All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
June 21, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And we do it each and every day.
We welcome you to be part of it.
And you do.
Telephone number if you want to join us.
You want to be on the program.
And we'll get to calls quickly in this hour.
Telephone number 800 28282.
Email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, so I checked the email during the top of the hour break.
What do you got against Huntsman?
Why are you I don't have anything against Huntsman.
Folks, I guess I'm glad for the question if I give you the opportunity to specify.
I don't know John Huntsman, and I'm everything I've seen about the guy is a prince.
A prince of a person, a nice fellow, well met, hail fellow well met.
I'd play golf with him, sure.
This this my comments here have to do with campaign technique, tactics, and strategy.
And I really think I don't know if if uh the way Huntsman's going about this is what he really thinks is the best way to do it or whether he's getting advice.
Either way, I disagree with it.
And I think I know that these guys are getting this kind of advice.
You know, go milk toast, uh, don't don't uh anything that's partisan, you don't want to be confrontational, independents don't like it.
I get so fed up with being on defense.
Particularly where uh independent voters are concerned, as though the one thing that matters that the independents are perfectly fine with the country being destroyed.
What really tick off the independence is if you get mad at the people doing it.
I'm sorry, it doesn't compute.
And I think if I were you independents, I'd be a little bit upset that you're being portrayed this way.
That you're perfectly fine with everything going to hell in a handbasket, but when somebody gets very pointed in saying so, that's when you get mad.
What is that?
Now let me give you a quote of something that Huntsman said today, and again, within the context of Mr. Huntsman saying, I'm not gonna go attack anybody, and I'm not gonna destroy anybody's reputation.
I have profound respect for President Obama, but okay, here's what he's something he said at his announcement of the Statue of Liberty today.
He said, for the first time in our history, we are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive, and less confident than the one we got.
Okay.
That matters to me.
That's a pretty big indictment.
For the first time in our history, this is not insignificant.
And he's right, and I assume he believes it.
Not only is it not insignificant, it's profound.
For the first time in our history, we are about to pass down to the next generation, a country that's less powerful, I don't know, it's less compassionate business.
I I don't know what that means.
We're going broke being compassionate.
We're bankrupting the next generation, and the generation after that, and the following generation.
We're bankrupting all those people with our compassion.
And make no mistake, that's how way too many people to find compassion.
How much money are you willing to throw at people?
How much money are you willing to redistribute?
That's what that's what goes for compassion these days.
Now we're passing down a country that's less competitive and less confident.
Sorry, somebody's responsible for that.
Somebody and their policies is responsible for that.
And if you don't want to say that one person is, clearly a political party can be said to be responsible for it.
Clearly the policies of a political party, I mean, even if you say, I'm not going to attack the guy, but I we got to go after his policies.
Well, that's pretty profound stuff here.
These are very destructive policies.
If you really believe this, you've got to attack this with little passion.
But how can you how can you say for the first time in our history we're at to pass down to the next generation, a country that's less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive, less confident.
And at the same time say, I'm going to uh tack anybody.
We're gonna have a contest here on who's a better president, not who's a better American.
Who's a better American's not on the ballot anyway?
Where did that come from?
I mean, this kind of stuff bothers me.
It doesn't, it doesn't offend me.
This is less powerful.
He's basically saying the same thing that the defense secretary Robert Gates said over the weekend, except for the competitive and compassionate part.
But I mean, this this stuff matters.
This is it's not saying for the first time in our history, we've got a national debt of 14 trillion dollars.
Okay, fine.
First time in our history, we're a nation in decline.
That's serious stuff.
Somebody's responsible for that.
That just didn't happen, folks.
Sorry to say, it's not just an evolutionary cycle.
The evolutionary cycle that is this country is one of growth, is one of power, is one of liberation for the oppressed all over the world.
The evolutionary cycle of this country is greatness.
And now we have people running for orifice, acknowledging that for the first time in our history, so it's not part of a cycle.
