All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:55
June 22, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It does.
It sounds like Al Gore is calling for birth panels.
You know, the regime, Obama has death panels in his health care plan.
Al Gore with birth panels.
Why, what a day this has been.
Just in terms of the things that we have learned.
Great to have you here, my friends Rush Limboss, serving humanity here on the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Remember, as long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
We're on the left coast this week.
We are in Los Angeles and surrounding environs.
And Obama's uh got an eight o'clock speech tonight from the oval orifice announcing defeat in Afghanistan.
Mr. Limbaugh, that's outrageous.
You would say that the President of the United States is announcing defeat.
Well, he starts announcing we're taking the troops out, that's what it means.
It's election time.
It's re-elect time.
His re-elect numbers, the polling data in the White House is not good.
And that kook fringe base of his doesn't want to be in Afghanistan in the first place.
He promised him that he wouldn't.
Hell, he promised he'd get us out of Club Gitmo.
He'd get us out of Iraq.
He would never expand Afghanistan.
He's done the exact opposite.
We're still in Iraq.
We are just as big a footprint at Club Gitmo.
Our thriving merchandise business is still thriving.
Club Gitmo.
And of course, he uh went to the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, and announced an increase in troop levels to Afghanistan, but at the same time, he said that beginning in the summer 2011, we're going to start bringing them home.
And everybody said, You can't say that.
He said, I don't care what you say, I'm gonna say it.
I'm not gonna listen to generals.
The generals don't know any more than I do about this.
And besides, I don't trust the generals.
The generals are military people, and I'm Obama, and I don't like military people.
He didn't say that, but we know that's what he thinks.
So theory is he's gonna announce 10,000 troops, start returning home and so forth, and that does add up to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
That's what he plans to do.
And the speech is at 8 o'clock Eastern time.
Uh I haven't asked if I'm going to be watching it.
Unfortunately, if the speech were at 8 o'clock here on the left coast to be able to see it, I'm not going to be able to.
You're on your own tonight.
Normally I would watch the speech so that you don't have to.
And then I would come in here tomorrow and tell you what, if anything about it, you should know.
And as an added bonus, what you should think about it.
Sadly, ladies and gentlemen, I myself will be unable.
At least to see it live.
Now it's quite possible that later tonight, someplace, have a replay of it.
Or there'll be highlights.
I'm sure I'll see some of it.
Enough to know.
But uh dear old cookie will be rolling tape.
I'll have sound bites on this tomorrow.
And I look at I know these people like every square inch in my glorious naked body.
I know what they're gonna say before they say it.
I know what his rationale is going to be.
The fun thing is, you know, drinking game.
You know, how many times does he mention bin Laden tonight?
You could get drunk.
You could get drunk, or you can make sure somebody else gets drunk.
Uh the number of times he mentions bin Laden tonight.
Take a swig.
Take a swig of two if by tea.
What's oh, that's Brian, that seven ten is not for me in terms of Obama, right?
It's not all right.
You people don't know it.
Today has been a technical disaster.
I only my professionalism has covered what has been a total technical meltdown today in virtually every aspect of this program.
The only thing that has not gone wrong is our uplink to you.
That everything else is bombed out multiple times today.
And it's only my highly trained broadcast specialty training and professionalism, which has kept you from knowing about it, but yeah, I was so close to my breaking point in the last hour.
I'm getting it off my chest now.
Here is Al Gore, by the way.
This was uh Monday, New York City.
This is the eighth annual games for change festival, Pre-Festival Summit.
I have never heard of a game for change festival or games for change.
I don't know what it is.
And by the way, folks, if I don't know what it is, it's not worth knowing what it is.
I'm just happening to say that I never heard of it.
Al Gore spoke at this thing, and then there were a QA.
And during the QA, this is what he said about the link between climate change and population.
One of the things that we can do about it is to change the technologies to put out less of this pollution to stabilize population.
And one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women.
