All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:32
March 29, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program still documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
We aim for the truth and we nail it.
And it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, people that can't handle the truth.
You've got to have courage.
You need courage if you are going to listen to this program, and you need the courage to deal with the truth.
It's our stock in trade.
A telephone number in our remaining hour today, 800-282-2882.
If you want to go the email route, feel free.
The address LRushbow at EIBNet.com.
Wisconsin has stopped withholding union dues as of yesterday.
From the, let's see, this is from the legal insurrection blog, and then there's also a story here from Forbes.com.
The Legislative Reference Bureau published the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Friday.
And as the law provides, the governor is taking the position.
The law is in effect.
And they're howling in Wisconsin.
Well, there's a judge that's put a temporary restraining order.
Yeah, well, a federal judge has claimed Obamacare is unconstitutional, and he's still implementing it.
So Governor Walker has published the bill, and as for now, he has stopped withholding union dues, even though there are more court hearings tomorrow.
Now, this is interesting, folks.
With the law now in effect, paychecks are getting bigger.
Union paychecks in Wisconsin are getting bigger because union dues are not being withheld.
This means that Democrats have become the party arguing for a reduction in state worker paychecks.
Yeah, this is another thing that was absurd anyway, the state forced withholding, or the union forced withholding by the state of union dues.
Now they're not.
You have to pay them on your own.
So if you're a public sector union person, you have to write the check to your union and your paycheck's bigger.
And now, if you win, your paycheck's going to get smaller, all because of your union, the Walker Doctrine in effect, so to speak.
From Forbes.com, in an act of stunning disobedience of a court order, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has decided to ignore the temporary restraining order issued by a hack Wisconsin judge and begin enforcement of the controversial Wisconsin union busting law.
It's not a union busting law.
This is Forbes.
What are they doing here?
Speaking for the governor, Secretary of Administration Mike Hubish, himself a former Republican Speaker of the Assembly, said, it's now my legal responsibility to begin enactment of the law.
Enforcement will take the guise of withholding pension and health benefit contributions from government employee paychecks on April 21st.
Now, about 10 days ago, a judge, Judge Sumey, I think it's how you pronounce it, S-U-M-I, Judge Sumey.
What is she, county judge?
Yeah, judge in the county court, which encompasses the city of Madison, blocked the law from going into effect based on the court's belief that the state senate had violated the state's open meetings law by failing to give the required 24-hour notice.
They didn't have to give notice for reasons that we've already explained.
At any rate, Governor Walker said, heck with it.
So now union dues are no longer being deducted.
They are no longer being withheld.
Wisconsin Democrat Party Chairman Mike Tate, are there any laws that bind Scott Walker and the Republicans?
With the arrogance of the zealot, they act as if they were laws unto themselves.
Ultimately, our Constitution and our courts will protect us from their warped ideologies, but in the meantime, our democracy in Wisconsin is being flayed.
Forbes said this is not the first time that Scott Walker has thumbed his nose at a court order.
In early March, the governor locked the public out of his budget speech where he revealed his proposed cuts to the state budget, despite a Wisconsin court's order that he not do so.
At any rate, don't you love it when these people are running around like stuck pigs?
A lawless bunch decrying what they say is lawlessness.
Have you noticed how in all the coverage of this, by the way, we've really never heard how much is withheld from workers' paychecks for union dues?
You think it'd be newsworthy?
I mean, we're finding out the deduction is no longer being made.
Union dues are no longer being withheld.
I wonder how much it is.
We have weeks and weeks and weeks of stories about Wisconsin, but we don't know how much union dues are.
Even now, nobody's telling us.
I wonder why.
It's obviously a big deal because it's going to hurt a lot of people, no matter which side of it that they are on.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez urged Venezuelans on Sunday to cut their calories to avoid obesity.
The latest lifestyle recommendation by the self-proclaimed socialist crusader.
Chavez has lobbied in recent weeks against what he calls the evils of capitalism, including alcoholism, breast implants, and violent television programs.
I was going to say as he looked in the mirror, he said, here, be careful with weight gain on Sunday, speaking during his weekly television and radio program.
He said, we are eating better.
That's been proven.
We're leaving malnutrition behind.
It no longer exists in the country.
Be very careful with obesity.
There's somebody else on a crusade like this.
I'm having a middle block.
Who is it?
Help me out.
Where is it?
Down.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.
Mucha Obama.
How did I forget that?
Mucha Obama is telling Americans that we are eating too many calories.