For the first time in our history, we are in decline.
Well, you can't just ho-hum that.
If you ho hum it, nobody's gonna believe you mean it.
It's like trying to fight a war on terrorism without daring to use the word terrorist, which, by the way, this current regime has tried to do.
You've got to be willing to name your enemies.
You have to be willing to define your enemies, and you have to be willing to tell people why they are the enemy.
Well, I don't think we even have people willing to describe the Democrats as our enemy.
No, they are our worthy opponents.
Mr. Limbaugh, the Democrats are our worthy opponent.
That's how we independents look at it.
They're a worthy opponent.
Fine, worthy opponents.
Let me make something very clear.
Barack Obama and his buds look at us as the enemy.
Barack Hussein Obama and his party look at us as much bigger enemies than they see Al Qaeda as an enemy.
Make no mistake about it.
So this is all that I mean.
You're gonna run around and talk about how for the first time ever we're in a nation, uh a nation in a state of decline.
It's not a hoe hummer.
It's not an old by the way.
And speaking of this, you know, I read a lot of websites, show prep, and sometimes when I feel the need to be entertained, I will read comments posted by idiots that go to these left wing websites.
And of course, these people, and you know it as well as I do, they do nothing but complain.
They're constantly unhappy, they're constantly miserable, even though they're getting everything they want.
They're just not getting the destruction fast enough.
They're not getting single payer health care tomorrow.
It's gonna take three or four years.
But they're still miserable.
They are still inmeshed in disappointment.
Now, you know, I am the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all everything maharushi.
But it is a mystery to me why you liberals, why any liberal can complain, for example, about the lousy job market.
Why would you complain about that?
You were given choices and you chose.
You were asked to choose between more energy and pristine Arctic preserves or oil from and war, and you chose pristine Arctic preserves and no oil.
So don't complain about gasoline prices to me.
When it comes to employment, you were given a choice.
We could uh engage in economic policy which would uh remove obstacles from small and medium and large businesses in the private sector, make it more conducive for them to expand and grow, or we could take money out of their back pockets and out of their businesses, and we could transfer it to Washington, and they could spend the money on so-called shovel ready projects, which now the administration's laughing about.
There really weren't any shovel ready projects, and they're laughing about it.
You were given a choice.
You were you you left us for given all kinds of choices.
And you chose, in the case of energy, no energy, no oil, no exploration, no drilling, no nothing.
You chose moratoriums.
You chose policies that do not create jobs.
You chose policies that grow government.
Don't complain to us about jobs.
You're getting what you want.
You're getting what you voted for.
You were asked to choose between fewer regulations to speed up innovation.
And you chose fewer regulations.
You chose more regulation.
You did not choose a path that would lead to an expansionist economy.
You did not choose policies or a path that would lead to enhanced opportunity for prosperity.
You were asked to choose between more free trade or more union controls over business, and what did you choose?
You chose more union control.
So everything you've chosen, you've gotten.
And therefore, I don't understand why you're complaining.
Because you got everything you wanted.
You wanted national health care, you're damn well close to it.
You believe that premiums are going to be reduced on average by $2,500.
You assumed everybody was going to have a policy, it wasn't going to cost anybody anything.
Uh you chose it, you found out it's not what it was promised to be, but you got to live with it.
Why are you unhappy?
I can't fathom why you complain.
I mean, I I I can see a gazillion reasons why Democrats and leftists ought to be voted out of office.
But I don't know why any of you liberals are complaining.
You got what you wanted.
Brief timeouts.
Simply by being here.
You want to save the U.S. economy, you roll back the Obama revolution.
Pure and simple.
That's how you save the U.S. economy.
You want to sit around and worry about respecting somebody's reputation or what have you.
I mean, I know Obama once told us we should be mad, except he told us we should be mad at people like AIG or people on Wall Street.
So even our esteemed dear leader told, hey, it's okay to get mad at people.
But we're not supposed to be mad at Obama.