You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management, so women can choose how many children have in spacing of the children.
When that happens, then the population begins to stabilize, and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.
Okay.
So the climate hoax has blown up on Al Gore.
And so now he's moving to another discredited crackpot theory, overpopulation, which is a theorem that has been totally debunked.
Now, again, the left, which lives in theory and utopia and does not live in the in real like I do, you can't debunk it to them.
It's a cause.
It's a panic.
It's a crisis.
And therefore, it will never, ever not exist.
But we don't face a problem of overpopulation in the world.
I know, folks, it's really fun to say something like that too, because you know the power of conventional wisdom, and you know that there are people who believe and want to invest in uh Armageddon and apocalyptic type things.
So global warming, oh yeah, oh yeah, it's oh overpopul, oh yeah, running out of food, running out of water, oh yeah people.
They invest in this, uh, either that's a personality type or they're making money themselves off promulgating it or what have you.
And for somebody like me to come along and say, we don't have an overpopulation problem, and to say it with ontological certitude as I do, why that just rubs people the wrong way.
If I were to say, you know, folks, I don't think I've thought about it, I'm not sure.
I've gone back and forth.
I really wish I knew for sure.
I just don't think there's an overpopulation problem.
That'd be far more acceptable to people.
And just coming in here and say there isn't an overpopulation problem.
Don't believe that there is.
That rubs people, you're not supposed to be that sure of yourself.
Especially it irritates women.
Just women don't like that kind of ontological certitude.
Rubs them the wrong way.
But get in an airplane and fly.
Anywhere you want to go.
Fly over the United States and tell me we have a population problem.
We do not.
Now there might be places around the world where it's crowded, and we might, as human beings, make some errors and mistakes in where we choose to populate, but we're not overpopulated.
The world planet can still feed itself.
The planet can still quench its thirst.
The planet can still have people get around on the planet wherever they want to go.
The reason Ladies and gentlemen that people think that there's an overpopulation problem is because of poverty.
They see videos, movies, documentaries, still pictures, what have you.
Graphic images of people in dire economic straits suffering dire consequences, depths of poverty and so forth.
And of course, it's a easy step, not logical, but an easy step to make.
Oh, yeah, well, we're overpopulated, not enough food for everybody.
And there's not enough water for everybody.
But see, that isn't true.
The problem in the world today is not an unequal distribution of resources.
The problem in the world is not enough resources.
The problem is not enough capitalism.
If you look where there is poverty and thus where people think there's overpopulation, you will find largely socialist or Marxist regimes denying people freedom and liberty, economic opportunity, and what have you.
The problem there the country, the world is still able to feed itself.
It's a massive undertaking, by the way.
One of the things I'm in profound awe of is the ability of this country, by the way, to feed not only itself but the world.
Each and every day, and as affordably historically as we've been able to do it.
So global warming's a hoax, and here comes Al Gordon with his birth panels.
All of a sudden we have a population problem.
And he says that one of the things we could do about it is to change technologies to put out less of this pollution.
Oh, he's still oriented around pollution.
Too many people, that's polluting the planet, global warming, climate change.
Therefore, his new solution is to get rid of people.
Or, more properly stated, to have fewer people born.
We'll forget he has four.
But the rest of you, if he has his way, you're not going to be able to have as many people as kids.
You're the problem.
You're, and you gotta pay the price.
And you'll pay the price by not having as many children.
Besides, it's better for the planet, it'll save you money.
There was a story yesterday, stuff is interconnected, a story yesterday that having a child a day costs an average family 1.2 million dollars over the course of the lifetime of the child.
See, it's not worth that.
You can rethink it.
One of the things we can do is change technologies to put out less of this pollution.
You have to have, he said, ubiquitous availability of fertility management.
So women can let me, I'm gonna have to translate this for people, Rio Linda.
You know, they're lost here.
Ubiquitous and fertility management.
Let me give you Gore's words, I'll translate it here in just a second.
