All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
May 16, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
It would help if I were turned on the golden EIB microphone.
There it is.
Gosh, I love.
I can't tell you what a thrill it is to hear my own voice.
I even in my cochlear implant.
It just is.
I can imagine what it's like for you.
I mean, I get to hear my voice all the time.
How are you, my friends?
We got a full week of broadcast excellence coming up, starting now, heralded by me, Rush Limbaugh.
This is the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number 80082-2882.
The email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
It was a busy weekend.
Last night, last night, Catherine and I are in the kitchen, and she's been swamped with doing just a whole bunch of stuff.
And she said to me, What's what's big news weekend?
I haven't had a chance to pay attention.
And I told her of a story of all the things that happened.
There's one that really struck me.
And there's all kinds of stuff.
I don't mean to put anything here in a very rigid order that says something is without question the biggest story of the weekend, but something is truly big that's not getting a lot of play, and it happened in Indiana.
Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that people who live in Indiana have no right whatsoever to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
Did you hear about this?
It's as though the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist.
It was a three to two three to two decision.
And the uh the justice, the Indiana Supreme Court, David Stephen David, writing for the court said, if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all.
A homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
Now stop and think of that for a moment.
The cops do not need a reason.
They want to enter your home in Indiana, and you have to let them.
And here's the reasoning.
We believe a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy.
And is incompatible with the modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, David said.
We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.
And so basically, you shouldn't resist because that will possibly lead to violence.
And so one of the reasons for allowing the cops in Indiana to enter your house without cause for no reason whatsoever is simply so there won't be any violence when you resist them.
Now I know there are a lot of other news stories out there.
The inexplicable Newt Gingrich.
I'm getting emails all morning.
Rush, would you explain...
Why do I have to explain it?
No, no, no.
I mean, I'll be happy to explain it under the rubric that I'm the boss.
But don't make...
I'm not going to justify this.
I know I'm the big voice.
No, wait, wait, wait a minute.
I am not going to justify this.
I'm not going to explain this.
The attack on Paul Ryan, the support for an individual mandate in health care.
Folks, don't ask me to explain this.
There is no explanation.
What do you mean if I don't explain it?
Who will?
There is no explanation for it.
First off, it cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees.
It supports the Obama administration in the lawsuits that 26 states have filed over the mandate.
I know that I guess what back in 1993, Newt supported an individual mandate everybody should buy insurance.
I am befuddled as anybody else is, is what I'm telling you.
I can't explain it.
We can sit here and say, well, trying to carve a niche.
Well, trying to set himself up as something different.
He also said that social engineering is bad, whether it's right wing social engineering or left wing social engineering.
We're not social engineering anything.
We're trying to reduce the size of government.
My guy.
I mean, it's it's it's it is inexplicable, is my point.
I I haven't, obviously I haven't spoken to Newt or anybody his team about this.
But it's not explicable.
Uh, sorry.
Explainable.
I there's there's no way that I can sit here and tell you why he's doing and give you a rational set of reasons that you may not have thought of.
I read that and I said, Well, I scratching my head like all the rest of you.
When you read it or when you heard it.
And then I said, if there's some thing here that I'm not smart enough to understand, then it isn't gonna work.
Uh it's just mind-bogging.
So that has led George Will now to proclaim Newt is not a serious candidate.
According to George Will, the Republican nominee will be one of two people, Tim Pollenty or Mitch Daniels.
That's it.
Those are the only two serious guys.
But let's go back to Indiana for a second.
This judge of the Supreme Court is a Mitch Daniels appointee.
The judge, Stephen David, who wrote for the court, said that if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner can't do anything to block the officer's entry.
It was just a little blur, but just a, you know, one of many blurbs uh at Drudge that I saw on Saturday.
And of all the things around Drudge, that's the thing I clicked on first.
I said, what in the world is this?
So when Catherine said, what's the big news on Saturday?
This is the first thing that came to my mind to uh to mention to her.
So I did it's no, I haven't.
I no, I don't know what he thinks about Will thinks about Romney.
