All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
June 9, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 247 podcast.
So what do you think the biggest what do you think the biggest subject in my email today is?
No, it's not Wiener.
No.
It's a caller yesterday, Annette on Palin being a 10, and that's why women hate her.
I I can't I can't tell you how much email response.
I can't.
Friends of mine I haven't heard from in a couple years are weighing in on this.
And right and there is a consensus.
And here that Annette's right, that the consensus is that uh women hate her because she's good looking.
It's it's it's it's basic.
And there's a story here in the Washington Post, uh conservative women enthusiastic about Bachman and Payla.
Story about Kellyanne Conway, the polsterette uh who's gone out and and uh it's that the babes are lookers, uh, which is part of it anyway.
So it means we will continue to discuss this just a little bit today because it one of these, you know, see to your pants moments, uh fly by moment on the program, and it's uh ignited uh response, unlike I I can't think of the last time something generated this kind of uh outpouring.
Just stuns me.
I got my finger on the pulse of all this stuff.
By the way, Huma.
Huma is pregnant.
I was wondering if the baby is actually Hillary's.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800 282-2882, and the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
You know, Huma is Muslim, and Wiener is Jewish.
And where is the outrage over what a Jewish man's doing to a Muslim woman?
Couldn't you say that this could be used by terrorists as a recruiting tool?
And many Democrats are continuing to say Wiener's gotta go, and now there's another woman that's being dragged out.
She doesn't want to be part of this, but she is being dragged out of it.
Uh I uh it's it's the Democrat hierarchy just wants this guy to go away.
Some of them do.
A few of them, uh few of them don't.
I don't, as you know.
I want I want uh Congress person Wiener to hang in there and and be tough.
Stand firm, as it were, and uh stick to his principles.
It's uh gosh, it's amazing.
I go through the news and sometimes I just I just scratch my head.
Let me let me uh uh well okay, I just you want one here's here's a typical email I got.
Rush, I was reminded of it on your show today.
I'm joining this email in progress.
I was reminded of it on your show today when the woman called to explain the antipathy to Sarah Palin is coming from women who were below being eight.
On a scale of one to ten.
Rush, I think that's close, but not quite right.
Politics, media, satire, all the normal stuff is in there, but what really ticks many off about Sarah Palin is that she's attractive, she loves men, and her man loves her.
That is what drives them nuts.
That closes the trifecta.
That's the trifecta that stirs the outrage that her man loves her.
Hillary is seen kindly as uh is a victim almost because she's in a bad marriage.
And her husband with a well-known history of running around on her.
Well, by the way, people, I don't know where this started, but people are now starting to ask questions.
Uh Wiener and Huma actually married.
In other words, did Clinton really have the power to officially marry anybody.
Just because he's an ex-president, does that alone mean that he was enough legally to perform the sanctity of the marriage ceremony?
It's a question apparently still up in the air, people looking into.
I don't care.
I'm just reporting to you folks that this is uh what some people are looking at.
So it is the the third element here, the trifecta that causes people to hate Sarah is that her husband loves her.
Yeah, she's a ten.
Some people's minds, yeah, she loves men, but her husband loves her.
And apparently that's rare.
Hillary is seen as kindly, but as a victim almost.
She's in a is a bad marriage.
And of course, feminism is about victimization.
Don't forget undeniable truth of life number 24.
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
There's already sympathy attached to most feminazis anyway.
Always said that they're just trying to reorder human nature because how unkind it was to them.
And I could tell how right on the money that was by how many people got mad at it rather than laughed at it.
Still after all these years.
So Hillary, seen as a victim, Gloria Steinem was a looker, but she was revered by feminists because of her open hostility to men, which is part of militant feminism.
There are, I can't go into much detail because they're names cited here, but this friend of mine tells me that, gives me an example here of a female on a leading American campus, institution of higher learning, who will never, ever have a chance to be hired as a dean because she's happily married.
That's her complaint.
Because she's happily married, it's a strike against her.
At the leadership of the university that she's happily married.
Don't ask me to explain this.
I mean, in terms of my understanding it, we're talking about leftists here, and we know that they're generally unhappy people anyway.
We know that they're constantly angry and outraged anyway.
So I'm just telling you this is this is uh a sample of an email from uh from a from a friend of mine.
So um then you have conservative women enthusiastic about Bachman and Palin from the Washington Post here.
Uh they don't like identity politics and they aren't crazy about the word feminist, but a lot of conservative women here in New Hampshire can't help but rejoice that they may have a couple of tough talking tea-drinking mothers to choose from in the Republican primary.
Bachmann, Minnesota, on the verge of announcing her intentions, and Sarah Palin contemplating a bid.