Gore said you have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children they have and the spacing of the children.
So what Gore is doing here is acknowledging he has no intention of controlling his own sexual urges so that women better be prepared to deal with guys like him.
Remember, he's divorced now, and it's up to you women to limit yourselves, especially when he's around.
You must be ubiquitous availability of fertility management.
For those of you in Rio Linda, what Al Gore is saying is we need a planned parenthood shop on every corner in every city in the country.
That's all you have to know.
And you know what goes on in Planned Parenthood places.
He said you have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families, and most important, you have to educate girls and empower women, and that's the most powerful leveraging factor.
And when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.
What country is he talking about?
Where has this theory been established?
Is this a is this a consensus of socialists and despots?
Has he talked to the Chicoms about this?
This sounds like China's forced abortion policy.
But here we go.
So we have the firmly established hoax of global warming.
Now it's time to scare you in a different way.
You are having too many kids.
You are polluting the planet.
You are putting too much stress on our stressed resources.
You, you and you.
And you must reduce your activity and increase your number of abortions if you don't reduce your activity.
All to save the planet.
And this a former vice president of the uh of the United States.
I gotta take a quick time out.
We'll be back before you know it.
El Rush Ball, the reason God invented radio.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
By the way, folks, I don't personally tweet.
I do not have a Twitter page, but two if my tea does.
And that's where we put a lot of uh uh pictures and uh some of the fun stuff associated with what we're doing here with uh with two if by tea.
So yeah, we we uh we Twitter.
We have a two if my tea tweet.
And you are free to check it out.
Back to the phones.
We're starting here in this hour, Tampa.
And Steve, uh, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Uh my honor, Mr. Limbaugh and Terra Ditho's.
Thank you, sir very much.
Um I was calling because uh the Al Gore business is symptomatic of what's wrong or one of the things that's wrong in Washington, and that is that people uh who have absolutely no idea about their technology are the ones who are declaiming the most.
Um I do not know if you were in Florida at the time, but uh President Obama came down to Cape Kennedy and made a big speech about what would happen after the space shuttle he wanted to send uh uh men to Mars, orbit them in return.
Basic problem is he has no idea of what's involved there.
It would take two hundred and eighty days just to get there.
Much less waiting for the planets to get in the right position for the wait, wait, wait just say uh uh why are you assuming he he doesn't you do you do you think he just actually showed up Cape Canaveral and essentially meant let's send somebody to Mars tomorrow?
No, no, no.
But what he did is he was trying to be like JFK.
Remember JFK wanted to send men to the moon to get them back.
Yeah, he didn't care that we ever do it.
I mean, that's the difference.
But he wants credit for wanting to do it or thinking people wanting to do it or saying it, but he doesn't intend to do that.
He's gonna turn NASA into Muslim outreach.
Of course, I understand that, but but m most of the news media took it as real, which is to say he wants to send men to Mars, have them orbit the planet and return.
And unfortunately, uh given our current state of technology, that's gonna take a long time to go and to come back.
And uh he uh Al Gore is doing the same thing with energy.
Uh batteries are considered a primary energy source, which they're not.
Uh you have you have all these people who are declaiming about technological things, and they obviously haven't the slightest anyway.
Well, wait a second.
You just said something here that a lot of people are gonna think you don't know what you're talking about.
You have to be right, but uh this illustrates I think what you're saying.
Uh you said batteries are not the batteries are considered a primary energy source, and they're not, but most people think they are.
Put a battery in a phone and it works.
Yes, I understand that.
I quite qualify to do it.
Well, tell them what you mean.
No, no, no.
Tell them what you mean by the way.
It's not a primary energy source.
A battery is something that you store electricity into.
Figure it like uh the equivalent of a canteen.
You can't get any water out of a canteen until you put water into the canteen.
That's right.
You can't get any electricity out of a battery until you put it in, or or do the equivalent by assembling the active parts that will give you that much electricity.