We're not supposed to be mad at a party which is systematically destroying and admittedly here by even Mr. Huntsman, the first time in our history.
We are a nation in decline, being presided over as such.
Happily by the Democrat Party and its leaders and emissaries.
All right, to the phones we go.
We're going to start White Plains, New York, this rich.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Appreciate your patience in waiting.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call and congratulations on your 80.
Thank you.
Oh, it was exciting.
It was fun.
I was ready for an emergency nine.
I know you're feeling good.
Rush, uh I think it's most critical for the liberal drive-by media to try and push uh a moderate like Huntsman as the Republican candidate in 2012 because of that poll that shows that a generic Republican candidate will beat Obama.
And that means What that means is it translates into a lot of Republicans won't be holding their noses and voting for a moderate because they're worried about his or her electability in the in the general election.
They'll vote their conservative ideology and not settle for less.
And I guarantee you're going to watch the scare tactics from the lame stream liberal media of left and right to try to convince Republicans, you know, don't do it.
don't vote in that quote extremist conservative candidate or you'll lose that's right in fact the whole notion of a Republican candidate and extremism is already being formulated um Axelrod and some of the Obama people are already starting to allude to it even now.
So you're you're dead on right.
But I'll tell you something else, folks, that this he's probably the generic ballot when unnamed Republican beats Obama.
The generic ballots it's a funny thing to follow in uh in polling.
The uh generally in the in the generic ballot, uh Democrats, if I'm if I'm not getting confused about this, Democrats in the in the past traditionally have always done well in uh generic balloting, however, or polling, lately it has been Republicans.
And what it means is an unnamed Republican would beat Obama.
Anybody.
Anybody right.
Elmer Fudd, as long as he were a Republican.
Now it changes once you start uh giving people named choices.
And this is uh uh normally when you start putting names in there, the advantage gets even bigger.
But see, I think even the idea of calling Huntsman a moderate is is uh is an illustration of media manipulation.
I I think that's uh uh part of the whole the whole idea that he's a moderate is again how we're being manipulated, and of course, moderates are what we want.
That's what we're told will win.
And who is it that tells us this?
Our opponents.
The Democrats tell us.
So you get the Democrats trying to pick our nominee again and their willing accomplices in the media.
And they always say what we need are moderates.
Take a look at who loses our elections.
I went through this yesterday.
The reason why the Republicans get hamstrung on this is because they can't get over the landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
And Goldwater, of course, is an unapologetic conservative.
And they think this is what led to his defeat was the fact that he was unapologetically conservative.
And so if we just avoid that, we got a better chance.
Look at who it is that actually loses our elections and who it is that wins them.
Renalvis Magnus won twice landslides.
Not only did he say that he was a conservative, he did it with great enthusiasm and passion.
He wasn't embarrassed to say he was a conservative at all, nor was he embarrassed about conservatism.
George W. Bush won twice espousing conservative principles, policies, and ideals.
The people on our side that lose elections are these vaunted moderates.
The rhinos or the liberal Republicans, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, McCain.
So is it any wonder that the left and the media would come along and suggest you guys you better nominate moderate?
That's the only chance you've got.
I mean, they know full well what beats them.
They know they they they have a they have a crystal clear definition and answer of what beats them.
Now, you know, you and I on this program, we discuss time and time again.
Um is Obama doing this on purpose, or does he not really know?
Is the age old argument, is he a neophyte, ignorant theoretician from the faculty lounge, or is he really this committed Marxist who is doing all this on purpose?
Now, a man that we uh we admire greatly here at the EIB network, Victor Davis Hanson.
He's a noted farmer from the Central Valley of California.
He's uh uh in his own way a Renaissance man.
He's a Greek historian, par excellence.
Uh I I love listening to Victor Davis Hansen describe ancient Greece.
You know, in ancient Greece they had their own Clinton.
Alcibiades was in ancient Greek Clinton.
I mean, down to a T. Victor Davis Hansen writes prolifically.
National Review, National Review Online, and a couple of other websites.