I'm telling you what Will said the Newt's not serious.
That's the new term now, by the way.
Newt's not serious, it's going to be Plenty or Well, you know, Mitt's got you know a problem here that's somewhat similar to Newt's in a way.
I was for Obamacare before Obama wrote it.
Now I'm opposed to Obamacare, but I like my version of it in Massachusetts.
Don't tell me it was a mistake because it wasn't.
Okay.
Fine.
I this uh is a little maze here, a little circus circuitous route thing that I'm having trouble keeping up with.
How am I gonna pick somebody for you?
I'm not, that's not my job is to pick somebody for you.
Oh, you think it is?
All right.
Here's you as long as we're on my next story is gonna be this IMF guy.
I really don't get what the problem is here with the IMF guy.
What's his name?
Strauss Khan.
K-A-H-J, you know, Dominique Strauss Kahn, 62-year-old, was by far the most popular choice to be the socialist presidential candidate running against Sarkozy in France.
The only contender seen as capable of unseating Sarkozy, and I would think being a liberal, the resume's just been enhanced here.
I don't see what the problem is.
A liberal for crying out loud.
If we have learned anything from liberals, it is that a sexual assault charge has the potential to become a launching pad for already successful political careers.
Ted Kennedy.
Bill Clinton, they blaze the trail.
I mean, Ted Kennedy for crying out loud, how much trail bugs do you need to remember here?
You had the waitress sandwiches at LaBrasserie in Washington with Chris Dodd.
If you're new to the program, you don't know what those were.
Chris Dodd and Senator Kennedy would go into this restaurant, go the up the private private room, the waitresses had come in, and one of the two, Dodd or Kennedy would be on the bottom, the waitress would be in the middle, and Dodd or Kennedy, whoever was left, was on the top.
I.e.
waitress sandwiches, popularized.
And of course it's Murray Joe Copicney.
I know that the guy says he's got an alibi.
He's making a mistake here by saying he didn't do it.
He's got he's got to say this is a liberal for crying out.
It's a socialist to boot.
Bill Clinton braised the trail.
I mean, what you do here, you call James Carville, and you find out a way to find out who the prosecutor is here, and you start charging this guy with being a sex addict, the sex fiend, like they did with Ken Stow.
I don't see anybody uh I don't see anybody writing or saying that the IMF managing director is making a bold move, taking his career to the next level.
Which he is, what I'm reading is very negative, makes it sound like uh his assaulting a cleaning lady in a New York City hotel is a bad thing.
Well, what I'm missing something here.
This is a resume enhancement for liberals and Democrats.
The guy's a socialist, he's a liberal.
He heads up an organization that gives away other people's money to the poor and the most deserving.
Since when did sexual assault hamper a liberal politician's career?
We all remember what was her name, Wandita Broderick.
She claimed that Bill Clinton raped her.
And she said that as Clinton was on the way out the door, he said, hey, you put a little ice on that, baby.
Well, where's this guy telling the hotel worker put a little ice on it?
That story needs to get out there.
If this guy, if the IMS guy, uh, I mean, if if if if he was not a liberal, he'd be in trouble.
But he is.
He's a liberal social.
If he was a stock, if he was a stock, a sexual assault charge to be treated like the ultimate buy signal.
Same thing if he was a bond.
Anyway, uh, as I say, uh, ladies and gentlemen, much to do here on the EIB network, members of the media went to Karen Gallo, who was the woman from the zoo last week at the Clinton Obama Town Hall, and they went and asked her what she thought of one thing of all the things that I said.
And remember, in talking about Karen Gallo, I was very sympathetic.
If you recall, very simple.
She epitomizes where many people are, given Obama policies.
Oh, and a Harvard economist, giant CI told.
We have two CI told you so today.
Uh, one about Obama imminently beatable, Britt Hume again echoing El Rushbow, and Harvard economists, after doing research, point out what I told you months ago, weeks ago, that the stimulus bill was just a slush fund for unionized state workers and Democrats.
That's all it was.
