All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:44
June 14, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
By the way, there's a uh a new reason for high unemployment as told by Obama.
He had that uh had that interview with Ann Curry at the Today Show.
It basically is too much automation out there.
He cited ATM machines as a reason for high unemployment.
No, no, I kid you not.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh with a plethora of material.
The script written daily by the American left and the regime.
Telephone number if you wish to be part of the program, and we'll get to your phone calls early in this busy broadcast hour.
800-282-2882.
That's right, Obama explained to NBC News the reason that companies are not hiring is not because of his policies.
It's because the economy is so automated.
He said there are there's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.
You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM.
You don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.
He actually said this.
How many of you are familiar with the term Luddite?
You know what a Luddite is.
A Luddite is basically used to describe somebody backwards, old-fashioned, out of it, worthless, and so forth and so on.
Now the Luddites were the people who in the early 1800s attacked the textile looms in England at the start of the industrial revolution.
They wanted to destroy the looms because they said that they would take away jobs from the peoples.
It's a term of derision today.
Because they were so absurdly wrong, the loom added all kinds of work and productivity.
It changed the textile business, as we all know.
But Obama is now a Luddite.
He is taking up the cause of the Luddites.
And the ATM machine, that's why you're as high on employment.
How long have we had ATMs?
Did Bush invent those, by the way?
I don't know.
Did Bush invent the ATMs?
Because everything's Bush's fault.
According to Obama, by the way, uh, ladies and gentlemen, 28 months after Congress passed Obama's stimulus bill.
And nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010, last summer to be the recovery summer, 1.9 million fewer people are employed.
We have lost nearly two million jobs since Obama's stimulus bill.
And yet it's Bush's fault.
In February of 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, reported that 141.7 million people were employed.
By the end of May 2011, the number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million people.
We've lost two million jobs since the stimulus.
And now today or yesterday, we learned it's because of automation.
That's what he told Ann Curry.
Last night the president was in Miami, spoke at a fundraiser, and he was heckled by a bunch of AIDS activists out there at a half-filled venue.
I think what were they selling tickets at 44 bucks or something?
It was half filled.
They couldn't fill it in Miami.
And you can't say it was all because they were depressed over LeBron James in the heat.
Of the one.
They're not heckled.
I mean, they're not they're not fainting in the aisles anymore.
They're heckling the one.
We couldn't have done it without you.
We could not...
It's all right.
That's all right.
We're good, we're good.
So...
Hold up, hold up, hold up, hold up!
Hold up!
He had to wait for the teleprompter to catch up there because he had no idea what to say once the hecklers begin.
We're good, we're good, hold up!
So there was stop AIDS now.
He's trying to reinvent himself, by the way.
Not going to work because he's got a record.
Same place, fundraiser in Miami.
If you're looking for easy answers, you're looking in the wrong place.
If you're looking for just a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I'm probably not your guy.
Oh, now he's telling his side back off, don't he?
If you expect me to start ripping into these guys you don't like, that ain't me.
Yeah.
He said that.
If you're looking for a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I'm probably not your guy.
Not partisan, eh?
September 17th, 2008, Elko, Nevada.
I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.
I want you to talk to them, whether they're independent or whether they are Republican.
I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
Get in their face.
That's 2008.
2011, eh, not gonna happen.
He's not gonna be a rabble arouse.
He's not gonna throw red meat to these people.
He's gonna be civil.
Tell supporters to get in their face back in 2008.
October 25th, 2010.
We don't mind the Republicans joining us.
They can go come for the ride, but they gotta sit and back.
They can come for the ride and go sit in the back.
Republicans want a moat.
Rico's down to El Paso.
Yeah, you know those Republicans, they want to build a moat.
So people can't get here.
They want crocodile delegators in the moat.
Keep people out.
That was just last month.
But he's not gonna be the partisan guy that everybody wants him to be.
Now, the crowd at that fundraiser, they were shouting down the protesters with their chance of Obama, Obama, Obama.