And there is a piece he's posted today yesterday, got a Glenn Reynolds website, Instapundit, The Metaphysics of Contemporary Theft.
And in this piece, Victor Davis Hansen, affectionately known as VDH to his friends, says, you know, what he thinks that basically what's happening here is that watching the tastes and the behavior and the rhetoric and the appointments and the policy of this administration suggests to me that Obama's not really serious in radically altering the existing order,
which it counts on despite itself.
Its real goal is a sort of parasitism that assumes the survivability of the enfeebled host.
Let me translate.
Victor Davis Hanson believes that Obama and the liberals are simple parasites.
That they really don't want to radically alter the existing order.
They will say so, but they don't actually take the great leaps necessary to do it.
They get close, but they don't actually take steps to destroy this because they feed off of it.
They need an economy producing things for them to take so that they can redistribute.
And they just, in their ignorance, they assume that no matter how often they kill the golden goose, that the golden goose is going to continue to live and be prosperous and produce enough for Obama and his guys to continue to take from.
That's the prevailing opinion from Victor Davis Hanson.
Back after this.
Now back to Victor Davis Hansen.
He doesn't really believe that Obama is engaged in a willful and purposeful destruction of the economic engine that creates prosperity and the opportunity for it in this country.
He thinks that basically that they're just a bunch of parasites that they don't really want to radically alter what's going on.
In fact, they count on the golden goose thriving.
They count on, no matter what they do to it, whatever tax policy happens, whatever regulations, they think it's going to survive.
They think it's going to continue to do well enough that there will be enough that they can take from it to redistribute or to do whatever else they want to do with it, and that they're not going to destroy it.
That they're parasites.
And that they assume, this is their naivete or ignorance, that they assume that the host, the U.S. economy, will survive their parasitic behavior.
But they won't kill it.
Now, my problem with that, and I again say this with due respect, is to believe that, to believe that Obama is not a radical and he doesn't really want to radically alter things, just says so, is just a parasite feeding off of all this.
You must assume, it would seem to me, that uh Obama and the left are not driven by an ideology then.
When Obama wants to change our society, when he takes major steps towards doing it.
Why go to pains to deny it?
Which they do.
I mean, you go out, you accuse them of doing this on purpose, you go out and accuse them of of uh of making radical changes to our society, major steps toward destroying the uh the nation as founded, or they'll disagree with you.
Why why why deny it?
They don't want that to be known.
I I think to just view them as a bunch of uh well-intentioned ignorant parasites, Is to deny that they're driven by an ideology, and we know what the ideology is.
The ideology is socialism.
The socialist sucks the blood out of capitalism.
We're not talking here about parasites, we're talking vampires.
If you want to get down to brass tax.
Now some might say there's not much difference in the two.
I think there is.
We're talking vampires.
Obama, Democrats, socialists, leftists suck the blood out of capitalism.
They will eventually destroy it.
This is not news.
And they run out of capitalist created wealth.
Winston Churchill him said it.
One of the great things, one of the bad things about socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
Why do you do that?
Why does that why do you run out of other people's money?
Because you've sucked all of it out of the system.
Socialism does not create wealth.
It destroys wealth.
Socialism does not create jobs.
It destroys jobs.
The public sector job, you know, some somebody hired to work in government, it's not a job created.
Because they don't produce anything.
It's a job lost.
In a zero-sum game sense.
If that person could have found job in the private sector, been involved in an enterprise that's outproducing something or providing a service, then you've got growth, you've got expansion.
That doesn't happen to the government.
They suck the system dry.
They suck the blood out of it.
So this is not new to anybody.
Why do they do this, though?
This is the thing.
This is when you're when you're trying to persuade people this is what the leftist does.
This is what socialists do.
They suck the blood out of the system.
People will eventually ask you, why do they do that, Rush?
Because they just can't believe it.
Can't get their arms around the fact they're actually people who would do it.
As a matter of fact, that's why you you evolve the theory, they don't really know what they're doing.