You but some people think the that a battery is th there's that there's some sort of a magic electric fairy that just waves her wand and then suddenly uh you get electricity out of a battery.
That's right.
Uh they must, otherwise people what are there but two hundred of them?
Two hundred people have actually bought electric cars.
Uh knowing full well they're gonna get twenty miles to a charge.
Uh well, plus two other factors.
One is they've had electric cars for years that are called golf carts.
The second one is that uh most people are still unaware of the fact that the majority of electric cars use fossil fuels to charge.
So you're you're still getting you're still getting all the so-called greenhouse gases uh if you charge up an electric car.
Therefore, therefore.
We have another hoax.
No, no, no, purpose.
But look at this is one thing Obama does know.
Obama does not think that the electric car is some magical new thing that's going to save electricity.
He knows its exact opposite.
He knows it's going to take coal-fired electricity plants to charge up his votes.
He knows that.
Now, he's counting on people not realizing it, not thinking about it.
He is relying on or investing in people's stupidity or ignorance.
Because his objective is not to save the planet.
His objective is not to save the climate.
All of that those things are just vehicles.
They're just launching pads, if you will, to get where he ultimately wants to go, and that is total government control over as much life in the country as possible.
Oh, yes, I I couldn't, I couldn't agree more on that.
He's never going to get it coming out and saying that's what he wants.
But if he puts people in charge of losing their own freedom, and if they willingly do it, all the better.
So if he can blame make people think they're responsible for warming the planet with their profligate use of fuel, and make them go out and pay higher taxes and then go out and buy a cheap little car they don't really want as a means of forgiveness or paying penance, then they're doing his bidding for him while he's making them think they're great citizens.
And what they're ending up doing is giving away their freedom, they're giving up their economic prosperity or opportunity for it, all for hoax.
So he's you know, I we go back and forth on whether these people are stupid, brilliantly demonic, or what have you.
And the really it doesn't matter which is the case because it doesn't change what they're doing.
Uh and and what they're doing is is totally transforming the country from the way it was founded uh and in the process destroying it.
It's a it's sad to see.
Be right back.
And we are back.
800 282-2882.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
You know, folks, we are here on the left coast this week, broadcasting from a super secret location near, but not in Hollywood.
Now we're in the same state that Rio Linda's in, for those of you in Rio Linda that need clarification.
This is the place, folks, where the uh idle cocktail party chit chat is considered is considered by megalomaniacal studio heads and actors to be serious discourse.
You encounter it everywhere you go here.
I've witnessed it firsthand on my uh early evenings out here.
Uh Brett Champaign, Illinois.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
It's a privilege and an honor, sir.
How are you?
I understand.
Thanks very much, sir.
Um, I have been looking for an opportunity to call you and challenge you on something from a cynical point of view, and I found it today.
Go for it.
United States definitely has a population problem.
What I mean by that is that our population is growing at such a rate that our entitlement society cannot continue to sustain itself, uh especially given our immigration policy.
Uh uh uh uh on the surface, that sounds correct.
It's what but uh it's not it's not correct saying our population was growing.
Our population isn't growing.
The influx, you know, the birth replacement level in this country is not there.
You know, Al Gore's out there telling women to have abortions, there are too many of them.
There are too many happening.
The birth replacement level in this country is below what it should be to keep the population where it is.
Why do you think the Democrats want all these illegals to come in the country and be become registered voters?
It's because they're aborting their future voters.
But but Rush, I'm not talking about our illegal immigration problem, which obviously is a problem.
I'm talking about our legal immigration problem, where when the laws were changed back in the 1960s, when we were bringing in about 250,000 or so a year, we started bringing in more and more where we're bringing in up to a million plus legal immigrants every year.
And the people that we're bringing in are the people that are adding to our population, and of course, to the Democratic voting base.