You know, Hugo, you better stop and think about something, bud.
You are becoming as control, almost as controlling as Muchel Obama is.
I knew this sounded familiar.
I knew it's some authoritarian leadership figure telling us that we're eating too much.
I just couldn't remember where.
I couldn't place it.
Let's go back to the audio soundbites.
We're going to pick up here at number seven.
We have a that's a media montage.
The media twisting themselves into pretzels to try to see the Obama doctrine in this Libyan mess.
Now, remember, you know what the Obama doctrine is.
It's three words.
2012 or bust.
The clearest form of what we can call the Obama doctrine, when to deploy U.S. military forces around the world.
The emerging Obama doctrine.
Unless we are directly threatened, he's only going to use force in extremely limited circumstances.
Laying out an Obama doctrine when he said, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves.
There is the beginning of a doctrine about how President Obama views the use of force.
This is a new Obama doctrine, which is that you act on threats.
Talked about a new doctrine of preemptive war, going to war when the President of the United States doesn't feel it is morally right not to go to war.
It's an unusual doctrine.
That was Piers Morgan at CNN.
It's an unusual doctrine.
Well, everybody's got their own theory as to what the doctrine is.
I would have been embarrassed to say half of those, what I thought the doctrine is.
I mean, emerging doctrine, unless we're directly threatened, we're only going to use force in limited circumstances.
That's a doctrine.
There's a beginning of a doctrine about how Obama views the use of force.
That's a doctrine.
You act on threats.
That's what Dennis Kucinich said.
The Obama doctrine is you act on threats.
Last night on CNN, Piers Morgan tonight spoke with Rudy Giuliani, a question, what happens if, as we're seeing now in Syria, for example, you're seeing the leadership there killing large numbers of people, ever-increasing numbers of people.
Same kind of argument.
You know, there's a humanitarian situation in Syria, likely to be one in Yemen, both probably more dangerous places than Libya as far as the security of America than Libya.
What do we do?
To say that he has a policy, even like a Obama doctrine, is really just fawning on Obama.
There's no doctrine in this.
Here's the doctrine.
If France wants us to do it, if the UN wants us to do it, if the Arab League wants us to do it, then we'll do it.
That's the Obama doctrine.
Rudy's close.
The Obama doctrine is it's the UN.
Our sovereignty.
We're waving it goodbye.
Obama didn't go to Congress.
He went to the UN.
He appoints NATO.
Citizen of the world, James Carville.
Last night, CNN, the Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer.
So, you think the president made a mistake by doing this?
You know, there's always a good reason to go in Iraq.
There's a good reason to go in Afghanistan.
There's a good reason to go in Pakistan.
There's a good reason to go in Libya.
There'd be a good reason to go in Bahrain.
There'd be a good reason to start a war anywhere.
And, you know, I don't know, but we're a little tuckered out here.
I don't know if we made a mistake.
You know, the Secretary of State and other people really urging there was a humanitarian price.
I hope that it turns out to be the right decision.
That's James Carville speaking from a barrel toss in New Orleans.
The party continues in the French quarter.
Andy Henry, last night, the Situation Room, CNN, Wolf Blitzer said, set the scene for us.
Give us a little bit of the flavor of what's going on there in the Oval Office here.
So Obama's getting ready to make history.
A lot of people expect that an address about military action tends to be in the Oval Office in private.
Administration officials acknowledge the president didn't want an Oval Office address because he did not want to erase the stakes anymore or raise the level of this and compare it to Iraq, Afghanistan, because his point tonight is that this is a much more limited engagement than either one of those conflicts.
Ed Henry on the case.
Did anybody understand what he said?
You got it?
More comfortable standing alone.
Godlike reverb.
Donald Trump was on CNN.
We must have.
Somebody really deserves combat.
All they did was watch CNN last night.
Every soundbite here's some CNN.
Well, partly because I've put MSNBC, I've said no more.
No more soundbites from MSNBC prime times.
We got to go somewhere.
Trump was on with Piers Morgan and he questioned, when you hear Obama say that he wants to get rid of Qaddafi, but he doesn't want regime change, that makes sense to you.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
What he said just makes absolutely no sense.
And at this point, if you don't get rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black guy for this country.
But you also have to ask the other question: who's paying for this?
You have Saudi Arabia, the Arab League, the richest nations in the world, saying, go in and get them.
We don't like them.
Go in and get them.
And why aren't they paying for this?