Which is exactly what the regime does to anybody who uh who objects.
But he's calling the Republicans the enemy.
He's not, but he's not, he's not gonna be partisan.
Ann Curry asked him what he would do if he were Wiener.
That's what he said.
Well, obviously, what he did was highly inappropriate.
I think he's embarrassed himself.
He's acknowledged that he's embarrassed his wife and his family.
Ultimately, there's going to be a decision for him and his constituents.
Uh I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign.
If it was me, I would resign.
I don't know if this is the final blow for Wiener or not.
Uh you got Obama out there saying that if he had done what Wiener did, that he would resign.
It is a big blow.
You got the guy in the White House saying if he were you, that he would quit.
And uh, why should Obama be embarrassed?
Well, I don't know what Obama didn't do anything here that Wiener did.
I mean, I did all Obama's saying that if he had done what Wiener did that he would quit.
If it were him.
But yeah, um, a big blow.
Now, this Wiener business, folks, I'm looking for the story here in the stack.
They've got this guy going away to rehab for years.
Uh it's it's at least certainly months.
It's it's bad out there.
They list all the things that could be wrong with Wiener.
He could be a sex addict.
That can take months, that can take years.
Uh constant, never ending, ongoing.
Yeah, here it is.
Politico.
Wiener's road back.
Maybe long.
First came the crotch photos.
Then came the lying and denial.
This is by Erica Lovely is the uh info babe that wrote this.
And now Anthony Wiener is seeking treatment for his misdeeds, leaving Washingtonians asking treatment for what?
Based on his behavior, which the Congressman says includes sending lewd messages and images over the internet to six women in the past three years.
Experts interviewed by Politico said that he could suffer from an array of conditions that could merit treatment, including narcissism, obsessive compulsive disorder, or even some variety of sexual addiction.
None of the possibilities comes of a silver bullet treatment that delivers quick results.
Meaning that if Wiener is found to suffer from any of these conditions, he isn't going to duck into a rehab center and emerge a week later with a doctor's assurance that he's cured, cleared to return to Congress.
Instead, treatment requires weeks, months, maybe even years of one-on-one therapy or group meetings.
A slog through a 12-step program, perhaps even medication.
It might be easy for a celebrity or politician caught in a scandal to say I'm getting help, but if he really needs it, and if he really wants it, it won't be a breeze.
He risked his career, his reputation, in his recent marriage to engage in certain behavior while ignoring what the consequences may be, said Sandra Davis, an addiction expert at Shady Side Psychotherapy Associates in Pittsburgh.
When someone chooses to do that, we say that they are progressing down a long continuum of developing an addiction.
Now there are other reasons why somebody might engage a risky behavior, including a personality disorder that masks underlying insecurity.
With personality and narcissistic disorder, people in power often have a grandiose sense of entitlement and sense that they can get away with anything.
In reality, most of them are rather insecure and feel smaller than they actually are, said Brett Kennedy, a licensed clinical psychologist based in New York City.
The bottom line is that tackling any of these problems requires time.
Maybe even years.
So Democrats are calling upon a sick person.
A person who is ill to give up his job when it could take years to cure him.
But the Democrats want this guy long gone.
Carolyn McCarthy, walking through the halls of Congress today, said I think he's going to resign pretty soon.
And now the entire Washington complex is abuzz with that.
She just happened to Oh, yeah, she's walking through saying hi to everybody.
Yeah, Wiener.
Wiener might resign pretty soon here.
Now they asked Wiener at his press conference if he would if he would seek professional help.
He said, Well, I have not, you know, I'm going to try to handle this, and I haven't ruled out perhaps seeing somebody, but I'm not blaming anybody.
It's not something that can be treated away.
That's my own personal mistake.
It's not something, it's a weakness, a deep weakness.
I've demonstrated, and for that I apologize.
Can you be forced out of your job in New York if you have a disability?
What happened to the Americans of Disability Act?
Can you be forced out of your gig if you have an illness?
