit, quite the opposite.
There isn't one that came in anywhere near to its promised projected cost.
They all cost much more.
There isn't one that has succeeded.
The war on poverty has not eradicated poverty.
The Great Society, all of these Lyndon Johnson programs have not worked.
There isn't a one of them that has worked, depending on how you define worked.
If the objective was to buy votes for Democrats and keep them in power, yeah, it's worked.
If the expressed intended purpose of the legislation is what you want to look at, the results of that, it's an abysmal failure.
Every one of them is.
Federal finances are buckling under the weight of unaffordable entitlement programs.
How often do we hear about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?
They're unsustainable as they are right now.
We're going to add the largest entitlement ever to this, and now we're going to be told it's going to cut the deficit.
And that if we repeal this, in essence, if we don't spend this money, we are going to bust the budget.
This is no different than somebody trying to tell you, if you don't go but you live in a $200,000 house...
If you don't go buy that million dollar house, you are going to blow your whole budget.
But you live in the $200,000 house, your income hasn't changed, but you go out and buy a million dollar house, you're going to have extra cash flow at the end of the month.
It's an insult to anybody's intelligence.
Federal finances are buckling under the weight of unaffordable entitlement programs.
So what is the primary aim of Obamacare?
Open-ended entitlement expansion is the aim to more people at greater expense than any time since the 1960s.
If the Congressional Budget Office is right, 32 million people will be added to the health entitlement rolls at a cost of 938 billion dollars, and that's not even right, that's just what they say, through 2019, and growing faster than the economy or revenues thereafter.
How then does the Obamacare bill magically convert one trillion dollars in new spending into deficit reduction?
Well, it's all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, kind of stuff that put Enron people in jail or drove them to suicide, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.
For starters, the one trillion dollar price is a lowball estimate covering only six, not ten years of subsidies that don't begin until 2014.
You may have forgotten, but we haven't.
In order to get this whole shebang passed, they had this magic figure of a trillion dollars that it could not exceed.
And the reason for that is the Iraq war cost about a trillion dollars, and so they had to keep whatever.
And they used the Iraq war as a reason why we've a wasteful spending.
So the trillion dollars became 900 billion actually became the uh the operative figure.
So to have this thing cost 900 billion dollars needed a gimmick.
Ten years of taxes, six years of benefits.
That's what we've got.
We don't have ten years of benefits.
We've got six years.
We have ten years of taxes.
One trillion dollars, therefore, is a lowball estimate because it only covers six years of subsidies.
The uninsured were clearly less a priority than the deception of making the law look less expensive than it really is over its first ten years.
Over ten years of full implementation, meaning the second ten years of this debacle, the real cost is two point three trillion, not nine hundred thirty-eight billion.
Nine hundred and thirty-eight billion the first ten years, two point three trillion the second ten years.
The difference we're actually going to be spending all the benefits for the entire ten years of the second decade of the program.
So that's all you need to know.
And that this column is filled with much more data and information, but right there is all you need to know.
So it is a lie, it is irresponsibility.
And if anybody in the private sector were trying to do this where shareholders were involved, the very people calling this discrimination unconstitutional, very people who are saying that this is a panacea, very same people claiming how great this is, would be trying to put those private sector people in jail for coming up with a scheme like this.
For defrauding investors and everybody else.
Let me give you one more.
Next up is the Class Act.
That's for Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act.
That provides a new long-term, long-term uh care insurance entitlement.
The Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act hitched a ride on Obamacare for one reason only.
Premiums are collected in the first ten years, but no benefits are provided.
So here's ten years of income to offset no spending.
As an accounting trick.
So therefore, it creates the perception of $70 billion in deficit reduction, but they're not spending any money on, they're just collecting.
In fact, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act is a bailout waiting to happen as it'll attract mainly sick enrollees only in Washington.
Could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used to offset, or as offset to grease the way for another entitlement, which is what this is.
Again, the history of federal entitlements is one of inexorable growth.
Once erected, more and more people get added to the programs, Obamacare no different.
Spending will soar, tax increases and spending offsets that were cobbled together to get the bill passed will wither away or vanish altogether.
The thing is, you know all this.
You knew all this during the debate.
We have been lied to since the first day this whole program has explained to us.
We'll be back after a bit.
And it's back to the phones on the EIB network, El Rush Bow.
We're starting in Bremerton, Washington.
This is John, and it's Grace to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Oh, Russ Lunbaugh, what an honor to speak to you.
Oh, gracious God.
Oh.
Uh, thank you, sir, very much.
Hey Rush.
Um I just wanted to call you.
Hello?
Yeah, I'm here.
Yeah, okay.
Um I'm one of these guys.