There's a bunch of parasites.
They think that the system's always going to be there.
Creating wealth, providing jobs, it's always going to be no matter what they do, it's always going to be.
See, I disagree with it.
I think they know they're sucking the blood out of it.
And so the inevitable question, inevitable question, why do they do it?
And I, ladies and gentlemen, El Rushbo have provided the answer over and over again each time I'm asked.
The answer is, if you listen to them, and if you observe them, they seek change.
They are not passive.
Their ideology is not passive.
Liberalism, socialism is a very active, animating thing.
They're not just boobs, although they are.
They are boobs, but they're not just boobs.
They know they're sucking the system dry.
They have a reason for sucking the system dry.
This is even tougher for people to accept.
It's even tougher for people to agree to or understand, because they don't want to believe this.
Suck the system dry, what happens then?
Well, if you suck the system dry, and there's no job you can get to support yourself, where do you turn?
It's already happening.
You turn to the government, and the people there become even more powerful as more and more people turn to them for their very existence, for their very ability to eat.
We laugh about it, but it's no accident and it's no coincidence that all of a sudden people are calling 911 when something goes wrong with a restaurant order.
One instance, a guy in the middle of a drug deal who thought he got short changed on his change, called 911.
The reason this happens is this is being taught.
So I I it's hard for me to believe The passivity here that these are just a bunch of well-intentioned people that end up being parasites sucking the system dry of always thinking it's going to be there.
I think a lot of these people have a chip on their shoulder about that very system.
Now, if Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't either.
Well, was it Thatcher who said the problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money?
I thought it was Churchill.
Well, what's the difference?
Thatcher, Churchill, they're pretty close.
But if Obama doesn't want to destroy capitalism, then Marx didn't either, did he?
There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them.
When you get down to brass tax.
Not much difference in Marx and Obama.
Our current recession.
It's not, it's not just an accident of the business cycle.
And don't forget, in the latter part of the 90s, the Clinton administration running around saying the business cycle is no more.
We have defeated the business cycle.
There aren't going to be any more recessions.
There aren't going to be any more of these wildly gyrating cycles.
We've defeated that.
Okay, we've got a recession that has outlasted all other recessions, not depressions, but all other recessions.
And it's not just an accident of the business cycle.
This is a man-made disaster.
As the Obama people like to describe global warming.
It's an economic man-caused disaster.
And we know who the man is who caused it.
And we have to be willing, like Reagan did in naming Carter to name Obama.
Reagan unabashedly named Carter in 1980 when he announced his candidacy for the presidency.
Huntsman yesterday refuses to even go there.
But he said he's going to campaign like Reagan.
Well, he's not campaigning like Reagan.
Reagan named Carter with passion.
He laid everything that was going wrong in 1980 in this economy at the feet of Jimmy Carter.
And he did it.
He said he failed.
He made no excuses.
He didn't try to sugarcoat it.
And he didn't tiptoe around it.
All right, I have taken it a brief time out.
We got more of your phone calls coming up and uh a little announcement of a project we have involving the Fourth of July for our new product, Two If by Tea.
Sit tight, be right back.
Okay, if you go to our website, 2 if by tea.com, TWO, 2 if by tea.com.
From tea to shining tea, you'll see that we have a little something special planned for the 4th of July.
What we want you to do is register your town, your community, for a shipment, a large shipment of two if by tea straight from us to you.
If your town is having a giant or a small Fourth of July celebration, you tell us why you deserve a truckload of two if by tea to be delivered to your Fourth of July celebration.
We want to hear from you.
There's a form that you fill out.
You'll see if you go to the home page in the lower left-hand corner of the main graphic with me as Rush Revere there.
There, it's a red box.
If you click on that, you'll be taken to a form, put your name, all your vital contact information.
It'll be secret, nobody gets this stuff.
Believe me, we understand privacy here at two if by tea and at the EIB network.
And uh you basically nominate your town and your town's Fourth of July celebration.