That's a relevant question.
And in Democrats here, folks, I'd every other paragraph.
This political story references how long Wiener's recovery might take.
As in years.
I know, I know they're good.
They are talking about possibly redistricting him out if he won't go.
Meanwhile, Huma's still with Hillard.
Where are they?
Have they come back from Abu Dhabi yet?
Are they back?
Are they still over there flipping around doing diplomacy?
Yeah, I haven't heard they're back.
Now everybody's starting to ask, you know, oh, wait a second.
Wiener can't quit because he doesn't have anything else he can do.
So he has no other way providing income.
And he makes 174 grand a year.
Plus, if he uh goes away, he will continue to be paid.
But they're, you know, looking at the way Huma dresses, and she has dresses that cost 100,000 dollars.
Where are they where are they getting the money?
People start to ask this.
Where are they getting this kind of money?
Because Wiener doesn't have it.
Huma might have had it before she met Wiener.
And before she met Wiener, married Wiener.
Her mother may have the money.
Mother's teaches something in Saudi Arabia.
Who knows?
But there is some money in there.
It isn't wiener's.
Above and beyond what his salary is.
Okay, we're back.
El Rush Ball, the cutting edge of societal evolution, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And to the phones we go.
Starting with Ralph in Washington.
Ralph, great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Longtime listener, second time caller, and thank you for having me on your show.
You bet, sir.
Hey, after slogging through the uh debate last night, I was really taken by the media's reaction after the debate last evening and this morning to Michelle Bachman.
And it seemed like there was a lot of glowing reviews for uh Congresswoman Bachman, and I like her too.
I think she'd be a great speaker of the house.
But all my years as a longtime student at the EIB Institute tells me there's something else going on.
Well, you mean with her candidacy?
Well, with the media's glowing reviews of her.
I kind of feel like they're trying to set her up as the anti-palem or some way, you know, really build her up to try to keep Palem out.
Does that make sense?
Well, um, it is you it it could uh if you look at it from the following standpoint.
Okay, the media doesn't want Palin in the race, so build Bachman up.
Palin watches this, gets steamed because they know the media hates her.
Here they are building Bachman up.
She's gonna realize, well, I can't compete with they're gonna love Michelle, I have to stay out.
Is that is that what you're thinking?
Well, I'm wondering if that's what they're thinking they can make us think.
I I just think that it won't work.
I mean, I was taken last night by a poll that I saw that in spite of all the negativity, Halen still tracks just behind Romney.
And um I don't know.
I I just was really interested in your viewpoint on on how they were treating Michelle Bachmann, which was over the top, I thought, which was great.
She did a great job, but I just think there's something else happening.
Well, I I think it was uh uh at this point, media treatment of uh any of these people is I think predictable in any number of contexts.
Here's Bachman, new on the scene.
They don't think she has a prayer, they don't think she stands a chance.
Um they have up until now, they've done prior to last night, they belittled her, they made fun of her, they made fun of her because she's little.
They've made fun of her because she's an extremist and so forth.
Um what what they're trying to do by elevating her now, I I I think is uh diminish everybody else uh in the race uh as well on the on the Republican side.
But I actually think this.
In addition to that, I think it's sometimes we can be too smart by half Ralph.
And I actually believe there are some in the media who for the first time found out something about Michelle Bachman and they were shocked.
They were stunned.
The media is like everybody else on the left.
It's like people who have never listened to this program but attack me religiously and claim to know everything about me.
My personality, what I've said, what I haven't said, all this they've never listened.
They know it simply because it's what's been said by critics that they listen to.
Well, the same token.
The media has a template narrative of Bachmann.
And that is she's pro-life, she's conservative, she's stupid, she's an idiot, and so forth, and then they finally see her, and it doesn't meld with anything that they knew.
It it just it doesn't, it doesn't uh it doesn't compute.
They never bothered to learn anything about her because they didn't care to.
All they knew was that she's a conservative female, therefore she's a traitor.
Therefore she's a a wing nut.