I get the impression Trump doesn't like paying for much.
He's got a good point here.
Everybody, you go get them.
You go get them.
Okay?
How much are you going to pay us?
Makes perfect sense to me to back after this.
Charles in Philadelphia.
You are up next on the Rush Lindbaugh program.
Nice to have you here.
How are you doing, Rush?
Nice talking to you today.
Listen, the reason why I'm calling you is I am a combat vet from Vietnam, third of the 187, 101st Airborne, Asaw Valley.
I am a guy who called in artillery and airstrikes.
So I'm telling you now that there is someone on the ground.
And I called my congressman.
Wait, wait, you mean, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
When you say someone on the ground, you mean somebody on our side?
We got boots on the ground no matter what they're saying.
Yes.
Yeah, okay.
There's an American on the side.
I got you.
Also, I called my new congressman, new Republican congressman the other day, and I told them that I wanted us out of Libya now because for years we have been accusing Gaddafi of killing Americans.
Well, these rebels that he is fighting now supported his regime in killing Americans.
Also, the other thing that I see, and I see no one talking about it.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
I'm just playing devil's advocate.
How do you know the rebels supported his regime killing Americans?
Well, they've been living there.
Well, they may not have had a choice.
Well, you can't say that about all of them.
You mean they could have moved?
Okay, well, I'll give you that, Rush.
I'll give you that.
Okay.
Okay, I'll give you that.
But here was my other point to my congressman.
And I'm finding it hard to believe that I do not see other Vietnam vets speak out because when Democrats have humanity wars like Korea and Vietnam, it's my people that fight them.
But these rebels, they have military training.
Look at these guys on these anti-aircraft weapons.
Look at the ones with the RPGs.
I've seen it.
There is definitely.
So now I'm thinking Gaddafi may be right in saying he's fighting al-Qaeda.
I don't think there's.
I don't think there's much argument that that's happening.
Okay.
I don't know how widespread Al-Qaeda is in the rebel movement, but I don't think there's any doubt that they're part of it, that they're there.
Yeah, so now we supposedly we're going to bomb, we are bombing Libya to help these rebels.
Yeah, I don't know who they are.
The best way to describe these rebels, there's a people in the east of the major suppliers of terrorism in Iraq.
That's who the rebels are.
There's a terrorist pipeline from eastern Libya to Iraq.
That's who these rebels are.
And now they have inadvertently become allies because we've decided Qaddafi's got to go because that's Obama's route to re-election.
And then I told my congressman, let's look at who's going to lead America in the war here in Libya.
Number one, you got Clinton.
He's a draft Dodger, sexual bullier.
Number two, you got Harry Reid, who was saying the American soldier was defeated in Iraq.
Number three, you have Pelosi, who calls the children of Nazi fighters Nazis.
I mean, are these the people we want to follow in the war?
At least when I was in Vietnam, Richard Nixon supported me.
And that's one thing I can say.
Well, you know, this is an interesting observation that you have.
Yeah, it is kind of discombobulating that these are the people leading this.
That's why we're not at war.
That's why it's exactly right.
That's why they will not say we're at war.
That's why they've come up with this kinetic military action business.
Because they basically, I know what old Charles is sailing here or saying, we basically have a cadre of anti-war activists running this show.
And, yeah, I wouldn't argue with that.
But these anti-war activists are trying to make it look like they're doing anything but wage war.
And it's not even them.
They're passing it off to the UN or to NATO.
This is even a humanitarian engagement here.
Got to get rid of the bad guy, Muammar Gaddafi.
And possibly in the process of this, we will reinstall our dear leader, Barack Hussein Obama, back into the White House in 2012.
And in the process, we will then illustrate the proper use of the U.S. military, engage them in humanitarian efforts and causes which do not involve regime change or getting rid of bad guys or even pulling triggers.
In fact, we'll probably get the Courageous Restraint Medal being awarded for the first time in this kinetic military engagement.
Wouldn't be surprised.
All right, welcome back, Rushland Boy.
Let me try something here, ladies and gentlemen.
If you have been listening to the entire program, and I know that you have, we have an audience measurement that's called Time Spent Listening, TSL.
We in the inside, highly trained broadcast specialists, refer to TSL as a very important rating category.
I won't get into details.
Legalities prevent me from doing so.
However, I know that most of you listen not only to the whole show, but then replay parts of it in the same day.
So if you have, I wouldn't blame you if you would have concluded the following based on listening to me.
If you've listened a whole day, this is what you've, you might conclude, might be wanting to ask me if you can get through on the phones.
You might be scratching your heads about this.
You might be saying, let me get this straight.
Libya is a country, as you have demoed, that has a tremendous amount of energy.
It's got oil and natural gas.
There are lots of countries, European countries, couple of American companies in Libya, the energy business.
It's ruled by a guy who has been determined to be persona non-grata.
He's pond scum.
It has been determined that this guy, Muammar Gaddafi, has to go because this guy is mistreating his own citizens.
He's being mean to them.
The people who are fighting Qaddafi are from a known terrorist organization called Al-Qaeda.
The rebel group fighting Qaddafi may not be entirely made up of al-Qaeda, but it has been established that there are al-Qaeda members and influences and perhaps money propelling the rebels.
And so are we, the United States, in our kinetic action and our allies, the United Nations, NATO, and so forth, are supporting the ally, are supporting the rebels, many of whom are al-Qaeda, over Qaddafi.
And if we are victorious and victory is defined as Qaddafi has to go, then what is apparent is it is preferable for Al-Qaeda to have control over something they've really never had before, and that is a nation-state.
This is the last time Al-Qaeda had anywhere near the control over a nation-state was Afghanistan, and we routed them out of there, starting at Tora Bora after 9-11.
The Taliban was there, Taliban's come back, we're fighting once again for this.
But if we achieve victory, which has been defined by our regime as Qaddafi's got to go, that means that al-Qaeda will then have a nation-state over which to rule and govern or hold.
And it happens to be a nation-state with a lot of oil, which they would then control and perhaps generate lots of money for them.
Is this Mr. Limbaugh, what I hear you saying?
And all of this may eventuate because it's been determined that for our president to be seen as a success, Gaddafi has to go, because that is what will define or be part of the recipe of Obama being re-elected in 2012.
And if you're asking me that question, I couldn't blame you if that's your thought process.
Well, what's somebody to conclude?
Here's Gaddafi.
Qaddafi's got to go because he's being mean to his people.
We got to get rid of Gaddafi.
And the president now has said so.
Qaddafi, you got to go.
Everybody in the world says you got to go.
We're not going to take you out, but you got to go.
The people who will replace Gaddafi could well be members of Al-Qaeda.
So in order for the Obama doctrine, which is 2012 robust, in order, sounds funny, but it's true.
In order for the Obama doctrine to prevail here, Al-Qaeda has to end up having some sort of say over the future of Libya.
Why, even the Admiral running NATO admits in Senate testimony that they are investigating these rebels and that they are finding out there are al-Qaeda connections.
So it does, I mean, I don't know how to, if that's what you're thinking, I don't know how to tell you you're wrong.
Yeah, I know.
It's one of these classic WTFs.
You know, who has the answer to this?
What are we doing here?
We've identified Qaddafi as the rotten SOB has got to go, and we are urging his departure.
And people we are helping to push him out of the way happen to be members of a terrorist organization who attacked the World Trade Center on 9-11, 2001.
Yep.
If you add up all the parts that we know, if you had to put these pieces together, that certainly is a possibility.
Now, a caveat, I don't know how extensive the rebels are controlled by al-Qaeda.
Nobody does yet.
But plenty of people are suggesting that Al-Qaeda is part of the rebel group.
So, well, now today, I should add, ladies and gentlemen, the Qaddafi forces are beating back the rebel forces.
And this is news that I saw Rebels on the Run.
In fact, it's still up there as the Drudge lead story headliner.
Rebels on the Run.
So you have to wonder here, if Obama had waited, would he have made the same speech this evening?
Would he have even made a speech this evening?
The headline now is rebels on the run means Gaddafi's forcing them out.
What do you mean it's impossible?
Yeah.
What, last night?
Okay, Obama said last, that was last night.
It was last night.
He said last night the advances of Gaddafi are stopped.
That's what he said last night.
Today is a new day.
The sun came up, as it always does.
No, they didn't say mission accomplished.
They did not say he didn't.
Yeah, but he didn't say mission accomplished.
And they didn't have a banner, and it did not land on an aircraft carrier.
So he did not say mission accomplished.
He clearly indicated that it might have been.
But he might have waited for another nine days for the dust to settle.
And it could well be that this is simply a one-day triumph of the Qaddafi forces.
The rebels could be on the run as a phony fake retreat.
We don't know.
We don't know.
It's Kinetic.
It's moving.
There's a lot of action taking place.
No war is happening.
So it's an unfortunate thing.
Obama did pretty much say that we'd stopped Qaddafi, and now the rebels are on the run.
So somebody's dissing our president.
Somebody is certainly doing that.
You know, there's a big story on Drudge right now, and he's got it highlighted in red.
And here it is.
It's from the Washington Examiner.
Senator Chuck Yo Schumer, a member of the Democrat Senate leadership, got on a conference call with reporters this morning without realizing the reporters were already listening in, which I'm not sure I believe, but here's the rest of the story.
Schumer thought he was on a private line with four Democrat senators who were to talk with reporters about the current budget stalemate.
Schumer instructed the group, made up of Senators Boxer, Tom Carper, Delaware, Ben Cardin, Maryland, and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, to tell reporters that the Republicans are refusing to negotiate.
He told the group to make sure they label the GOP spending cuts as extreme.
Schumer's quoted as saying, I always use extreme.
That's what the caucus instructed me to use.
Somebody must have finally told Schumer the media was listening in because he stopped talking mid-sentence.
So Schumer's giving a pep talk to these four new senators, well, three new.
Hey, here's how we're going to talk about the Republicans.
They're extreme.
They're refusing to negotiate.
This is what the caucus has told us to say.
And that's what I'm passing on to you guys.
And there were reporters listening in.
Now, I don't understand.
I don't know what the story is.
I mean, how many times a day does this happen?
What, it's news that Chuck Schumer has got coordinated assaults from somewhere in the Democrat Party and he's spreading the word.
Schumer's not the only one.
The whole thing is coordinated each and every day.
And frankly, I'm not sure I believe it was a mistake for the reporters to be on.
The reporters will talk about the Republican budget cuts as extreme too without having heard from Chuck Schumer.
The left is all part of this, whether they're media people, so-called media people, or what have you.
Anyway, Mike in St. Louis, welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks.
You know, you were talking earlier about a woman who was saying that Obama's words are having a positive effect on the Middle East.
I forget her name.
That was Susan Rice.
Well, you know, I agree that his words are having an effect in the Middle East, only I don't think that they're emboldening the freedom and democracy movement.
I think that they're emboldening the anti-American movement, rather.
Well, a lot of people agree with you.
But what Samantha Power, I'm sorry, Samantha Power, not Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
You're right.
And what she was saying is that they're setting the stage here that Obama's words are inspiring all of these uprisings against people like Mubarak and Gaddafi.
So they're setting the stage here.
It's all BS.
It's PR.
Obama's so powerful.
He's so inspirational.
Obama's call for X, Y, and Z is forcing average Americans out of their homes to demand their freedom.
That's what she meant.
They're just trying to set the stage for 2012 re-election.
Obama's found his voice in foreign policy.
Obama carries the weight.
He's a brilliant guy.
Words are what made him the first time or going back to words, making him the second time.
The world is an aggressive place, government aggressive, use speeches, all this sort of stuff.
So that's what she meant.
But, you know, I think that it's actually giving them strength.
I mean, I think it shows a lack of resolve and a general incompetency.
How so?
Pardon?
How so?
Well, by the fact that nothing is really changing, and he's handing over responsibilities to the U.N. and to these others, it shows American resolve.
By design.
Bye-bye, American sovereignty.
He didn't go to Congress.
He didn't discuss this.
He commits U.S. military force without telling the American people, without going to Congress.
Not that he needs their permission.
He didn't tell them.
He didn't bring him in on it.
It just goes to the U.N. There's some serious consequences here.
Now, I know what you're saying.
You think that Obama is inspiring anti-Americanism around the world because he apologizes for us and because he acknowledges our weaknesses and our past transgressions and so forth.
You may have a point.
A lot of people have this fear.
He does not believe in American exceptionalism, does not believe America is a solution to the world's problems and all of that.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
I'm glad you called.
Thanks for holding on.
I'm just stuck here.
This is one of those commercial breaks.
It does not float.
CNN, ladies and gentlemen, is running a video clip of a Libyan woman claiming she was raped by Gaddafi's forces.
Have you seen it?
I mean, they're practically looping it.
They're running it over and over again.
It's almost like it was the Rodney King beating.
And what purpose does it serve?
The purpose it serves is to justify Obama's attack on Libya, humanitarian mission.
Why, look at what Gaddafi's people are doing.
This poor woman.
And she's not alone.
That's why we have to go in there.
▲
Export Selection