How no private sector jobs were created with it.
So we got a fun show on Tip Day.
You got a good audio soundbite rosters with this from Boston, by the way.
A new bill, new law on Beacon Hill, would ban parents from engaging in sexual relationships in their homes while they're getting a divorce.
Supporters say the bill is meant to prevent domestic violence and shield the children while the divorce is underway.
Critics say it takes away parents' rights.
In addition to the divorce bill, local lawmakers will also consider a bill this week to reform the state's alimony laws.
The bill would end lifetime alimony payments in most cases and cap how much one spouse is ordered to pay another.
The Massachusetts current law does not contain any duration limits for alimony.
But the big part of a bill, no sex at home while you're getting a divorce.
With each other.
With each other, with anybody.
No sex in the home.
You gotta get a room.
Gotta get a room.
Gotta get a room.
And if this is Indiana and you're having sex, the cops can walk in on you, and there's not a thing you can say about it.
By the way, Dominique Strauss Kahn, that's apparently French for William Jefferson Clinton.
In Indiana, um, I guess it's official now.
A man's home is no longer his castle.
It's not a piece of legislation.
It's a uh it's a Supreme Court ruling.
Uh it's it's believe me, folks, this I don't know how this is uh.
I don't know how it's it's it's it's constitutional.
Cops want to come in your house, you can't stop them.
They don't have to have cause.
They don't have to have a warrant.
They don't have to have a reason.
And the judge says, Yeah, I kind of like this because you now have to let the cops in, there won't be any violence on the part of the homeowner trying to stop them.
So what is this?
It's all about getting people to acquiesce to this, because it's a nonviolent move.
Anyway, I mentioned earlier, Tim Conley and Bill Duper or DuPor, not sure how you pronounce it, they have a new paper.
Harvard Economist, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
That's the porculus bill, is what they say.
Our benchmark results suggest that the porculus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved or created approximately 450,000 state and local government jobs and destroyed or forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs.
State and local government jobs were saved because porculus funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls, and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment.
The majority of destroyed forced all jobs were in growth industries, including health, education, professional, and business service.
Wait, no, I'm not sure these two guys, one of them, I'm not sure one of them is Harvard.
Um I know that Greg Manco, M-A-N-K-I-W, who is writing about it as a respected Harvard economics professor.
Regardless, L. Rushbow was right again.
And let me remind you of what this really was.
It was a money laundering operation.
As is all of public sector union employment.
It's a money laundering operation.
So the stimulus bill has now been confirmed by academics who've studied it, who've traced it.
They followed the money, and they found out that with that almost one, we're talking $787 billion, almost a trillion dollars.
The whole point was to maintain public sector employment, private sector jobs were lost.
Roughly one million.
Now remember, the porculus bill was created, and it was sold under the auspices of creating private sector jobs, reviving hiring, reviving unemployment.
It was or employment.
It was supposed to help us out of the recession.
Nothing more than a slush fund.
Now the money laundering aspect of it is quite simple.
And this became paramountly obvious to me in the Wisconsin battle.
I wish it had struck me years ago, because it's been a money money laundering operation for decades.
Citizens pay taxes.
That tax revenue goes to the states.
The states take the money and hire people who work in the state government.
But...
Local governments as well.
So taxpayer revenue is used to hire state workers who Are always unionized.
Those state workers who are unionized must pay union dues.
In many states, the deduction of dues is automatic.
The employee does not write a check.
It's simply deducted from his state payroll check or deposit.
So when a public sector employee pays union dues, where does that money end up?
Right back, a portion of it ends up somewhere in the giant Democrat Party nationwide, statewide campaign apparatus.
So private citizens in Wisconsin and elsewhere end up donating to the Democrat Party via state and public work.
It's a money laundering operation, and that's what the porcupist bill was.
It was to make sure that during the recession, state workers did not lose their jobs so that Democrats did not lose their campaign money.
Pure and simple, that's it.
Yes, Snurdley.
I know we've reached a debt limit.