She's uh she's a kook.
They see her last night, you know, in a totally uh different light.
See her in ways that contradict everything they thought they knew about her.
How many people watching last night do you think knew that she and her husband have five kids and raised twenty-three foster kids?
How many people do you think knew this?
Now, those of you who know it, well, why shouldn't everybody?
If I know it, why shouldn't you be amazed at how ignorant the media is about people on our side.
They're not curious.
All they know is that they oppose us and in some cases detest us, and it's purely and simply because we're conservative, and that's it.
They don't want to know anymore.
They don't need to know anymore.
As such, they don't expect to like her.
Plus, she's she's got a she's got another strike against her blow against her, and that is she's very tight with the Tea Party.
They hate the Tea Party.
So they think that John King and their buddies at CNN are gonna make her look like a fool.
They believe that they're gonna be able to embarrass her off the stage by asking her a bunch of trick questions.
I mean, she's the one that got the question on gay marriage, and she hit a home run in her answer.
And she's the one that got the question about gays in the military.
And she's the one that got the question about abortion.
They all chimed in on it, but she's the one that got all those questions.
So those are, you know, gay marriage, uh, gays in the military, abortion, those are these issues that the left thinks that they can destroy any conservative with.
And she hit a home run with every answer.
And my guess is that some of them were just genuinely surprised.
And if there is an effort to take her out, it will begin now.
Not that it began yesterday.
Now that they have seen her, now that they realize that they better take her seriously, that's when they'll focus on destroying her.
And we stay with the phones in Denver, Colorado.
It says, Tony, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Megadetto's our great maha.
You bet, sir.
She deserves to be built up.
I love her.
Bachman told the country last night Obama needs to direct the Treasury Secretary to pay the interest on the debt first.
Rush, do you agree with her on this alternative to avoid a failure of our full faith and credit?
Uh run that by me again.
I mean it's a hearing problem.
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
Sure, she said she told the country last night Obama needs to direct the Treasury Secretary to pay the interest on the debt first.
Yes, that's right.
Do you agree with her?
Um, as what were the other options?
Raise a debt ceiling.
Oh, of course.
You know, we need to raise the debt ceiling.
We the debt sitting doesn't need to be raised.
We need to seriously cut spending.
There's plenty of money coming in via tax revenue to service the debt without raising the debt ceiling.
What made the case for weeks here?
It's this is just another of the never-ending straw dogs of Democrats throw up.
In fact, there's a there's a just uh just sent to me, CNN Money.com on their website, has a headline with a picture of uh, I think Bachman and uh Marco Rubio and one other Republican Bayner, and they're referred to in the headline as wing nuts on a CNN Money.com website, wing nuts oppose raising debt ceiling.
Uh now this is this is just it's it's another disguised effort to get the government to expand and to grow and to try to proclaim the Republicans as mean spirited and uh when it cut old people's social security and health care and so forth, it needs to be resisted, and the Republicans right now have held pretty firm.
I think they've done pretty well on it.
Well, she has my vote.
She was a hands-down winner of the debate last night.
And what about that answer on Libya having no national security interest?
Yeah, took 200%.
She was great one.
She was great.
There's no national interest in Libya.
What are we there for?
She was there's no question.
She was uh she was on her game last night.
I think they all were, and I'm not I'm not saying this because I want to avoid naming anybody over anybody else.
I just think the whole debate last night was as good as the first one.
You had a decent in in most cases and a well above average presentation of conservatism last night.
And the media today is all upset because they didn't go out and attack Romney.
Who's the front runner?
Now that's not right.
They should have been attacking Romney.
And that's because they were so effective in attacking Obama.
And believe me, we're 17 months out.
The Republicans in these debates at some point will start focusing on each other.
That'll happen.
But right now, the education that needs to take place is that this party is unified against this current regime.
And that anybody on that stage would be better than what we've got.
And that message was made clear last night.
Even Romney, I think, made that made that statement.
And I can only think of a couple exceptions to that last night.