Uh you're gonna need I'm gonna need some documentation on this because my my research and understanding of uh of of legal immigration is occurring because we are not properly educating our own natural born population, and the people of kids from around the country kind of w world are coming here to be educated, some leave and go back home, some stay.
But you talk to any high tech people, Silicon Valley, they're desperate for changes in the visa rules because they can't find qualified educated people here to work.
That's what they say anyway.
Um I understand that.
That and that that's true, but uh the if you're good at the case.
But regardless, what there's not a popular in the sense that don't forget the context here.
Gore and his population problem means we don't have enough food, we don't have enough water, we don't have enough shelter.
No, that's not true.
We can handle millions more in this country than what we can feed millions more.
Now, who pays for it?
I agree, it's a different thing, but that's that's really not what Gore is talking about.
Nor was it what I was bouncing off of.
And you, as a genius, have pointed out that Barack Obama, like Al Gore, knows exactly what they're talking about.
We don't have a population pro problem in the United States.
We have a democratic voter population problem in the United States the target.
Right.
That is exactly right.
Well, I couldn't have said it better myself.
Well that's a profound compliment.
I don't say that too many.
Numbers USA.
Uh they've been around for quite a while.
That's the website to go to and look at the legal immigration problem, which obviously doesn't touch the illegal immigration problem we have in the United States.
What do you mean?
And just in terms of numbers?
Yeah, it's uh numbers USA.org.
Um, no, no, no.
No, no.
You're talking about the numbers don't compare.
Uh the numbers of legal immigrants versus our previous uh policies on legal immigration, yes.
Right.
Okay.
All right.
I appreciate the call.
Thanks very much.
Who's next?
Daryl in uh in Elkon, Virginia.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Russ.
You've been today.
Thank you.
Um I was looking at the USA today, and they had an article in there about the FDA requiring the uh cigarette companies to put these graphic images on there.
I saw those yesterday.
I uh I'm wondering where this can stop.
You know, uh what's next?
A car crash on a beer bottle, or you know where I'm going with this?
Uh what's your take on that?
Um I I think it's just the natural extension of people who have uh are consistently unhappy and will be unhappy until they have forced everybody to start living life as they want them to.
Exactly.
And I I think it's that the people that are miserable in their own lives, they can't find anything to do to make them happy, so they have to involve themselves in everybody else's life and share their own misery so they can have some kind of comfort in life.
This is these um these new warning labels depict graphic pictures of sickness, illness, and so forth that are ostensibly tied to smoking.
What they don't understand what they what they we're talking an addiction here.
You can put all of the rot gut pictures you want on a pack of cigarettes, and somebody's addicted to three packs a day of them is not gonna quit because of it.
So it's just proselytizing, it's preaching, it's well, I'd say that here's the intellectually what what is wrong with these people is the tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes in this country is funding children's health programs.
It's a number one tax that pays for children's health care programs.
So on the one hand, they need the tax revenue to pay for the health care, they need the tax revenue, period, whatever it was for.
On the other hand, they're trying to what?
What exactly are they trying to do here?
Do they actually want these people to quit smoking?
There's an easy way to do that.
You ban it.
If this stuff is as deadly as they claim, how in the world can they morally leave it on the market?
If tobacco kills and does all this stuff and it to everybody, if there are no exceptions, if they can prove that everybody who is going to smoke a cigar, a cigarette, a pipe, or what have you.
Of course, none of this happens if you smoke marijuana.
Understand there's not a warning necessary if you smoke marijuana.
But tobacco, all these warnings, all these horrible things.
Well, what actually are they trying to accomplish here?
They don't, I don't that the idea that if you quit, if everybody, and they can't prove this stuff universally causes all these things.
If they could, it would be immoral not to ban the product.
Now here you have the United States profiting from the the the death of its citizens, allowing corporations to sale and market, a sell and market a product that kills their customers.
If all of this were true universally, if there were no exceptions, then it would be immoral not to ban this.
The problem is people who've never smoked get lung cancer.
And people who have smoked all their lives, some people don't.