If either of them runs, it'd be the first time since uh Liddy Dole in 1999 that a viable female candidate sought the Republican nomination for president.
Recent Pew Research Center polls showed that Republicans have warned or warmed to the idea of a female president since 2007.
Kellyanne Conway, Republican pollster, said that conservatives generally do not like identity politics.
They tend to say that they're not considering a candidate sex or race in their decision.
Republican women historically have not shown a greater propensity to vote for women than men, Conway said.
But voters increasingly are looking for candidates to whom they can personally relate.
And Palin and Bachman fit the bill for an energized base of Republican women.
Palin and Bachman share some key characteristics, including their popularity in Tea Party circles, their overtly Christian rhetoric, and their sharp tongues.
They also share a groomed attractiveness that Republican voters like, according to Kellyanne Conway, because it suggests that they are proud of their femininity, not their feminism.
Their femininity and femininity.
And folks, don't doubt me on this.
But at the top of the list of things about which I'm an expert is the modern era of feminism, which I traced to the late 60s when I was 18, 19, and I first came up against it, working at a little radio station in Missouri, my first radio station.
And it's progressed, you know, during uh my formative years in my twenties and encountering it, so I'm an expert on militant feminism.
And I when I tell you that femininity is oil and water to feminism.
Don't doubt me.
You don't doubt me, do you, Sturdy?
And you don't doubt me either, do you?
Femininity and feminism.
And that's why Kellyanne Conway is pointing out here they they share a groomed attractiveness that Republican voters like because it suggests the candidates are proud of their femininity.
And she said further, they look like the homecoming Queens, but they talk like Ronaldus Magnus.
Who wouldn't want that in a combination here in this uh in this political context.
Now I have a story set that aside.
There's a story here in the uh U.S. News and World Report, Washington whispers, Paul Bedard, coal regulations would kill jobs and boost energy bills.
Two new new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost.
Electricity rates will skyrocket 11% to over 23%, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry 180 billion dollars.
Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal and Electricity, said many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges.
Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they're finalized.
EPA, however, tells Washington Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits.
Worth it.
The jobs lost, the 180 billion dollars in new electricity bills, worth it.
Because of the health benefits.
Now the EPA is Obama.
And we can go back in time.
Obama told us that this was going to happen.
He promised us.
January 2008.
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board meeting during a discussion about energy and the environment.
One of the members of the Chronicle Editorial Board asks about alternatives, including coal.
This is what candidate Obama said.
What I've said is that we would put a uh cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Now, the point here is this is 2008.
It's three years ago.
Three years ago.
Three years ago, we're not in this economic mess.
This is January 2008.
We don't even know this economic mess is headed our way.
We don't even know the calamity that's ahead of us.
And Obama is promising then that as president, you want to start a coal-fired power plant, you go right ahead, but it will bankrupt you.
Because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
We're going to bankrupt them.
You want to start it, you go.
So here comes three years later, Obama's EPA in the midst of this economic calamity, following through on the pledge, knowing full well the EPA, which is Obama knowing full well, admitting the job losses, admitting the rising electricity rates, proudly standing by all this because of the health benefits.
So if you think that Barack Obama might change his mind about his own policies because of what's happening to the U.S. economy, forget it.
He's doubling down on the damage.
He wasn't finished.
He had this also to say.
That's another 13 seconds at the editorial board San Francisco Chronicle.
Again, January of 2008.
When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh you know, under my plan uh of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Would necessarily skyrocket under my plan, electricity rates skyrocket.
Three years ago, he means it.
And now his EPA is implementing it.
And the economic damage to you and the cost of living damage to you to hell with it.
Because after all, they're concerned about your health.
Be back right after this.
not go away.
Hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Your guiding light.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIV network, the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Last week's um new unemployment claims are up again, unexpectedly, of course.
Don't worry, ladies and gentlemen, just under bump in the road, sort of the way the uh Rocky Mountains are a bump in the road on the way to California.
It just keeps worsening.
There's no sign of any improvement.
And here we go again, Reuters, and I'm convinced these people are still tweaking me.
The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose.
Last week, according to a report on Thursday that could reinforce fears, the labor market recovery has stalled initial claims for state jobless benefits increased 1,000 to 427,000, the labor department said.
However, economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to four every week, they're wrong.
And thus every week, they are surprised.
And very luckily for these people, discouraged workers are no longer counted in the Department of Labor's official unemployment numbers.
Otherwise, that's the U6 number, and it would be much, much bigger.
Time magazine, Richard Stengel, this is on uh Morning Joe today.
Uh he's the managing editor to Richard Stengel.