And maybe not even one.
Anybody on that stage would be better than what we've got.
This is this has been my point when people tell me they can't stand Palin.
Oh, yeah, yeah, I say, yeah, that's right.
Give me four more years of Obama.
What do you mean can't say Elber Fudd, folks?
Anybody would be better than what we've got.
This is serious business.
This administration and its policies have to go.
And not just for one election.
We need to begin a trend here if we're really going to reverse this, and if we're going to be true to the cause that we have pledged ourselves, this is going to have to be something that's ongoing every election.
And liberalism must be beat wherever it's on the ballot, wherever it's personified.
Everybody that asked a question in that debate last night would be a better president of what we've got.
Every member of the public that they dragged forth to ask a question would make a better president than Obama.
When I hear about so-and-so not qualified, don't give me not qualified.
Where is Obama qualified?
What the hell did Obama ever do?
Community organizer, vote president as he's as a state senator, serve in the U.S. Senate for a hundred and some odd days.
Where is he qualified?
I really do.
I get livid when I hear people try to uh uh assault the Republicans who are running for office on the basis they're not qualified.
Yeah, now in an ideal world, we can afford here to sit there and start you know being being uh microscopic about this.
But right now, folks, uh there's there's not a Republican on that stage that wouldn't do a better job for this country than what's currently being done as president.
There's not a person on that stage last night that would not end up with a much better support team, a better cabinet, better people at CIA, Department of Defense, you name it.
It's not even close.
We don't have anybody in this current administration, either any of the czars or any of the cabinet members who've ever held a job in the private sector.
Not one.
Not a single one.
Meaning we don't have anybody in this administration who's ever spent time as an adult in the real world.
They come from academe, the faculty lounge, the classroom, or wherever the hell else.
Think tanks or what have you, but they don't come from the sectors and the quadrants of this country where people live who make it work.
And they don't have any contact with people who've made the country work.
Their relationships are all incestuous with uh people who are just like them.
A bunch of theoreticians who think they're smarter than everybody else.
Arrogant, condescending.
So I I think it's um pedal to the metal time.
I I don't whenever I hear any standard criticism against any Republican nominee, I simply what about Obama?
Somebody explain to me what were his qualifications.
Sounded smart, spoke well with a teleprompter.
What is it?
Telegenic, sounded uh Sounded intelligent, went to sounded educated, big whoop.
What were his qualifications?
What are they now?
What are his qualifications?
In fact, in this case with Obama, we've now got a record, and that record is evidence he hasn't either one of two things.
He has no clue what he's doing, or he knows exactly what he's doing.
Either way, we are screwed.
But I just, you know, all these limits that we want to place on our people that we don't place and demand on our opponents.
They got to be morally a cut above.
They've got to be it's not realistic.
I thought they all did great.
I thought they all, in their own ways, made great presentations of conservatism last night.
Last night and the previous debate, we got a brilliant exposition of the alternative to this, which is what has to happen.
Never before have we had an opportunity like we have not a contrast who we are with liberalism.
Never before have we lived in a time where liberalism, Marxism, what have you, the Democrat Party has so openly, eagerly embraced the destruction of this country.
It's there for one and all to see each and every day.
I know I get in trouble from people when I say this because they think I'm going to cause people to be overly confident.
I think Obama, the election today, loses in a landslide.
I have friends who disagree with me, who think that they've got the Democrats have the fix in.
They've got voting irregularities and fraud and all these kinds of things that guarantee Obama re-election.
I know that that kind of thinking exists.
I'm just relying on my common sense.
That is combined with a faith that I still have in a vast majority of the American people to understand this is not the kind of country they want.
This is not the way they want to live.
This is not the future that they want.
I don't think they're any longer caught up in the historical nature of this presidency.
I don't think they're dazzled by that.
I think it's long gone now.
I think it's you know, the rubber has met the road.
And if there were an election today, and if this guy got 20% of the vote, I would not be surprised.
