All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:00
May 10, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
I am Rushlin Boy, and this is the EIB Network.
I can't believe it's already Tuesday.
Yes, I can.
I'm just kidding.
Looking forward to talking to you on the program today in about a couple hours.
I did something last night I never do.
I had a nightmare that woke me up at exactly 3.58, and I don't remember it.
But it was so bad, I got up.
I got up, and I went back down to the library, for those of you in Rio Linda.
Went down to the library and started doing some show prep work.
I just said putzing around on the iPad.
And I went back to bed.
I didn't stay.
I went back to bed about 5.30.
So I interrupted the night.
I feel like I've gotten about an hour of sleep.
So I don't know what led to the nightmare.
And I don't remember it.
Normally you remember nightmares or dreams or whatever.
I don't remember anything.
I just remember I, well, I guess it's so bad I blocked it.
I don't know.
I awoke with a start.
I looked over at the clock.
I quietly exited the bed and tiptoed down to the library.
It's about an eighth of a mile walk.
That didn't wake me up.
And I decided, okay, 5.30 or so got back in bed.
And so here we are.
Here we are, folks.
And who knows what it was?
I have no clue what it was.
But I've gone through the news today, and there's plenty of stuff in here that's qualified to be nightmare material.
In no particular order, a new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones, presidential and local emergency messages, as well as amber alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.
Now, as the government is conducting hearings today against Apple and Google over what they're doing to track people's locations, and here comes the regime saying, guess what?
You know what?
The only way you're going to know about emergencies is if we can get to you on your cell phone.
National Emergency Alert System set to launch in New York City on cell phones.
The announcement of the new emergency alert system came yesterday in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death and an uptick in security and safety concerns around New York City.
Well, as long as they're going to do this, how about sending emails and texts to people on their cell phones as to the location of the cheapest gasoline in their communities?
How doesn't, you know, when the recession's over, they can send us a text or an email.
The regime can tell us when the recession's over.
They can tell us where the nearest job openings are.
I mean, why stop at emergencies?
Or why just limit it to a few emergencies?
You know, why not the nearest Starbucks, whatever it is that they want to push?
Why use cell phones?
Why don't we just go back to the old days where the regime got this big panel truck and they drove her through town with a couple speakers on the top with somebody inside like an ice cream truck?
Put up loudspeakers so we can hear from our leaders everywhere.
You know, yeah, a homeless guy with a sandwich board.
Why do we need cell phone?
Why do they have to reach us only through cell phones?
Jobs bill, whatever.
I mean, this is, I don't know, too good.
Also, we've, folks, I've been trying to, as you know by yesterday, virtue of yesterday's program, I've been trying to veer off of the bin Laden-Pakistan story.
But I tell you, they keep releasing stuff here that draws me and thus you back to it.
For example, according to the UK Guardian, it's a leftist newspaper, President Bush struck a deal with Pakistan's President Musharraf 10 years ago that allows America to go into Pakistan to kill terrorists like Bin Laden without the Pakistanis knowing about it.
This is a 10-year-old deal.
So this is another thing that Obama has inherited from Bush.
The deal allows Pakistan to wail and cry and moan and everything, but they are committed to letting these attacks happen unopposed.
A 10-year-old deal that Bush struck with Musharraf.
Now, the AP has not reported this.
Domestic state-controlled media has not reported this.
They have not reported one word about the Bush-Musharraf agreement.
Instead, what the AP has done, they have rushed out a report that says Musharraf is now denying there's any kind of a deal.
So rather than report the deal, AP has got to, by the way, you know that thing that the Guardian says it happened, a 10-year-old deal that we haven't reported on?
Well, Musharraf's denying it.
That's right.
Which is to be expected, I mean, from AP and Musharraf, by the way.
These people have played a double game over there.
Can you imagine?
Musharraf's the ex-president, but still, if the word got out that he had actually agreed to let Bush, they hated Bush, and the Americans just waltz into the country anytime they want under the pretext of nailing a terrorist, yeah, he would be in trouble.