I'm one of those guys that I'm up on the slope snowboarding.
Um, I'm on the street skateboarding.
You know, I'm 28, I'm healthy.
There's not much I won't do.
Um I'm not going to get insurance because I'm going to be covered.
Whatever happens to me.
Uh I won't ever need insurance because if something ever does happen to me, I won't have to have.
I mean, they'll cover pre-existing conditions with the new plan, correct?
You mean like when you break your leg or something?
Yeah, or my back or my neck, or you know, maybe something worse.
Well, yeah, that's a pre-existing condition.
Yeah, right.
Pre-existing before you got to the hospital, sure.
Right.
What's what's the important what's the point of insurance then with the new Obama plan?
Well, in the first place, uh, if this thing does survive the light of day, you either will be buying insurance or you're going to get a knock on the door from an IRS agent, and you are going to be paying a penalty or fine.
Now, at first, the fine will be much less than what insurance would cost you.
This is by design.
They want you to not buy the insurance.
They want you to pay the fine instead.
At some point over the next couple of three years, the price of the fine will exceed the cost of insurance.
The law will remain that you have to have insurance.
At that point, you will have to buy it from the government.
If you don't, if you don't, some years down the road, you can go to jail.
Mrs. Pelosi has confirmed that that is in the law.
So don't just rely on the emergency room and your pre-existing condition theory.
You might be in jail, too.
Let me put this in perspective for you, folks.
The Democrats and the media put forth this challenge.
Oh, what are you going to cut?
You say you're going to cut spinning.
What are you going to cut?
What are you going to cut?
And then we hear that the city of Berkeley is going to start paying for chop uh anadictomies.
Sex change operations.
And then what do we want to cut?
Well, I ask you.
What do we want to cut?
How ludicrous is this?
The city of Berkeley is going to start adding sex change operation, paid for.
No, no charge to the uh I can't say recipient.
Yeah, the recipient is an anadicty.
They're not no charge to the recipient here.
You're charged to everybody else.
They say, what are you going to cut?
Where are you going to find all this money to cut?
Charles in Kansas City of Missouri, uh, great to have you.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Yes, I uh make a ditto rush.
Uh great to talk to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
I want to go back to uh much earlier show you were talking about the uh Comcast probably taking over 51% of uh NBC if we was.
Um I I believe you might have missed a valid a very uh important point, and that was uh not only uh do they have to follow these federal regul regulations, but uh they've also have to well pay for it.
They have to buy this, buy this 51% of this company.
And it's kind of like me going out and buying a house and the previous owner telling me, well, by the way, you can't change any of the colors, and there's a bunch of mice living in the house, and you've got to put out uh cheese for them every day uh out of your own pocket.
Wait a minute now.
Where are you getting that?
Where are you from what I reported?
No, I don't report what from what I what I told you, where are you getting that the Comcast can't change NBC?
Well, I'm not saying that they can, but my my point is that they have to follow what the federal regulations are, but not only just follow that, but they still also have to they're they're buying the 51%.
It's it's it's theirs, but yet there's all these regulations put on them by someone else when it's theirs.
Uh just another uh show of uh how uh they want to tell us how we should live and how we should run our our our lives.
Yeah, well, here's here's the uh here's here's the story.
Comcast has been permitted to buy 51% of um of NBC from General Electric.
General Electric getting rid of 51% of NBC Universal.
That's controlling interest.
The regulators said if we let you do this, you are going to have to make available to two and a half million low-income households high-speed internet access for less than $10 a month only to the poor.
Also to the poor, you're going to have to make available personal computers, netbooks, iPads, and other equipment for less than $150.
And then an array of digital literacy opportunities.
Then you must maintain or increase local programming at the 10 NBC and 16 Telemundo TV stations.
And you must increase children's programming, including uh adding 1,500 more on-demand titles through your movie repertoire.
So they are dabbling a little bit there into content, but it doesn't say that they can't do anything to NBC News.
It doesn't say, for example, let me just stir it up a little bit here.
It doesn't say that they can't touch MSNBC.
Doesn't say that at all.
I mean, they have to give away internet service to the poor and computers and netbooks and all that stuff.
Well, like, they know they could they could shut down MSNBC.
They could, they could uh change the programming.
They could they could turn it into shopping channel 14.
They can do anything they want with it.
They could they could certainly, they're not prohibited from trying to get an audience.
NBC has decreed that NBC will not have an audience by virtue of its programming.
Comcast has not been saddled with that corporate decision.
If Comcast wants to get an audience on MSNBC, they're free to try.
That would require significant content change.
It has been well established that they've topped out audience-wise at MSNBC doing what they're doing.
I don't know how they give away this implement the giveaway to the poor.