He's got about 25, 30% support of the people in this country because that's the percentage of the country that's liberal.
This guy would not come close to winning if the election were today.
And I know I'm telling you, I've got friends that cringe when I say this and warn me that I shouldn't be talking this way.
Because I'm going to get caught short, because what are you going to do when he wins?
Rush, what are you going to do?
I mean, it's entirely possible he could win even now if the election were held tomorrow.
And I have to concede that anything's possible, and I'm just predicting it based on what to me are obvious common sense things, that there's nothing that is happening in this country that anybody who's in charge would be rewarded for doing.
Unless Obama's going to be rewarded by the left for defeating conservatives.
I'm sure there's a there's a percentage of people that will vote on that basis.
It's why they loved Bill Clinton.
There's a great piece in the Wall Street Journal today by uh a guy by the name of Clinton as Ness, the managing and founding principle of AQR capital management.
We all talk about how the reason businesses are sitting on large piles of money, the reason businesses are not hiring, is because of all the uncertainty ahead.
Don't know what tax rates are going to be, don't know what Obamacare is actually going to end up being once it's fully implemented.
Mr. Asnes has a different theory.
The headline of his piece is uncertainty is not the problem.
It's not the policies that we don't know about that are retarding the economy.
It's the policies that we have.
It is the bad policies that we have.
And he is right on the money.
It's true that there are people in business, large and small, who are holding back, not expanding, not investing in their businesses because they don't know what's coming down the pike.
But it's more, I think, accurate to say there are people sitting on things and not expanding precisely because of what Obama has already done.
Not so much what's yet to come, but because of the rotten policies everybody's saddled with already.
Many commentators blame our continuing economic woes on uncertainty.
They allege that recent and anticipated dramatic policy changes make business planning difficult.
And that this is retarding growth and employment.
This view is not wrong.
But our main problem is not the uncertainty surrounding new policies.
It is the policies.
Consider two uncertain situations.
In the first, our business is waiting to find out the location decision for a customer's new industrial plant, so we know where to build our new supply facility.
Until this is resolved, we will not invest in building, nor will we hire anybody.
In the second situation, we know we are in for some pain.
Someone's going to make our business less productive and profitable, but we don't yet know how much.
Planning is marginally more difficult, but the main reason we'll not grow in the second situation is that investment is less attractive regardless of the precise resolution of uncertainty.
In the first case, uncertainty is the obstacle.
Once uncertainty is resolved, we invest.
In the second case, uncertainty is a small part of the problem.
The large part is simply the bad things already happening.
The day we are told, well, it's exactly a 30% hit to productivity and profits.
All uncertainty is resolved, and yet we still won't invest or hire if that's the climate.
So you've got a uh uh a great point here.
Yeah, there is uncertainty, but people in business have already figured out that it is current policies as well.
Obama policies that are stifling and retarding growth.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Fred in Homer, Alaska.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, it's an honor to speak with you once again and greetings from Alaska.
Thank you.
I wanted to go back to the mortgage uh money side and how people actually made money.
I was in the mortgage business for about twelve years.
And while we're in this business, we were able to originate loans.
And when we did this, the borrower would be charged a fee, usually one percent.
Yeah.
So let's say they took a hundred and fifty thousand dollar loan, then the originator would make fifteen hundred dollars.
Hey, Fred, you know what?
I just noticed something.
I misread the clock by one minute.
Okay.
Can you hang on?
I can.
Please do, because I want I want to hear the because this it is a it's a complicated subject that can be made understandable.
How did these people make money lending or loaning money to people that would never pay it back?
And they did make money.
So Fred here will be among those who'll tell us.
I have to take a brief obscene profit timeout right now.
We'll come back and continue after this.
Well, another exciting busy broadcast hour in the can, soon to be on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which is open.
You can visit and tour the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, and it's amazing.
And my website, Rushlimbaug.com.
And yes, the big announcement coming tomorrow.
Yeah, I've not been stringing anybody along.
▲
Export Selection