But also, also, what's happening here is the AP does not want to undercut Obama's heroism.
See, this story challenges this whole image that they've crafted of the heroism of Barack Obama, the unique talents and abilities that no one else in the White House had.
Only Obama had the ability, the capability to come up with the details of the plan that were utilized.
So they've got to protect that.
They have to protect that investment they've made in creating the Obama image.
But we have been killing terrorists in Pakistan for years with drones and who knows what else.
We've been successfully killing terrorists in Pakistan before Obama came along.
And yet the New York Times and media are trying to make it out as though it never happened.
And certainly not this brilliantly until Obama came along.
Now, if it's true, if the United States and Pakistan agreement is true, and I think that it probably is, it completely undercuts, there's a story in the New York Times this morning.
They're doubling down on this.
The New York Times story chronicles Obama's gutsy call to double the size of the bin Laden raid.
Did you know that?
Yes.
Obama gutsy call to double the size of the raid, especially his gutsy call giving the SEALs permission to fire back if Pakistani forces attacked them.
Now, I'm wondering, could it be that Mr. Obama was totally unaware of this 10-year-old agreement with Pakistan?
Could his regime really be that incompetent?
Could they have been unaware of this and are now sort of caught flat foot?
Okay, we got to cover this up.
We didn't know about it.
Or did they know about it, but thought they could get by with nobody else knowing about it until the guys at the UK Guardian decided to blow the lid off of it.
In any case, the New York Times article about Obama's military genius is hilarious.
It's just like we said the day after the raid, right here on this program, behind this very golden EIB microphone.
It turns out, the New York Times story actually says, it turns out only Obama had the foresight to call for backup helicopters and backup troops in case anything went wrong.
Do you know that?
New York Times says that today.
Only Obama.
Yeah, well, if you read the New York Times, you're supposed to believe it.
Only Obama had the foresight to recognize something could go wrong.
Only Obama had the foresight to send in backup helicopters and backup troops.
None of the others involved would have thought of that.
Of course, the reason is Obama calling on his vast experience in these matters of calling out the troops on the street corners in Chicago during his community organizer days.
He has no experience doing this.
This is like riding a bicycle for the first time.
Here's the story: U.S. braced for fights with Pakistanis in bin Laden raids by David Sanger and Tom Shanker.
President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, according to senior administration and military officials.
Obama alone insisted.
Is there nothing that Obama left a chance?
He had the foresight to anticipate anything that could go wrong.
Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, how profound it is that Obama even allowed that something he could be involved in could go wrong?
What a major, major step that is for a narcissist.
As far as he's concerned, nothing ever goes wrong.
But yet, in this instance, he and he alone was able to see hours and hours into the future what might go wrong.
And he and he alone had the foresight and the brains combined with experience to demand that backups in every phase be used and be available.
So on top of being a genius about the law, on top of being a genius about economics, on top of being a genius on green energy and race relations and so many other subjects,
we now learn that Obama is a singular genius on military planning to the point that people who've been doing it their entire lives were unable to foresee circumstances that Mr. Obama alone foresaw and demanded the need to plan for.
In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby, one to bury bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators, and translators in case he was captured alive.
There was a team of lawyers, apparently.
That's what the New York Times said.
Kid you not.
The first team of specialists had to be expert in all the rituals for a Muslim burial.
The second team had to be expert on all the rituals of the ACLU.
Not that the Obama administration had any problems with either of those, but they still wanted outside help.
That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.
It is clear, I say this again, they did not want to interrogate bin Laden in any nation's territory.
Bin Laden would need the lawyers.
If we capture him to interrogate him, the lawyers would be there to act on behalf of Bin Laden.
And maybe the SEALs, whoever was going to interrogate him.
Oh, you remember all the lawyers at the Battle of Bulge, don't you?
You remember the lawyers at the Normandy invasion?
You've never read the book, Great Lawyers Who Died on Omaha Beach?
I'm shocked, certainly.
Have you read about the book, The Lawyers and the Boys of Puandu Ho?
Well, damn.
Well, they were on this mission.
Have you heard about the lawyers on John Kerry's swift boat?
Well, then I guess, see, that's another reason why I'm so far ahead of game.
I have.
And we'll be back.
I've had an inordinate number of military people communicate to me.
They don't believe in Laden is dead.
And I've said to them, and I really don't like getting sucked into that because look at all the people that have to be compromised in that lie.
You'd have the whole SEAL team.
You'd have all those lawyers that Obama had over there.
Everybody on the U.S. is Vincent.
I mean, look at the numbers of people that would know.
All it would take is one of them to spill the beans on this.
But it does lead to an interesting conspiracy theory.
In this New York Times story, they make it plain that if they captured Obama, which of course was never part of the mission, that's another one of the misleading aspects of the story.
They never were going to capture the guy.
They did not want to subject bin Laden to the sissy fide policies they've established here.
They didn't want him at Gitmo with lawyers and all that.
This New York Times story has to cover bases.
There are some leftists who are upset.
It's all because of this great interview that Chris Wallace did on Sunday on Fox News Sunday.
He had one of the national security guys from the regime on there, and he really tripped a guy up.
I had the soundbite yesterday, and I just didn't get to it.
But I can tell you what happened.
Chris Wallace basically said, I don't understand something.
You won't waterboard anybody.
It's inhumane, and it's against American values, but you got no problem putting two bullet holes above bin Laden's left eye.
Well, that's right.
We want to protect American values.
Killing somebody who's unarmed in cold blood is fine, but waterboarding them, that's just un-American.
And the national security guy was sent out.
He's sent out to take the arrows on this, and he took them.
So here we have this New York Times story.
And part of the reason for this story is to proffer the notion that there was a plan to take him alive when there wasn't.
There's no way.
This was a kill mission from the get-go.
And this story talks about lawyers and the possibilities of on-site interrogations.
And one of the things this New York Times story over and over mentions is in planning for the possible capture of bin Laden, officials decided they would take him aboard a Navy ship to preclude battles over jurisdiction.
Why not just take him to Club Guitmo?
Why not just take him to Guantanamo?
That's what it's there for.
It's there specifically to handle problems over jurisdiction.
That alone tells it was different.
They were never going to capture the guy.
They were never going to leave him alive.
And now all the sympathetic stories about only Obama realizing needed four helicopters instead of two.
Only Obama realizing we needed 40 SEALs instead of 20.
Only Obama realizing that we need lawyers in there in case we capture him.
All of this.
Were we supposed to sit here and believe that they thought bin Laden would just give up whatever information under interrogation without any inducements whatsoever?
It was going to be that.
This is all so silly.
So I've got a new conspiracy theory based on this really a lot of emails I'm getting from military people.
Look, they've got experience.
I know Rush.
They've told me I can read stitches on these fast walls.
I know this language.
I'm telling you, he's alive.
Military people that I know.
I mean, I'm talking about, well, there have been some from people I don't know, but I mean, it includes people I do know.
I just don't know how you keep that secret from all the people who would know it.
Somebody would have to leak.
You can't, ours is a culture of leaks.
News is entirely made up of leaks and lies and so forth.
But how about this?
Snurdy, listen to it.
How about we get behind this conspiracy?
You know, one thing I've never done in my whole career, I've never had it said that I started a conspiracy theory.
I've never been the author of one.
Everybody else gets to write these things, and I sit here and always react to them.
I got my own conspiracy theory.
The SEALs actually captured bin Laden alive, and they took him back to the USS Vincent.
I could say I've been persuaded by all these military people that have spoken to me about this.
We did capture him alive.
We took him back to the USS Vincent.
Then it all went wrong.
He died while being waterboarded, which is why the regime had to take the position it took Sunday on Fox News, Sunday with Chris Wallace.
We actually killed bin Laden with waterboarding.
And the regime is profoundly embarrassed over this.
Yeah, thanks.
Having more fun, human beings should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh redefining hip for the radio.
And we will get to your phone calls at some point.
Here is the soundbite from Sunday's Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewing a national security advisor, Tom Donnellin.
They were talking about enhanced interrogation techniques and the raid that killed bin Laden.
And Chris Wallace said, look, why can't you do waterboarding?
Why can't you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, who was just as bad an operator as bin Laden was?
Because, well, our judgment is that it's not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kinds of intelligence that we need.
But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values.
We are at war with Osama bin Laden.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
Well, I didn't say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid.
You said it was against our values.
I think that the techniques are something there's been a policy debate about, and our administration has made our views known on that.
No, what it is, this poor schlub has got to stay wedded to this crap that the Democrats put out all during the campaign of 2008 and the preceding two years as they were trying to nail Bush and all this stuff is against American values.
Meanwhile, Chris Wallace is exactly right.
While we out there, we want to put the CIA interrogators who came up with in jail.
They're still investigating him.
We wanted Dick Cheney in jail.
They wanted to frog march Scooter Libby and Karl Rove out of the way.
I want to put them in jail.
And they wanted to find out who actually had done the waterboarding and put them in jail, all because it just ruined America's image.
And then Obama in the New York Times credited as a military genius for a double tap on bin Laden.
We murdered bin Laden.
He wasn't armed.
He was reaching for an AK-47, but he wasn't armed.
We now know he's living in a rat hole, crack house, whatever it is.
There it is.
He was living in this slum.
And it's perfectly fine to go in there, pal, pal, you're dead, buddy.
But don't dare waterboard him.
And this poor guy, you should have seen this.
He was blinking.
His eyes are blinking.
He was, well, God, what happened to me?
Why am I here?
Sure, he left that studio thinking, is this job worth it?
Because, I mean, Wallace just nailed him.
Just nailed him.
The Mediite has a story here.
It seems that leftists are really ticked off over the guest lineup of the Sunday morning shows.
Well, I explained it.
Let me read to you.
This is a post-it mediaite by Colby Hall.
The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden is inarguably the biggest foreign policy news to occur during the Obama regime and arguably the biggest foreign policy development over the last 10 years.
So how did the Sunday morning talk shows treat this big news?
By booking a bunch of former officials from the Bush administration.
Or as Rachel Mandau asked last night, is the biggest story in American politics right now, retirees from the Bush administration and how they feel about stuff?
She's upset because where are the Obama people?
How come it's only Cheney and Rumsfeld and all these ex-Bush people on Sunday morning shows?
I can explain this.
There's nobody on the BAM side to get the story straight.
How many versions have there been?
There's nobody that they trust to send out there to get it right because they've told so many different versions of this.
They don't dare send you.
So they send this poor schlub out there, Donnellin, and now you know why they didn't send anybody else.
You see how this guy got nailed over murder versus waterboarding.
So it was left to the Bush.
But fear not.
Fear not because things balance out.
A three-judge federal appeals panel.
This is the U.S. Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia.
You're not going to like this, folks.
A three-judge federal appeals panel comprised of two Obama nominees and one Clinton nominee will hear arguments today in two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.
The makeup of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel is crucial, says AP, because in lower court rulings so far, Democrat judges have upheld the law while Republican judges have declared it unconstitutional.
The judges on this panel will be Obama nominees James A. Wynn Jr. and Andre Davis, who will sit on the panel along with Clinton nominee Diana Gribben Motz.
Okay, so we're dead in this court.
Now, Snerdley, you're sloughing this off because it's going to the Supreme Court anyway?
Are you sloughing it off?
Well, it may go, but it may not.
It's up to the court whether or not they want to hear it in bunk.
You have to request an inbunk.
It means hear the whole panel.
Well, of course it's going to go to the Supreme Court, but the problem is they're running.
The NFL is running into this right now.
The rulings at the lower court do matter.
It is tough to overturn on appeal.
It is tough.
You look at the number of times appeals are successful, and you'll be shocked.
You hear about all the big ones because they're rare.
These lower court decisions do matter.
The AP is so aware that readers will think this has been rigged that they have an explanation for this.
According to the Fourth Circuit, the panel of three is chosen by a computer program designed to achieve total random selection.
Total random selection.
So you get two Obama nominees.
Is there any doubt how these two are going to vote?
And a Clinton nominee.
So they may make it a two-to-one vote just to make it look like they cared and paid attention, but it's going to be a three-zip slam zunk, slam dunk.
And then they can make a full request for the full inbunk panel, which they will do, but they don't, it's not automatic that you're granted that.
So then this ruling and whatever these justices or judges say about it then becomes the law of the land at the moment and goes up to SCOTUS, where there's one justice that matters.
Anthony Kennedy.
That's why repeal, repeal, repeal.
You know, we campaign finance reform.
Don't worry about it.
Court will never allow this.
Court allowed it.
Repeal, repeal, repeal.
Best buy, best buy is considering getting into the electric car business.
Electronics giant Best Buy has been watching as online retailers chip away at their market share.
And a growing number of customers use the store as a showroom for products they will ultimately buy online.
They go into Best Buy, look and see what's there, and then head back to the web, make the actual purchase.
But some at Best Buy see a future in a product that isn't as easy to sell over the internet, electric vehicles.
A Best Buy executive tells Automotive News, we're having conversations with some of the startups.
I'd say this conversations are going well.
We're very excited about several partnerships that we can't talk about yet.
Now, Best Buy figures that the sheer volume of foot traffic into its more than 1,000 stores would be just what some of the smaller electronic vehicle makers need to get a foothold into the auto market.
The Best Buy guy said, yeah, we probably get more traffic in a weekend than some of these dealers do in a month.
The Best Buy chain has been edging its way into the electronic vehicle market.
Later this year, the store began offering installation of home chargers for the Ford Focus Electric and the Mitsubishi IEV.
So you might be able to buy an electric car at a Best Buy one day.
However, do you know how many volts Chevrolet has sold?
E.J. Deion Jr., in a basically worthless column, praised the General Motors bailout as a success.
But here's a story about that by Mark Tepscott, the Washington Examiner, and a pull quote from his piece: Despite Obama's billions of tax dollars shoveled into the bailout and his ceaseless campaign on behalf of alternative energy, the endless lectures to the American public by big green environmentalists,
the never-ending blandishments from the likes of the EPA, endorsements from every politically correct celebrity on either side of the Mississippi River, all of the time Obama has spent personally endorsing it.
The Chevrolet Vault has sold exactly 1,703 cars.
Now, what was, what is Obama's goal?
He wants a million of these things on the road by 2015.
And here we are halfway through 2012, and he's got 1,700.
Now, they're going to be subsidizing a lot of cars.
Not a lot of money to get that many on the road.
John Boehner, a lot of people talking about Boehner's tough talk at the New York Economic Club.
We've got soundbites.
He said tax increases off the table.
We're not talking about it.
He's talking about the debt ceiling.
We're not going to talk about billions and cuts.
We're going to talk about trivions.
He's dead serious.
The analysts, both sides of the aisle, are going nuts trying to tell us what Boehner meant and what he said.
We've got the audio soundbites.
We've got that.
David Brooks actually has an interesting column today in the New York Times, by the way.
He doesn't know it.
I don't think he knows why it's an interesting piece, but it is an interesting piece called The Missing Fifth.
And basically, it is this.
20% of the adult male workforce gets up every day and does not go to work.
The missing fifth, that's the 20%.
They get up, and so what's the solution to this?
Now, he doesn't see that his president Obama is one of the architects of this outcome or result.
He still thinks Obama's got the great idea to solve this.
It's frustrating in that regard.
Plus, your phone calls and the attacks on big oil and their subsidy.
We got lots to do today.
Also, continuation of our discussion yesterday on Mitch Daniels.
Chris Christie is prepared to endorse him, or not prepared to endorse him, but is considering.
He says he may support Daniels for the Republican nomination.
Chrissy's excited about him and so forth.
So that conversation probably will continue today as well.
All in good time.
Sit tight, coming right back.
Folks, honestly now, I have tried to get away from this bin Laden story, but they won't let us.
They won't let it.
And some of this stuff that's being written, I cannot let it go uncommented upon.
The effort here to build Obama up into something that he's not.
You know, they're devastated.
He only got a three-point bounce in a poll that they really put a lot of stock in.
Now, they knew that whatever bounce Obama got wasn't going to last, but they certainly expected more than three points.
It's just not that big a deal because it didn't change the circumstances that make people's lives.
You can't put Obama, Osama's blood in your gas tank.
It doesn't have, you know, it has nothing to do with the value of your house.
It's a feel-good story for a while, yeah, but it doesn't change anybody's life, nor does it change their future.
But it has changed a lot of things in the media.
This is incredible.
Gallup, this is how far they are willing to go to build this no-experience, least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into, Barack Obama, up into something larger than Patton and MacArthur and Lincoln combined.
Gallup is reporting that consumer confidence is up a new high because of the killing of bin Laden.
What kind of fools do they think we are?
Believe me, they think we are fools to try to pass this off as actual news that economic confidence is up because we got Obama, Osama?
That is patently ridiculous.
But if you stop to think about it, it might inspire Obama to start tracking down and killing more terrorists if that's what will drive up his poll numbers on the economy.
Remember when Dick Gephardt was saying, for every 100-point drop on the stock market, we pick up a seat in the House?
Well, for every terrorist kill with a double tap, we pick up two points in our approval numbers.
Obama might end up having to protect the country after all, just to help himself in the polls.
That's what he might glean from the Gallup results.
Can you imagine a conflicted view they'd have in the White House?
What a trade-off.
You mean I actually have to protect the country now?
I got to go kill terrorists.
That's how to get my economic news up.
Can't be happy.
Eric Holder is investigating the drugs that are being used in executions.
I wonder if he will investigate the kind of bullets the SEALs used to kill bin Laden.
He's sticking his nose.
Holder, he's sticking his nose in everything.
This morning in New York City, there's a press conference talk about the new federal government disaster text message system from the president and the mayor of New York.
When there's a terrorist alert, you're going to get it on your phone.
Here's Michael Bloomberg who said these alerts could help if Tea Partiers decide to bomb Times Square again.
He didn't say it, but last year we did foil an attempted car bombing in Times Square, an area that is very popular with tourists and theater goers from out of town.
And as excellent as our response was to this event, the plan system would have been another crucial tool that we could have used to inform and give instructions to people in the area.
Now, remember, he originally said that the Times Square bomber probably disgruntled Tea Party person unhappy with Obama's health care.
Here's another portion of his remarks this morning on this.
As part of the FCC agreement with wireless carriers, its emergency alerts will override any network congestion.
So even during wide-scale emergencies, when mobile networks are often overwhelmed with people trying to connect with others, we can have confidence that these emergency alerts will be received.
And of course, the terrorists will receive them too.
Terrorists have cell phones.
They will receive the alerts.
So they will find out what they're up to at the same time we find out what they're up to.
And they're ecstatic over this.
And Chuck Wrangel, I don't have time for this sound, but Charlie Wrangel was at the press conference.
He says this is a classic illustration of how business and government partner and do magical things.
There's a great example of that, he says.
All right, sit tight, my friends.
It rolls on.
Back after this.
You know, if they don't want us talking to each other, all they got to do is flood these networks with never-ending emergency alerts.
Well, no, no, it's true.
If what Bloomberg says, they can override any network congestion.
They get through any mess.
That means they can stop us from talking to each other.
If they wanted, they were so inclined.
▲
Export Selection