They were talking about the new cover for this week's Time magazine.
And a co-host Willie Geist said, let's let's do the big reveal.
Time magazine.
What do we have on the cover here?
It is the topic that Americans are most concerned about.
It's the topic Americans are always most concerned about the economy.
The cover line is what recovery, the five myths about the economy.
Because you know what?
The recovery, such as it is, isn't really happening.
They just realized it at Time Magazine.
They just realized it.
And remember now, these are the same people.
Back in Dawn, you'll remember this.
1994, 1995, Time Magazine actually did a cover on men and women are actually different.
They're born different.
They were stunned.
Men and women are actually born different.
That was a cover story, meaning that that realization had to be such a shocking bit of news that it warranted a cover story at Time Magazine, that men and women were born different.
And so now the wizards of the media ruling class in New York, Time magazine, have concluded that the recovery isn't really happening.
But of course, it's not Obama's fault.
The uh co-host said, well, one of the most troubling is the first one on your five myths, a temporary blip, full steam ahead.
This is more than a temporary blip, you say.
There's a McKinsey study that shows that basically it'll take 60 months for us to get out of this.
People think, what does that mean get out of it?
It'll be back like it was before.
Well, it won't be back like it was before.
You know, American businesses have two trillion dollars that they're sitting on.
But if they're gonna spend it, you know where they're gonna spend it?
They're gonna spend it abroad.
There are 450 million middle class people around the world who will work for less wages than American workers will.
If there's money to invest, they're gonna invest it in Brazil or China or Russia, not in the U.S., we have to understand that.
But it's not Obama's fault, you see.
America's just over.
America's salad days are behind it.
It's not Obama's fault, it's just the way it is.
And these evil businesses.
They're going to seek employees who'll work less around the world.
The American people.
American people won't take these grunt jobs.
It's beneath them.
Of course, that alone is insulting, and it's been empirically disproved, by the way.
We chronicled one example, a recent morning update that we did.
This whole notion that certain jobs Americans won't do.
They will go to the pastures and the farmlands, and they will harvest crops.
It's happening in Georgia.
They have to, because there have been a crackdown on illegal immigrants there.
All right, folks, more coming up.
Another brief, obscene profit timeout here on the EIB Network, and then we will be back.
I want to go back to Obama and the quote, the soundbite, San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, January 2008.
Here, listen again.
What I've said is that we would put a uh cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're gonna be charged a huge sum for all that uh greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
All right, I I can't let this go with just a scant mention.
And by the way, I need to point something out.
The Chronicle did not report that.
You had to listen to all 59 minutes, a full hour of tape of the meeting to get it.
Talk radio played, I played the soundbite.
San Francisco Chronicle never reported that.
So it never really became part of the uh part of the part of the campaign.
Chronicle ever wrote about this.
But it's important, folks.
Three years ago, Barack Obama promises.
He's out in San Francisco talking to a bunch of environmentalists and wackos on the editorial board there.
And he's assuring them he's gonna put the coal business out of business, but not by putting them out of business, he's just gonna make it worth nothing but bankruptcy to go into it.
This is before this economic disaster hits.
Here we are in the middle of the economic disaster.
There is no sign of recovery.
And Obama's EPA is following through on his promise.
Do you understand why some of us believe that it is proper to question whether or not this is purposeful?
This is insane.
It's insane if you have an honest intent to improve the U.S. economy.
By the way, uh with this ruling from the EPA, what are we gonna hear from Senators Rockefeller and Manchin?
Both Democrats, both from West Virginia.
Because the EPA is Obama and vice versa.
Or are they?
And now Time Magazine out, but they're cover.
Hey, yep, there is no recovery.
But it's not Obama's fault.
It's it's it's America's.
America's just over.
The America we knew is just over.
I mean, we just we're all gonna have to just get used to it.
Last night, again on CNN situation room, Whoop Blitzer speaking with James Carville, fresh off his comments that there might be riots next summer if the employment situation doesn't improve.
Blitzer said, give me one piece of advice that you would give Obama right now if you were advising him.
First of all, one of the things that they can't do to get in 2010 is talking about how what they're doing is working.
And the jobs numbers have to sort of improve yet.
The three-month average is 160,000.
I have no idea where it's gonna go in the future, but for his sake and the country's sake, I hope it goes better.
What kind of tolerance and patience do we have?
Uh, first of all, one of the things they can't do, they can't say that what they're doing is working.
Now imagine that.
Now, we all know this.
And you and I have discussed this in terms of Obama Being land slidable beatable in 2012.
Yesterday I asked you.
Stop and think.
What?
Name one thing this regime has done that in a re-election campaign they could promise more of that people would support.