I frankly don't know that they do.
I just know that it says here they have to, and the fact that somebody says you have to, and that they say, okay, we will, that could satisfy everybody since we live in a perception versus reality world.
So Comcast says, okay, we'll do it.
We'll hand around, uh, we'll we'll make sure we give away high-speed internet access for less than $10 a day to low-income people.
If we're going to define low income as $100,000 or um whatever.
I I don't know.
I don't know that we'll ever know how they're doing this unless they run a PR campaign in a parade of uh people living in in boxcars.
Well, now, Snerdley.
We don't know.
We don't know.
No, we don't yet.
Snerdley is saying, watch what political districts these giveaways end up in.
We don't know that yet.
We don't know that that's been mandated.
We don't know the story that we have here.
Does not say that the low, uh high-speed internet access at low cost or the personal computers or netbooks, other equipment can only go to low-income Democrat districts.
Doesn't say that.
You think that Comcast, now Comcast might do that just to keep the regulators off their back down the line.
Doesn't say they have to.
You might have a whole different attitude about you might you might be wrong about the corporate thinking at Comcast.
Yes, it's a giveaway and it's welfare, but this is a cost of doing business as far as Comcast is concerned.
Let's just keep a sharp, of course it's extortion, but let's just keep a sharp.
I know it's Democratic regime regulators demanding all this.
And so it's probably been stated but not written.
And by the way, these net books are already going to be programmed.
This the startup screen will be the Obama logo.
Who knows?
I'm sure all that stuff.
But let's let's um.
And it's true, Comcast's political donations are almost all to Democrats and Democrat causes.
But I don't know for how many years.
Don't know how much of that Was part of the deal to get this thing approved.
We'll have to wait and see.
Let's wait and see what they do with MSNBC.
It's just one thing.
Let's just wait and see what they do with that.
If I let me tell you this.
My uh history, experience in broadcasting.
Years of experience guided by an above average intelligence.
If I work there, I'd be a little nervous.
I got a new owner coming in.
Just spent Boku bucks, and I work at a losing division.
I work at a loss leader division.
And I know that that network exists because the GE CEO had to pay a price to get all that goodies coming back from Washington to GE.
Now, if I'm Comcast, do I want to keep that gravy tame going?
Am I am I in a business where I want goodies from Washington to keep redounding to my benefit at Comcast?
Okay, I'll keep MSNBC as it is, I'll look the other way and hold my nose.
I'll write it off, I'll use it a loss, or I'll look at it.
Is there something that can be done with this wreck to make it respectable because we at Comcast are respectable, we want to be respectable, and that doesn't count.
So I'm just looking.
I don't know anything.
I'm just using my instincts here.
What would I do if they have me to fix the place?
Oh, I haven't got time here, Snerdley.
Why should I give that away?
Why should I sit here on this program and tell what I would do?
Announce to the world what I would do to fix MSNBC and not get anything for it.
There's no way I'm doing that.
I know exactly how to fix MSNBC.
There's no way that I'm gonna say that on this program.
I'm through doing stuff I don't get paid for.
Those days are long gone.
Obama's up there telling the press corps that China has a very different political system than we do.
Yeah, maybe, but not for long.
Look it, uh folks.
I want to talk about spending here for just a second.
I'm my my patience is wearing out.
I one of the things I find, and it's good this is happening, is I find myself occasionally not saying things because I think so many of you already know it and understand it, uh get it, and I'm I'm always looking to move forward.
But this what would you cut?
Who would you cut?
Who are you gonna cut Medicare?
Gonna cut social security- They don't have to cut any of that to achieve what we want to achieve.
You don't have to cut any of it.
Certainly not at first.
I'll I'll give you the explanation here in just a second.
But you know what my answer would be?
If I were John Boehner, and of course I'm not John Boehner.
If I were John Baylor and I was constantly being peppered by the press corps, when are you gonna cut?
What are you gonna cut?
You know what I would say?
We gotta pass the bill first to find out what's in it.
What do you mean by that?
Well, that's what Pelosi said about health care.
You guys didn't, you were you didn't care a whit about what was in the health care bill.
The Republicans said what's in this thing.
It's 2,000 pages.
Pelosi said, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Everybody, whoa, okay, well, fine.
Republicans have a budget cut bill.
We're not gonna tell you what's in it until we pass it.
How does that feel?
You like doing business that way when the Democrats ran the show on health care.
How about it for spending cuts?
We gotta pass the bill first before we'll tell you, before you can find out.
Let's look at it this way.
We are here, let me just give you a off the top of my head, ballpark list of things to cut.
We're gonna cut Obamacare.
That's gonna save several trillion.