I'm surprised that we're all still alive.
Yeah, we reached the debt limit.
Big whoop.
We're all still alive, we're still looking, the godfather's being sworn in in Chicago.
Uh markets of 20 points because the Godfather's being sworn in, or because the debt limits have been reached.
Oh, the Oh.
Yeah, I mean, it has had that much effect.
Yeah.
Um the debt limit, this is another one of these, it's bad, don't misunderstand, but it's another manufactured crisis, another manufactured Washington crisis.
The world will end tomorrow unless we do something drastic today that allows Washington to expand and get even bigger and bigger and bigger.
And it's, of course, uh not uh not true at all.
I'll tell you something else that we were talking about about Newt about Obama.
Drill baby drill.
I mean, he's now he's now echoing Sarah Palin.
You got to get out there and drill baby drill.
Pelosi's out there saying drill, baby drill.
Now, you know, they don't mean it.
It's it's it's campaign time, it's re-election time in Washington.
Let's go to the Newt sound bites.
Uh, yesterday on Meet the Depressed, uh, David Gregory interviewing Newt, and they have uh this first question here, Gary Gregory said, what about entitlements?
The Medicare Trust Fund.
Uh stories have come out over the weekend is now going to be depleted by 2024.
That's another.
How many times have we had the story that Medicare and Social Security are going to run out of money before we thought so?
You know, I I used to be ensnared by these stories.
I used to be entrapped by them, and I used to allow myself to get, oh no, really?
But it's just a common technique now.
And I refuse to emotionally fall for it.
We don't have the money for Medicare now.
What do you mean Medicare is going to run out of money by 2024?
We don't have the money for Social Security now.
What do you mean we're going to run out of Social Security money before we thought so?
We don't have it now.
What is $14 trillion in debt?
What is a 1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit?
We don't have the money now.
The idea that Medicare and Social Security are still solvent is a joke.
And so now it's Panic City.
Guess what?
Guess what I'm going to run out of Medicare money earlier as we thought 2024?
Yeah, right, really.
We're out of money now.
Why are we borrowing 1.6 trillion dollars every year?
Especially when they tell us that it's because of entitlements.
Now we start talking about paring down the budget.
They say, well, you can't touch the entitlements, nobody's got the guts to do that, so we have to go after discretionary spending, and Mither Limbwater is only a couple hundred dollars in discretionary spending, the rest of it's entire.
Okay, if the whole budget's entitlements, if you want to make that argument, then we've been bankrupt and busted for years.
Everything's run out of money.
Anyway, Gregory asks him the question.
What about entitlements, Newt?
Medicare Trust Fund, stories that come out over the weekend now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted.
You think the Republicans ought to buck the public opposition, really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support so that they can go by private insurance themselves.
I don't think right wing social engineering is any more desirable than left wing social engineering.
I don't think imposing radical change from the right to the left is a very good way for free society to operate.
I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors.
But there are specific things you can do.
But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is changing Medicare.
I think that that is too big a jump.
I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the I don't want to I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and how to be against a conservative imposing radical change.
Well, now it's apparent that Newt has uh seen what he thinks is a niche to uh to occupy.
It's amazing how many people seek out niches.
People in media do it all the time.
Uh I could name names.
Well, I could.
I could name names and blow a whole lot of careers sky high.
But that's not my want.
But there are a lot of people, uh, one particular area is already occupied or somebody owns it.
And even if you believe it, what are you going to accomplish being number two or number three?
So you go someplace that nobody owns, you think.
I.e.
you find a niche.
So the niche here is everybody but me is radical.
Republicans are radical here with their social engineering, Democrats are radical.
We need somebody more reasonable like me.
That's the niche that Newt's trying to find here.
Problem is that it's politically tone-deaf.
Well, maybe it isn't.
I'm not sure it's calculated.
But he has to know that virtually the entire Republican establishment, including the DC insiders and the Tea Party, are in full-throated support of Paul Ryan's idea on Medicare and fact Ryan's whole budget.