What have they done that you want more of?
You can't name anything.
Not one thing.
In other words, Obama cannot run on his record.
He can't run on his achievements.
Carville is saying so.
Well, if they got to stop talking about how what they're doing is working.
Because it isn't working.
Okay, so if they can't talk about what they're doing, if they can't say four more years, one of the most common re-election slogans that there is, four more years.
They can't say that.
Four more years of this.
Yeah, we like 9% unemployment.
How about 11%?
They can't do it.
So what are they going to do?
What option is open to the Obama re-elect people?
And let's we're talking about a year from now, next summer.
Maybe 15 months next fall.
I don't know how much significant improvement that people can say is indicative of a trend that there can actually be.
It's like this guy from Time Magazine said, we're going to need 60 months of robust job creation to get us back where we were.
60 months.
There's a folks, there's a new book out, been brought to my attention.
I just downloaded it, my iPad on iBooks.
I'm going to start reading it this afternoon.
The book is entitled Reckless Endangerment: How outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption led to Economic Armageddon.
And it's by Gretchen Morgenson, who is a writer, economics writer, business writer for the New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner.
And this book apparently is a cover-to-cover indictment of Wall Street and the Democrat Party.
Fannie Mae, subprime mortgages.
This book answers the question that the American people have.
Who is responsible for this debacle?
The American people know somebody really screwed up, but they don't know who.
This book provides the answer.
And in names, one of the big names mentioned is a guy named James Johnson.
A huge Democrat Party power broker, facilitator, fundraiser.
Barney Frank's name is mentioned.
Acorn, La Raza.
The Democrat establishment with unbreakable ties to Wall Street.
Angelo Mozilla.
I mean, this book apparently makes it plain that it is this economic disaster is a pure creation of the Democrat Party and crony capitalist associates on Wall Street, not the Republican Party.
Pure and simple, the Democrat Party.
Despite the fact that the lead author is the business writer for the New York Times.
Gretchen Morgenson, or one of the business writers for the New York Times.
Pat Cadell, well-known Democrat polster, has reviewed the book.
Cadell says that the Republican Party and the Tea Party have just acquired a new weapon of mass destruction.
Has nothing to do with Wiener.
And that if they deploy the weapon effectively in the next election cycle, and Cadell says it's a big if, then they've got the biggest opportunity to move the country rightwards since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in 1981, and it is this book.
That this book answers the question average Americans have: Why is what's happening to me happening?
Why is my home worthless?
Why don't I have a job?
Why can't I get a loan?
Why is this economy such a mess?
This book answers it, and it answers it with names: Democrats, on Wall Street, in the Obama administration, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Henry Cisneros, Nancy Pelosi, Acorn La Raza, and the big villain, a guy by the name of James Johnson.
Long one of the most important members of the Democrat establishment.
He ran Mondove's campaign with Beckel.
He chaired John Kerry, but he served in Vietnam.
Chaired his search for a vice president.
He's the guy that settled on the noted anti-poverty warrior, John Edwards.
Obama was so impressed with this James Johnson fellow that he reportedly asked him to lead Obama's search in 2008 for a VP.
Though he withdrew.
Johnson withdrew when word got out that he benefited from the disgraced and disgusting Angelo Mozillo's corrupt program of special mortgages for political people.
Cadell says this story is a killer app for the Republicans.
It demonizes Democrats.
It lends itself to attack ads.
It divides Democrats between their Wall Street and Union bases, combines Republican hate figures in ways calculated to unify the Republicans and heighten the intensity of the faithful.
The story illustrates everything the Tea Party thinks about the corrupt Washington establishment and the evils of big government.
It demonstrates the limits on the ability of government programs to help the poor.
It converts a complicated economic story into a simple morality play with Democrats as the villains.
It allows Republicans to capitalize on public fury at the country's economic problems.
It links the Democrats to Wall Street, not the Republicans.
It exposes that mix of incompetence and arrogance that's the hallmark of the modern American liberal establishment and links this condescending cluelessness to the real problems of American families.
It links Obama through appointments, associations, and friendships with the worst elements of the Clinton legacy.
And it blunts some key Democrat talking points.
The title of the book is Reckless Endangerment, How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.
Thank you.
And it's still happening.
And this little exercise here with Obama and Cole is one little microcosm.
One small little example.
James Johnson, as I say was an official of Fannie Mae.
And for compensation decisions made while he was a board member of United Healthcare, one of the nation's biggest medical insurers.
I don't know if you've ever heard the name James Johnson, but he's one of these apparently huge behind the scenes, not so much behind the scenes.
Big time Democrat Party power broker.