We're gonna cut the EPA, which has had a budget increase of about 130% over the last two years, and the EPA is getting in the way of the private sector.
The EPA now has dictatorial powers over carbon dioxide emissions, and the FDA is getting close to having that kind of power on drugs and the things that they oversee.
So cut the EP, not eliminate here, not just cut it.
We're gonna cut the number of bureaucrats by 20%.
We're gonna cut their salaries to bring them more in line with the private sector.
We're gonna cut government across the board by at least 10%.
We're gonna abolish the FCC.
And the reason we're gonna abolish the FCC is because the FCC's getting into the control of free speech business, and that's not their charter.
We will abolish the Federal Election Commission.
There's nothing more worthless than the FEC.
They deal with complaints after the fact, and if anything a slap on the wrist happens, all the policing power, all the intimidation that they claim to have doesn't intimidate anybody into anything.
Besides that, the FEC seeks to control political free speech.
So you get rid of that.
We'll abolish all of Obama's czars.
They're not even constitutional.
We will abolish stimulus spending and TARP.
We'll sell off 20% or more of the federal land mass that the federal government owns.
Federal government owns about 25% of all the land in the United States.
I'm just getting started.
Imagine what somebody who's familiar with all the ins and outs of the federal government could do.
We could cut the number of government vehicles by 25%.
Cut government office space by 20%.
Don't tell me there aren't places to cut here.
Responsible, reasonable, certainly excessive places to cut.
The biggest savings of all would be getting rid of Obamacare.
Okay.
Cut the EPA, get rid of the FCC, get rid of the F is any number of things.
All you need is the guts to do it.
And I'm going to tell you this: if if if the Republicans would simply announce specifics and then be prepared to deal with the stuck pig reaction that they're going to get, they would win this next election in the biggest landslide there has ever been.
If they would just say they're going to do this stuff, stick to it and start trying right now, they would win in 2012 with the biggest landslide ever.
This is right.
This is exactly what a majority of the American people voted for.
The American people voted against all of this new spending.
They voted against an overpowerful, overinvolved federal bureaucracy.
This is what's bugging the American people.
Everywhere they turn in life, there's a government obstacle that has to be overcome someplace.
Many of them.
Get rid of a few of them, just to start.
Don't get tied down in this where you're going to Social Security, Medicare, all that rug.
They'll try to steer us there, but screw it.
There's any number of places.
Let's get other people in a panic here besides the usual suspects of Social Security recipients.
experience.
Those people aren't getting cost of living increases anyway.
Because the government's not reporting any inflation.
Ha ha ha ha.
So I just know.
To me it's not that tough.
But again, I'm not a politician.
I don't have to get votes, but I still think doing something like this announcing it, stick to it.
And there would be such an overwhelming support, part of the American people.
There'd be opponents and they would be loud and they'd be panicked and there might be blood in the streets.
Who knows?
You gotta you gotta expect that to happen.
I mean, the Democrat Party has led people to believe that their lives are dependent on all of this.
Well, we can't sustain it for crying out a 14 trillion dollars in debt.
I'm I'm only half joking here.
They run around these mealy mouths in the front.
We're gonna cut, where are you gonna cut?
We hear that Berkeley is gonna start paying for aadicty operations.
Really isn't it a budget priority here?
You know, we had a slogan, just say no, right?
Change it.
Just say cut.
Who's next here?
Bill Cincinnati, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Megadetto, Steve Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Um want to nominate you to be the mayor of Littleville.
Um I'm one of few residents.
I'm getting sick and tired rush of the media bombarding us with this is Obama's finest hour.
I mean, especially since they got shellacked at the last election.
Well, speech uh.
Again.
Uh saying that something's Obama's finest hour is not necessarily untrue.
We used to look at the baseline.
It doesn't say this finest hour is great.
You're making the mistake of this Obama's finest hour.
Yeah.
Uh Compared to what?
When they start bankrupting the country, bankrupting with the deaf, destroying the private sector.
We're talking about his finest hour.
What a speech.
Well, when they start comparing them to the ones that Lincoln made.
Obama's world isn't governed by the aggressive use of speeches.
And the uh the the uh the the ruling class, this educated establishment class loves that kind of stuff.
Doesn't get anything done, but they you know, they have their own version of orgasms.
They don't really have orgasms in the ruling class.
I don't want to try to describe what happens, but it's not what they don't they don't deign to get down to that level.
Uh never mind, we're not gonna jip Fox.
I wanted to jip it because uh the the well the Hu Jintao he was speaking and they weren't translating.
They they normally have some translator every couple of words, but Hu Shintao was just going, Baba, jit.
Nobody was translating.
▲
Export Selection