You tell us why.
Your town deserves a giant truckload of two of my tea to be delivered chilled to your giant Fourth of July celebration picnic barbecue party, whatever, that the town's putting on.
We're going to work this in conjunction with our local EIB affiliate.
And what'll happen is the winning town will receive a truck full of cold two if by tea to be given away to you and your happy neighbors.
A truck will be refrigerated, stocked in all four flavors.
Original sweet tea, diet original tea, raspberry, and diet raspberry.
Now what you know, our tea, two of my tea is all about celebrating the history of the United States of America.
And I am the lead icon of our brilliant product as Rush Revere.
So we want to know what what makes your town a true symbol of American pride.
So just send us the details of your town's history and why.
Uh the Fourth of July is extra special to your area.
And of course, we are the final judges here.
We will determine where our tea is going to go.
But it's based on the case that you can make for it.
So all the details and all the how-to's and all the whens, whys, and wherefores, are at the two if by tea dot com website.
Head over there now.
And and by the way, we've we're going to be able to handle the demand here as we uh we we never expected to shut down our own servers last week when we announced a week ago tomorrow.
And we did for a couple hours, so we've upped the bandwidth.
Everything should handle this uh massive demand.
Uh by the way, I need to correct something.
John Huntsman uh it has become uh anti-abortion.
He's not pro-choice now, by all accounts.
So I need to correct that.
He's uh he's uh pro-life.
Which I I thought when I when I first read, uh he's a Mormon.
When I first read that he was choice, I think that's a little strange.
But we wanted to make sure I get that right.
Back to the phones we go.
This is Amy in Powhatan, Virginia.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Uh hi, Rashboy.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
I was listening to the show this morning and heard uh Huntsman speaking, and then I heard Reagan speaking.
Of course, no comparison, but I came up with kind of a theory of what I think the strategy is.
And before I say my theory, I wanted to tell you if I was running for office, I wouldn't even need a strategist because I would just listen to Rush Limbaugh and I totally understand that.
I I've never understood.
I really haven't.
You know, if if you are running for office, if you are really passionate, why do you need a policy advisor?
I mean, I can understand a tactical strategerist advisor, but I I've never understood why you need an advisor to help you with policy.
If you're if it's really in your heart.
Exactly.
That's just me.
Yeah, well, anyway, what I was thinking was from listening to all these things, um, I'm thinking the left is going to um attack via who's killing the American dream.
So the right is going to come back with who's killing the American dream.
And I think that's going to be like the political battle for the election, like who's the good guy, who's the bad guy.
Wait a minute.
The left no, wait, oh, I I I must respectfully disagree.
And I do I don't think the left thinks the American dream is being attacked.
They're won't say the GOP is going to kill the American dream.
Uh they are going to say the GOP is killing jobs.
They're going to say Bush.
But they don't they don't think the American dream is being killed.
They can't Obama's saving it.
Obama's a revitalized Obama.
They don't I I can't tell you the number of liberals I talk to who who don't think there's anything really dramatically wrong with the country right now.
They think we're making much to do about nothing here.
This is just standard ordinary business cycle, economic cycle.
I I think that that as it approaches the election, that's going to be the the battle cry is that if you elect a Republican, they're going to kill the American dream, that we have to keep going with Obama.
And I think Hutchman's people are trying to just kind of trying to get in front of that in a he just has a really sucky delivery.
Well, they're gonna look what they're what they're going to say is that the economy was in much worse shape than they even they realized, that Bush made it's just worse than even new, and it's gonna take their policies even longer.
But their policies, they're going to say are starting to work now, starting to get traction, and we can't change horses in the middle of the stream.
And they're already saying it.
That's uh and and I don't know that the Republican candidate is going to be willing to say that Obama's destroying the American dream.
That's the point.
The way this is shaping up, I have no if we got anybody who's gonna say it.
Okay, a brief time out here at the top local news or whatever happens on your local EIB affiliate at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection