All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:38
April 22, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And there's one other little tidbit of information on this New York Times CBS poll that you should know.
You will surely be amazed to hear that this poll oversampled Democrats.
The poll oversampled independents.
According to their data, they polled 25% Republican, 33% Democrat, 41% Independent, which media speak for Democrat.
And still Obama gets shellacked in the poll.
Still the Democrats get shellacked in the poll, with only 25% of the respondents being Republicans.
Not good news for the regime.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open live Friday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
All right, I know you're dubious, but rush, rush.
Why would they publish a poll which is so devastating to Obama?
Why would they publish a poll so devastating to Obama's policies?
And why would they ballyhoo the fact that it was only 25% Republicans in the sample?
In other words, oversample Denver.
Why would they do it?
It's because they don't think Obama's a shoe-in either.
Look, have you asked yourself, we've answered this before, we explained it before.
With all these seeming victories that the left is piling up, where's the happiness that goes along with it?
Where is the contentment?
Where's the parties?
Where are the good times?
In other words, why are these people so ticked off in the midst of what they try to tell us each day is an overwhelming Obama success?
Why?
Why are these people so mad?
And I'll tell you why they're mad.
It's because they see with their own eyes everything they believe in adding up to giant failure.
They're no longer dreaming about theories.
Their guys in charge, their ideas have been implemented, and they don't have these new jobs that were promised.
And Obama has not built them the new kitchen that he promised or led them to believe they were going to get in Tampa.
And there are no new cars for everybody.
And white people are not shining the shoes of black people.
Well, I remember that Tampa fundraiser, that Tampa town hall, we had audio tape of some black people who said, from now on, you all are going to be waiting on us.
Remember that?
That's what the election meant to some people in news media, from black people.
I think it was in Florida.
From now on, you're going to be waiting on it.
Well, there hadn't been any, nobody's waiting on anybody.
There aren't any jobs.
Everything they were promised, every aspect of utopia that they believed in could happen if they just got their guy in the White House.
Nothing's gone right.
And you add to that, we're still operating Club Guitmo and ostensibly torturing people.
We've ramped up a military presence in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Libya.
It's not panning out the way they all thought it would.
And they're looking at it, they're seeing with their own eyes.
They're seeing that their long-held theories, their dreams don't work.
You can look at the news.
You can see where Obama's losing ground with Hispanics, losing ground with certain ethnic groups, even with African Americans.
So, why would the New York Times publish a poll like this?
Warning shot.
Hey, you people running a campaign.
You think you're still running a Messiah here.
Let me tell you what the reality is on the ground.
They're just as panicked on the left that they're going to lose as some people on our side are defeated that he's going to win.
Now, I've always promised you people, I will tell you when it's time to panic.
I will tell you when it's over.
I am the canary in the coal mine.
And a canary in the coal mine a lot of times doesn't do a lot of the laughing.
But I am one of them.
I'm well known as a laughing canary.
But I'm here to tell you that all of these early predictions that the 2012 election is over, that there's nothing that can be done, that the brilliance of Obama's campaign team and policy team, strategy team has already wrapped up that 2012 election.
Sorry.
Not have.
It's not happening.
Hasn't happened.
It can't possibly have happened.
Pure common sense.
If it were that ontologically certain, we'd cancel the election.
And I'm not just saying that to be obvious.
Don't buy into this notion that this guy can't be beat.
They want you to believe that.
They want you to think that it's over.
I see more and more signs of more and more people caring about this every day.
I don't see people tuning out.
I don't see people giving up.
I see people outraged.
I see people motivated, inspired, Tea Party, what have you.
They are hell-bent.
They want to stop this.
And it's only over when people don't care anymore.
And we haven't gotten to that point.
People still care.
In many cases, people who've never cared all of a sudden do.
And people who've cared a little bit now care a lot.
You're not going to see them reported on frequently in mainstream media, but they're there because they're you.
You know.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Every now and then, folks, the truth surfaces.
A truth that happens every day, a reality that exists every day, but is never known.
Sometimes it surfaces.
Last night on C-SPAN, they had a special programming series, Media Figures on the Future of News.
Did you watch that snurdy?
I know you're a C-SPAN.
You didn't?
He's a C-SPAN addict.
Media figures on the future of news.
It was taped March 27th, aired last night for the first time.
The panel included a contributor to NPR, Amy Dickinson, and also Mary Madeline.
Amy Dickinson, a contributor to NBR, said this about listening to my program.
During the day after Morning Edition, I actually listened to Rush Limbaugh every day.
You can almost set a clock when a story surfaces on Limbaugh.
It's literally days before it surfaces elsewhere.
They actually do cover stories that are not being covered elsewhere.
Many days I hate myself.
That's being on the cutting edge.
What I've always told you about being on the cutting edge.
If you listen regularly here, you will hear about it before you hear it anywhere else.
That's coming.
There's another bite where she explains why she hates herself.
She hates herself because she gets scooped.
I mean, did you hear what she said?
She says, look, you can almost set a clock.
When a story surfaces on Limbaugh, it's literally days before I see it anywhere else.
Actually, do cover stories on Limbaugh that are not being covered elsewhere.
Many days I hate myself.
She means for missing the story.
So Mary Madeline reacted and they had a little conversation.
Rush is a conservative in the old-fashioned Edmund Burke, rational.
His daddy, his whole family comes from a family of brilliant jurists, and he's really smart and he prepares hard.
If you disagree with his opinion, you may think it's shallow, but in addition to preparation, which takes really complex ideas and reduces them to clarity and enough to inspire you to want to dig deeper for yourself, he's very, very entertaining.
My husband loves him.
All the little they laugh out loud.
He's really good on process.
He's really, really good on politics.
And I've learned a lot from listening to Rush Limbaugh.
That is Amy Dickinson, the contributor to NPR.
And then she continued.
They finally had this exchange to wrap up the discussion they had on me on C-SPAN March 27th, but aired last night for the first time.
I hate the fact that I feel like he shills for himself a lot, like excessively.
I went on an awesome golf holiday weekend.
There's like hours of that.
Do you think that when Rush Limbaugh golfs for eight days at this certain resort that he keeps naming over and over and over, you think maybe there's...
Rush has enough money to pay for his own hotel.
He's a hugely generous person.
And it would be helpful to whatever that resort is, but I doubt that they would be paying him.
He doesn't like to take gifts.
What is this now?
So this is all of a sudden Amy Dickinson has turned into a stick-to-the-issues person.
When have I ever spoken about eight days playing golf?
Now, there is a, you know, my annual golf vacation in Hawaii with my buddies.
It goes, it does span about seven or eight days, but I don't spend seven or eight days talking about it.
And we don't stay at a resort.
We stay at a guy's house.
And I don't mention where it is.
But Mary Madeline's right.
I don't accept comps or freebies.
And I, what do you mean it's a setup?
Oh, that's what you think this is?
Do they want me to support NPR funding?
Oh, man, are you really conspiratorial?
Snerdley thinks that she's not being serious here.
You think that Amy Dickinson is basically making all this up so that I will lead a fundraising drive for NPR?
Yeah, you get.
Yeah.
All right.
Here's the bottom line.
If I scoop NPR, why do we need him?
If she's out there saying that I scoop NPR, why do we need NPR?
You really think that Amy Dickinson plan here is that I'm going to turn into a big NPR supporter after this?
No, she had to find something bad to say.
And if I were inclined to go easy on NPR, she just kind of blew that here.
You want to talk about, what does she say here?
Shills for myself?
I probably shill the least for myself and anybody else out there.
Do I end every show?
Now, never mind.
Never mind.
I don't talk about the merchandise.
I don't talk about the newsletter to the chagrin of people involved in it.
I don't.
At any rate, just a little interesting stuff happened on C-SPAN last night.
I got to take a brief time out.
It's Open Line Friday, and we, by the way, does NPR ever shill?
I mean, isn't that really all they do, isn't it, is shill.
How can talking about a golf trip be shilling anyway?
Anyway, brief timeout, Open Line Friday.
Your call's next, right after this.
Kalamazoo, Michigan, next on Open Line Friday.
Remember no rules.
You got to talk about whatever you want to talk about on Friday.
It doesn't have to be anything I care about.
Fred, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call from WKMI and Kalamazoo.
What my comment is, is that I think that capitalism is no more than a form of slavery.
That entrepreneurs are the ones that create jobs.
And once they get to a point of being millionaires or multi-millionaires, they withdraw from the economy.
So there is no, they don't, the tax breaks that millionaires get, there is no growth in that.
The only growth they do is in their pocketbook.
Entrepreneurs actually.
I want to walk through.
I want you to walk me through the stages of this that you believe.
First off, when you say that capitalism creates slaves, is that what you said?
Capital is a form of slavery?
Yep, it's a form of slavery.
Okay, entrepreneurs start out, they create jobs, but then at some point they become millionaires.
Then what happens?
Then they start withdrawing from the economy.
There is no more growth in job growth.
So giving multi-millionaires.
Give me an example.
Because I'm really now, I don't understand.
Entrepreneur A starts a widget business.
After a certain amount of time, the widget business makes him a millionaire.
And then what does he do?
Then it starts to become self.
They get absorbed in themselves.
And then instead of thinking about the company or the organization, they start thinking about self.
And when you start thinking about self, there's no more growth.
So we can throw tax breaks at millionaires and billionaires all we want.
No.
And there's not even a trickle-down economics to go along with it.
Oh, but there is.
Where does the millionaire put his money?
Stock market.
Stock growth?
No, well, stock market, bank, where he puts it a lot of places.
What happens to it there?
That money is supposed to be sent down to the widget guy.
You mean the employee?
You mean the employee?
No, to the widget business, but the widget business, the guy that the entrepreneur...
Well, the widget business is still operating, even though the millionaire guy has...
Does he just shut down the widget business?
I'm trying to understand.
And fire all the employees after he becomes a millionaire?
No, he just doesn't grow the business anymore.
He's got what he wants.
So all he was out for was the money in the first, when he gets the money, he just shuts the business down and puts all those people on the unemployment line.
Nope, nope.
He becomes self.
I didn't say the business, the widget business went out of business.
It's still running.
It just doesn't grow anymore.
Well, can you give me an example of this?
Company name.
Give me an example, a company name.
Okay, a company name would be Amfab.
Amphab was a local overbed maker in town.
What was the name of the company?
Amphab.
AMFAB.
All right.
It was owned by the Bissell Corporation.
We made overbed tables all over the country, United States local.
And we had a decent profit going.
We had a decent medical benefits.
Eventually it got to a point where the 10% margin that the company that the owner wanted to make, he no longer considered that enough and took the company and took it overseas, basically.
What is wrong?
What is wrong with a company not growing?
I don't agree with any aspect of your premise, but I just got to ask, what's wrong with a company not growing?
It's still employing people.
It still has value.
There are people still employed and earning money.
Right, but while the cost of living is going up, he's holding his people down so that way self can be self-absorbed.
He gets to be fulfilled.
But his employees don't.
Where did you learn that?
This is the most I have yet to hear.
This is the first time I have heard this explanation of capitalism and rich people and why they're really evil.
Once they get what they want, they quit and their employees just die.
It just levels off, Rush.
No, no, no, no, no.
This is the point.
It doesn't.
Companies continue to grow.
They are sometimes bought up by other companies.
Others go out of business because they fail for whatever reason.
But nothing is static.
Everything about capitalism is dynamic.
Growth.
No, everything was.
Stagnation only occurs in socialism.
Stagnation only occurs in liberalism.
Stagnation only occurs where entrepreneurism is not allowed.
Well, if nobody else is.
Where did you learn this?
This is pathetic.
On the socialism model.
You are wounding me.
There's no cost of living in socialism.
If you add cost of living into capitalism, it's no more than slavery.
Oh, there's a lot of people.
You sound like Spike Lee, who claims that LeBron James was a victim of slavery when he left the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Miami Heat for $15 million.