Now, I also know that Newt, when he talks about this, specifically when it comes to Medicare and the mandate, he's going to say that his mandates from the states, not the feds, just like the states mandate auto insurance.
And I know that he's going to suggest that it's simply not just that others have to pay for the health care that other people have who don't pay for it.
Somehow we've got to uh change that, and those who aren't paying for it, they're going to have to start paying their fair.
I know I know what he's trying to do with that, but it's it's uh this is the politics of it right now.
It doesn't there's a groundswell here for a massive, massive reduction in the size of government.
Uh Medicare, social security are untenable.
I don't think what Ryan's doing is social engineering that's drastic.
He's not taking current enrollees and taking everything away from them.
Current enrollees play by the rules until they die.
It's people not yet on the rolls who are going to be told, okay, by the time you get there, you're gonna have to make some changes.
We just can't afford it anymore.
Sorry.
That's the truth of the matter.
Ryan's proposal would have people choose from a list of coverage options and have Medicare make premium support payments to the plan they choose.
Uh it it it sounds like voluntary in terms of the ultimate choice.
Now, I don't see the I I don't see where allowing people more choice in their Medicare plan, social engineering or radical.
Now it's true that we on the right can be radical depending on what we're measured against, but by definition, we're not.
We're mainstream.
But by pure and simple definition, all of Obamaism is pure radical.
It is dead set opposed to traditional Americanism as defined by the way the country Was founded.
That's radical.
Some people like radical.
Some people say radicals are the ones that get things done.
But radical meant as a derogatory, defamatory way.
We're not that.
We're the height of reasonable.
So be lumped in.
I'm just newt's just trying to find a niche here.
Don't doubt me on this book.
I know niches.
I don't do it, but people do.
This program was accused of trying to find a niche when it started.
I'll never forget being amused reading about how I decided to position this program.
I would read stories that talked about my original syndication partner and how we combed the nation.
Secret of my success.
We'd comb the nation.
We looked at the media landscape and we saw an opening and headed right for it.
And there was no such thing.
There was no national survey.
There was no national investigation.
There wasn't a focus group survey.
There wasn't a bunch of polling done.
A guy with two hours time on an ABC satellite decided to take a huge risk and put me on it.
Trusting my performance in Sacramento.
Okay, let's see what happens here.
I mean, we literally threw it up against the wall.
There was no grand strategy other than try to do a good radio program.
The last thing we did was try to fill a niche.
I can't, I I don't like doing niches.
It's phony.
And it's uh plus it's shooting way too narrow.
It's same thing we had the discussion last week about Hispanics in other minority groups and how political parties ought to go out and get it.
I could never do it.
I couldn't tailor a message on one day for this finite group of people and then have another message at all.
Like if we were to do it as radio show, Hispanics, you listen between 2.30 and 3 today.
That's when we do the show for you.
Women, you listen from 1 to 245.
That's when we do the show for that's the radio equivalent.
I couldn't do it, don't do it.
Wouldn't know how to do it.
I think all of us here really do want a big tent.
We want a majority made up of the way people think and live and how they believe, not what they look like, and not where they come from.
And you're not gonna build anything like that, you know, trying to fill a niche.
Unless you want to say that America is our niche.
Which I'd be totally supportive of that niche, but I wouldn't want to subdivide it any further than that.
All right, quick timeout, we'll continue.
Back with more right after this.
Donald Trump says he's not going to run for the presidency because he might win.
He says he's not gonna run.
Sure he could win.
If he's sure he could win, then that's why he doesn't want to, then.
But uh NBC executives have been leaning all over him this weekend.
And I know what did it.
I know what when they said that they could carry on celebrity apprentice without him, they owned him.
So Trump is no longer a candidate.
He wasn't serious either, according to George Will.
So we're still we're still down to Tim Pollenty and Mitch Daniels.
That's the universe.
No, no, Huntsman not serious either.
Um Tim Pollenty or Mitch Daniels, those uh Santorium not serious candidate.
Uh according to the according to the arbiters there.
Uh Ron Paul, not serious candidate.
Michelle Bachmann, oh, oh, Michelle Bachman.
I don't know if you noticed, but the uh the Republican punditry trained their uh their uh gun sights on her this weekend.
She's the latest target.
Well, oh, she's not a serious, oh, she's uh I'll uh they've started opposition research on her.
Our side has started opposition research on Michelle Bachman.
Yes, they have.
I'll in fact, if you want, I'll open the next hour with it.
They have opposition research against Michelle Bachman has begun.
Oh, yeah, you I it's That's what I say.
There's all kinds of stuff happening out there this weekend.
A lot of it's subtle, um, behind the scenes.
You gotta know how to read between the lines, stitches on a fastball, but yeah, she's uh she's now target.
But once again, Donald Trump will not run for president because he might win.
And now here's more from Newt as we stick with uh with Slay the Nation.
David Gregory, I know you've got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program.
This is what you said about the individual mandate.
Quote, I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance.
And I'm prepared to vote for a voucher system that'll give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so as to ensure that everybody as individuals has health insurance.
Now, what you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his health care legislation, is it not?
I believe all of us, and this is gonna be a big debate.
I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.
I've said consistently, we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond, or in some way you indicate you're gonna be held accountable.
So uh now the politics of this are quite obvious.
The politics of this are quite obvious.
He's got he's faced with an option here, okay.
They quote him from 1993.
And he's decided to stick with what he said in 1993.
Say it's gonna be an interesting debate, and I think we've already had the debate, but you've got twenty-six states suing the federal government in opposition to the mandate, and in the middle of that, and these are Republican attorneys general, some case a couple Democrats, in the middle of this, Newt goes on meet the press and comes out essentially for the Obama version of health care.
So you have to say, well, the politics of this.
So he wants a debate on it.
The politics are obviously going to be, he's gonna say, I mean at the state level, just like they mandate auto insurance.
Nobody has a problem with that.
Okay, so is this a big push for independence?
Is he is he trying to establish niche?
I mean, who knows?
Uh I think it's uh largely niche politics, but it's also standing up to conventional wisdom on the right.
It's it's it's standing up to what is considered now conservative conventional wisdom.
The attack on Paul Ryan and uh his Medicare proposal is is part and parcel of this.
And there's I mean, if if Newt wanted to throw a nuclear bomb into the whole Republican apparatus, he did it with the two comments that we played for you just now on uh on Meet the Press yesterday.
Grab a quick phone call here before the uh hour wraps connected in New York.
This is Mike, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Ross.
I think Newt's problem is the same problem we've seen with a lot of other Republicans that have uh almost been forced to call your program to make right in the immediate aftermath of their remarks.
And that problem is they want to curry favor more with the press than they do with Republicans.
They're they're more concerned about what the DC villagers are thinking and saying about them than they are about holding true to Republican ideals.
Now, I'm a uh liberal, and I remember 2008 when you had another candidate like that, John McCain, who you just absolutely refused to endorse.
That's right.
I think I think part of the problem was back in 2008, you refused to endorse any other candidate either.
So McCain snuck in there without I mean, honestly, I think you probably lead the Republican Party.
Um and you could crown you you could play Kingmaker here.
I wish you would.
Well, I really wish he would, because as a liberal, I want Obama to feel threatened.
Listen, if Republicans go out there and compete for that mushy middle, um they're competing on Obama's turf.
Wait a second.
And Obama's going to continue working in that mushy metal, calling for more drilling and not closing Guantamino and starting new wars in Libya and all the rest.
What I want is a hardcore conservative so that Obama can, you know, kind of highlight the differences between the parties.
I want him to make an appeal to his I have to take a break as the time.
This is this is amazing.
You listen to this kind of stuff.
I'm not buying that.
This is crazy.
I mean, he means it, but it's just it's this this is crazy.
With all due respect to our last caller, Obama is going to run as a conservative.
He would love a squishy moderate Republican so he can own the conservative stuff in the campaign.
It's the only way he can win re-election.
▲
Export Selection