But imagine a book that has the answers that every American's asking why in the world is this happening to our country?
The book has it in lay terms.
You don't need a financial background to understand it to decipher it.
And then the answers point straight to the Democrat Party and their liberal crony capitalist buddies on Wall Street.
Timeout, another one.
Fastest three hours of media.
Speaking of books, Ann Coulter will be here in 45 minutes to discuss her new book.
And it's a it uh it's a page turner, too.
It's about the mob acracy that is the lift the left Democrat Party and uh how mobs genuinely generally define the Democrats today and uh serve as their prime mover.
So all that coming up, plus your phone calls as well, right here on the EIB network.
Sit tight, and we'll be right back.
Okay, time to start on the Phones.
Oh, before we get to that, there's a new instant cause of death.
And it's called sitting.
Yep, smoking was bad for you, but sitting is just as bad.
Smoking cigarettes the cause of so much preventable deadly disease.
This is from CBS News San Francisco, by the way.
But now new research shows sitting for long stretches of time may be just as dangerous.
Dr. David Coven said smoking certainly is a major cardiovascular risk factor.
Sitting can be the equivalent in many cases.
Dr. Coven is a cardiologist.
He says several new studies show prolonged sitting as now being linked to increased risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, and even early death.
Dr. Coven says when you sit for a long time, your body goes into storage mode.
What's worse, the more hours a day you sit, the greater your likelihood of developing one or more of these diseases, just as with smoking.
So you gotta exercise.
But furthermore, it's a way to tax sitting.
And it it dovetails with Michelle My Bell's Get Out There and What?
Let's move agenda.
Is that what her agenda is called?
Let's move.
Isn't it interesting how this works?
The first lady comes up with agenda called Let's Move, and her husband does.
He hightails it for fast food every time he gets out of the White House.
Now we find out that if you sit, and of course, if you sit and you're susceptible to all these diseases, guess what?
You're also putting a strain on the health care system.
So a butt tax.
A sitting tax or what have you.
Can it be far down the road?
To the phones, and we're gonna start Salem, New Hampshire with Judy.
Judy, welcome.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Hi, Russia.
Nice to speak with you.
I hope I'm okay.
I've been sitting while I'm waiting for you, so I hope I may get through the conversation.
Well, it's the same thing.
I'm sitting here too, so we're at risk together.
Hey, um, I wanted to call you.
I wanted to let you know why I, as a woman, I don't care for Sarah Palin as a candidate.
I agree with her politics, but she is just too much drama in her presentation.
She's just too much of a woman, you know, as far as the girlfriend.
Come on, Judy.
You're yeah, I mean, you you you you you're giving me I mean, this is you're setting me up to get in trouble here.
She's too much of a woman, meaning too much drama.
Too much drama, right?
It's all uh what is the drama that she creates?
No, it's the way she presents things.
It's always too to the extreme.
It's just again, you know, I don't know.
I wish I had a better way to explain it, but she's just it's too much theatrics in in her presentation.
Oh, I get I you she's an actress too.
She when you say when you say that she's too much drama, are you saying she's not genuine that she's Oh no, I don't, but I think that's just how women get.
They get very excitable at high-pitched boys.
It's just all it's just I don't know if you've ever worked for a woman.
It's the same kind of thing.
It's just too much.
Don't we all?
No.
No.
You contrast that with Rick Santorman you had on yesterday?
Loved it.
I'd never heard him before.
Just very matter-of-fact, just but yet with passion, there's the same kind of thing.
Okay, so Sarah has.
Even where the country is right now, even where it is, and it's not in a good place, and we are we've got major problems, and who is going to lead this country in the future is really a crucial thing.
And even you have just said you don't you her policies are fine, right?
Yes, absolutely.
But that wouldn't count.
If I had to I I wouldn't vote for in a primary if I had another very conservative alternative.
Are you calling her hysterical?
Is that what you're saying?
No, I wouldn't go that far.
But but it is.
But I was close, right?
I was close.
Yes, you are close.
There's that kind of edginess to her voice or her presentation.
And I've seen her live.
Went to see her last year on a campaign trail.
Loved it.
Except, like I said, she's just So what?
You prefer Janet Reno or or or or what's her face?
Uh no, no, no.
Madame Albright?
No, no, no, no.
Big sis.
Appreciate the call, Judy.
Thanks ever so much.
And we'll be back.
Don't go away.
By the way, folks, the review of that book, uh Reckless Endangerment, actually, Walter Mussel Walter Russell Meade reviewed the book, and that's from whom I was quoting.
And it was Cadell, Pat Cadell, who sent uh Walter Russell Meade's review around.
Just to be clear.
▲
Export Selection