No, he wasn't.
They simply stopped growing the Cleveland Cavaliers.
The owner stopped trying to win.
Poor old LeBron James had nowhere to go but the Miami Heat for $15 million.
There's Spike Lee calling it slavery.
You have really got to get a hold of yourself.
You have really got to start examining this.
You can't possibly believe what you have just said to me here.
You cannot, intellectually, you cannot believe that capitalism creates slavery.
The slavery in this world is born of tyranny, totalitarianism.
Cuba, Soviet Union, China, not here.
We used to be the essence, the engine of freedom, and it is capitalism that promotes that.
Now take your sad sack employees at this mythical corporation where the owner finally gets his and says, all right to heck with it, I'm quitting.
Well, what do the employees do?
Let them become entrepreneurs.
Some of them are going to sit there and feel sorry for themselves.
Others are going to ask the government for help.
And others are going to say, you know what?
I'm going to build on this.
Capitalism allows for the upflow of anybody who wants to try to.
Socialism makes everybody a slave.
Socialism makes everybody the same.
Nameless.
Nothing but a number.
Whoa.
Capitalism slavery.
The rich simply suck everything they out of the company if they want, and then they quit.
That's what Obama thinks.
They just can't sit there and count their money.
We just can't let the rich sit there and count their money.
I don't know who's educated you, and I don't know who's informed you, but you ought to file suit because you have been lied to.
You have been maleducated, misinformed to the point.
I don't know what kind of damage this has done to you throughout your life, but I'll guarantee you, you have a lot more potential than somebody ever told you you had.
You have felt yourself a prisoner of the freest system ever devised by man for economic prosperity.
I am sadly disappointed in you, sir.
You know, the history of the world, and we've talked about this on this program, the history of the world is slavery, bondage, tyranny, until we were freed by capitalism.
It's the whole notion of American exceptionalism.
People wonder what is meant by American exceptionalism.
It's not that we're better people than anybody else.
It's not that we're special.
It's not that our DNA makes us superior beings.
It is that we are the exception to the history of the world.
We are free.
We have the ability to be the best we can based on our desire to be.
Some of us want to be slothful.
Some of us want to be lazy.
Some of us want to be stupid.
Some of us want to be dumb.
Some of us want to be great.
Whatever we want to be.
The problem with that is that the slothful and the purposefully lazy then get jealous and angry and envious of those who are not slothful and lazy and want a percentage and claim that what they normally would have had in themselves has been stolen.
But look at me.
If this previous caller is correct, I would have quit this show in 1993, 1994.
Well, he said, you know, you make your million and you quit.
And you go clip coupons.
I mean, I'm an entrepreneur.
I bucked Trend.
I did something every wizard of smart in this business said couldn't be done.
They wished me well.
Don't misunderstand.
They said, yeah, if you're going to syndicate a radio show, you've got to do it at night.
You don't never work in the middle of the day.
We've all tried it.
Yeah, but you didn't try it with me.
So everybody was stunned, all the wizards of smart and experts.
And then it worked.
And by this guy's reckoning, I should have quit 18 years ago and left you, snurdly, and you, Dawn, and Bray, you just sitting here slaving away with whoever the replacement host would be.
You know, personally, folks, this is the difference.
I would much rather see money in the hands of people than in the hands of politicians.
This is what it really boils down to.
Why in the world do we think money, gobs and oodles of money, in the hands of elected officials is going to end up being more fair and equitable than it is if in the hands of people?
Politicians squander wealth.
The rich, no matter how lazy they are, and I don't care what you, the one thing the rich don't do is squander their money.
I'll tell you something else about the rich.
You know, the latest year for which there is income tax data just came out is 2008, and the number is 38%.
The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all taxes.
And a lot of people learned for the first time that top 1% is not a static group of people.
People move in and out of that 1% all the time.
You're not rich forever.
Some people are, but some people lose it all.
I remember when I moved here, Palm Beach, I met a man who had made and lost a billion dollars twice.
War hero, where he just gambled on some investments didn't work.
I said, okay, well, I'll just start again.
Made and lost a billion dollars twice.
The point is that, you know, just because you're born poor doesn't mean you stay poor.
Born rich doesn't mean you stay that way.
People move in and out of these income quintiles with a lot of fluidity.
But the rich don't squander their money.
Something useful always gets done with it.
This is why this notion of the rich checking out, where does, you know, this is all part of class envy and hatred for achievers and seeing the need to punish them.
And as I say, we lost the education infrastructure in this country 100 years ago.
And that guy who called is a direct result of having lost the education institution at all levels.
Here's Obama yesterday in Reno.
He had a town hall.
Now, you talk about a guy with a chip on his shoulder.
Same chip on his shoulder that our callers had.
Part of what we have to do with our tax code is also end some of the tax cuts that were instituted for the wealthiest Americans.
I say that not because I want to punish success.
I'm rooting for everybody to get rich.
But I believe that we can't ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money and don't worry about it.
We're not going to ask anything of you.
We're not going to ask anything of you.
Just go sit and count your money as though they were sitting idly one day minding their own business and then got rich.
How, yeah, haven't paid any taxes and they haven't sat around what is a life's lottery.
Happen to Sean, didn't work 100 hours.
We know they didn't do anything.
They just happened to become rich and we can't let them get away with that.
But that's not the most hideous thing here.
The most hideous thing here is when he lies and tells everybody he's rooting for everybody to get rich.
His policies are designed to prevent that from happening.
Obama's economic policies are meant to destroy the ability to create wealth.
Hell, Obama's policies are destroying the creation of wealth.
And for him to sit there and say that his objective is for everybody to get rich is an out-and-out lie.
He doesn't want that to happen.
He does want to punish success because he's doing it.
In that soundbite, he's doing it.
He's punishing success by mischaracterizing these people.
When he starts talking, these millionaires and billionaires, don't forget who he's talking about.
He's talking about those of you who earn $250,000 a year.
You are now millionaires and billionaires, and you have small business, you file your tax return, your subchapter S, and you file your tax return personal 1040.
You're rich.
I mean, you're target.
You're a millionaire.
You're a billionaire.
Well, we aren't going to ask anything of you except for you to pay 40% of your wealth in taxes.
That's all we're going to ask of you.
We can't have everybody else to sacrifice and tell the wealthiest among us.
That's another thing.
What are all these other people sacrificing?
When the bottom 50% of income earners pays or pay 2% of the tax bite, where's the sacrifice here?
What he means by sacrifice is when he says we can't ask everybody to sacrifice, he's talking about the unfortunate and the unlucky who didn't get rich.
See, getting rich in Obama's world is not because of hard work.
It's because of luck.
Or you cheated somebody.
Or you defrauded somebody.
It's not because of hard work.
So we had a great caller in our last hour yesterday who said, I'm sick and tired of hearing these people vilified.
They have invented things for us.
They have created products and services that have made our lives better.
Why are we vilifying them?
I told this story before.
Reagan, governor of California, I believe it was the free speech movement, although don't quote me on that, but the students at UC Berkeley were raising hell about something.
And they demanded a meet with Reagan, the governor.
And he granted the meeting, some of the student leaders.
And at the meeting, the student leaders said to Reagan, you know, you don't know what we're going through.
You don't know what our lives are like.
You're just an old man.
You're out of touch.
You have no idea what we want in our future.
I mean, you didn't have phones growing up.
You didn't have airplanes growing up.
You had nothing.
You can't relate to us in any way.
And Reagan just sat there and listened to him complain.
And when the student leaders finished telling Reagan how out of touch he was because of how old he was, now he had nothing in common with him.
He looked at student leaders and he said, you know, you're right.
We didn't have those things.
We had to invent them for you.
Julie in upstate New York, welcome to the EIB Network.
A thrill and delight to have you here with us.
It's a thrill and delight to speak with you.
It's a very great honor.
I have an interesting experience.
While I was working as a temporary office worker in our local elementary school, I was in the room during a teacher's meeting, and this was like around 18, pardon me, 1980, 1990.
And the discussion during this meeting, I was doing my paperwork, and I heard these teachers, one teacher say, their minds belong to us.
They'll learn what we want them to learn, and they'll know what we want them to know.
And I sat there doing my paperwork, and I was in just total shock.
I couldn't believe I heard them speak those words.
And after a little bit.
Why didn't you believe that?
You know, I just never, I thought of teachers as people who cared about our children.
And they don't.
They cared about their agenda.
They cared about manipulating their minds.
And I was so shocked I couldn't speak because I knew if I did, I'd lose my job.
Would you have the same reaction if you knew the teachers were teaching the Constitution, if they were teaching the historical accuracy of the founding of the country?
Would you, and they talked about it, they're ours.
We finally have a chance to get them to understand the truth.
Would you have as much of a problem with it?
Oh, no.
Because it's true.
But what their agenda was, we don't know.
And knowing what I know now, I can see then that back then this was the beginnings of the problem that we're seeing.
You know what the Jesuits used to say?
You give us a child to the age of 12 and he is ours forever.
Yeah.
Well, there was later on in the discussion, too, there was the question came up of suppose there was some objection by parents as to their teaching methods.
And they said, just forget the parents.
We'll do what we want.
And I'll never forget this.
And at the time, my kids weren't in school there, and I was very happy to be aware.
What did you do about it?
I kept an eye on every single book they brought home, everything they were being taught.
Did you go to the administration?
Did you go to the.
No, I didn't because I was afraid of losing my job.
I had just gotten this job.
I really needed it.
And to oppose the teachers would have been a mistake for me because I was just a temporary, temporary.
So how did you counter the propaganda that your kids are being taught?
I mean, the indoctrination they were undergoing.
How did you counter it?
At the time, I didn't see any.
I looked for it, and I was satisfied with the curriculum, and I didn't see any indoctrination.
But this is only in the books and in the textbooks, and who knows, but who knows what was being taught in the room.
Well, we have a pretty good idea.
Yeah, now we do.
We have a pretty good idea.
Everybody has horror stories like this.
I'm not trying to diminish yours.
Everybody has horror stories.
And the answer to the question that I've always asked people who've told us, what'd you do about it?
Well, I don't know.
I didn't really want to tackle it.
I didn't want my kid to get a failing grade.
I want the teacher to take it out on my kid.
So they basically tried to find ways of dealing with it at home, sort of deprogramming the young skulls full of mush after the indoctrinators had had them all day.
And people that do this rely on that fear.
They know full well that there is an intimidation of parents factor.
And that intimidation generally relies or lies in the area of, I can punish your kid with a bad grade if you take this too far.
And parents don't even want to go there.
They don't even want to mess with a bad grade.
And taking on a leviathan like this as a single mother individual, even a couple, man and wife parents, it's a daunting, daunting task.
But it's been going on for years.
As I say, we've surrendered the education institution 80 years ago, at least.
Those are the two things.
Education and the media, those are the two institutions that the left remains in monopoly control over.
They used to have the media as a monopoly.
They don't any longer.
Unions, yeah.
But union membership is still declining.
And that's one of the reasons why there's abject panic in both the public and private sector union organizations, because the numbers of people in these unions are actually declining.
And that means union dues are on the wane as well.
Julie, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Brief time out here as Open Line Friday rolls on.
Only one big exciting hour left and what's left of this one too, which we will get to right after this.
Well, goody-goody gumdrops.
Obama says he's going to have a new task force that will examine gasoline prices.
He's got a task force that is going to ration health care and P-MAN to determine who gets what coverage.
It's the death panel.
It's in there.
Now, a new task force will examine gasoline prices.
He's also suggesting, did this yesterday, think about trading in their SUVs for more fuel-efficient cars, arguing that gas guzzlers keep the country dependent on foreign oil.
So here we have once again a president of the United States actively urging us to participate in the decline of our own standard of living, touting poverty, touting welfare, touting reliance, promoting this kind of decline, and almost suggesting that we have a moral duty to reduce our standard of living.
All because of what?
▲
Export Selection