Every time we get talking about this, people think I'm making excuses for big tobacco, or I'm not.
I'm I really come down on the side of freedom.
If somebody wants to smoke a cigarette, uh they want to get sick, fine and dandy.
Now the retort is, well, yeah, well then let them pay for their own health care.
Let's not go down that road.
Once you start going down that road, then everybody's behavior is going to be subject to some central authority.
We're headed there now.
You can't do this because it's cost, uh cost is going to impact society here, and unless you can pay for it yourself.
We're going down, well, we're already halfway down the slippery slope with this stuff.
My point is they don't want to ban cigarettes.
They don't want to ban smoking.
They want to tax the hell out of them.
But they've reached a point where they've created such a black market in certain states here that they are losing revenue to fund all these precious programs.
All this is is just a continuing opportunity for these people to preach and to eventually establish the premise that they know best how you should live.
You don't, and they are going to tell you how.
It's simply it's a vehicle, or it's a gateway for them to assume control over other aspects of your life.
Because folks, it's really, I mean, I to me it's just again real and common sense.
I've seen these these warning, the proposed packages of cigarettes with warnings.
If it's that bad, they got to ban the product.
I mean, it's but they don't.
They can't afford to.
So there's something other than safety.
They're really not concerned about you getting cancer.
They're really not concerned with you staying healthy.
There's something totally opposite that that is the motivation for this.
And that is their effort to assume as much control over the way you live your life as possible, to attach as much stigma to the things that you do in your life that they don't think you should do, to shame you into not doing or to allow you, get you to allow them to control it under whatever pretense.
But who are they?
What why in the world do we assume that a bunch of loco weeds in Washington understand how to make a car than highly trained specialists and professionals in that business?
Why do we assume that Barack Obama knows more about drilling for oil than Rex Tillerson at ExxonMobil?
Why do we assume that Rex Tillerson at ExxonMobil is out to screw you via ExxonMobil?
And Barack Obama is out to protect you from Rex Tillerston.
Where do we get started with this?
Well, it started with it because government liberals need villains, they need enemies in order to distract you and find others to blame for the problems they cause.
Barack Obama wouldn't know an oil drill if he saw one.
He would barely know what to do with an oil rig if they had his helicopter to land on it.
He hadn't the slightest idea about how any of this, and the sad thing is that nobody in his regime knows anything about anything in the private sector.
A bunch of theoreticians in the faculty lounge sitting around speculating what all of us ought to be doing and how we ought to be living and where we Ought to be living.
What we ought to be doing.
Bunch of uh arrogant condescension going on from people who could not bring a single product or service in this country to market to save their lives.
And somehow we invest in them this all-knowing, all-encompassing ability to regulate those who do.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
We'll be back and continue after this.
In our remaining uh busy broadcast moments, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I want to revisit one more time, Ronaldus Magnus and his uh.
Reigniting his campaign against Jimmy Carter in 1980 at the Statue of Liberty, September 1st.
And it's it this is important.
Uh I'm gonna leave John Huntsman out of this time.
This is not the point.
The whole Republican Party needs to wake up and understand what's at stake here and how to go about it.
We've got enough destruction taking place here to sit here and simply say to be nice about this, under the guise of civility, isn't going to get the job done.
When you got somebody that's causing great problems, this is how you campaign against them.
That Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.
His answer to all this misery, he tries to tell us that we're only in a recession, not a depression.
As if definitions, words relieve our suffering.
Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary.
Well, if it's a definition he wants, I'll give him one.
A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Number 28 next.
If I do it, 28.
What do you lose yours?
And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.com,
spill TWO.
You'll find there on our home page a registration form if you think that your town qualifies as the best place for a truckload of two if by tea chilled iced tea to be delivered for your fourth of July bash that the town's putting on.
Fill out the form and tell us why.
We're gonna decide uh who sends us the best set of qualifications in a process that we will not explain, and that person will then win, and we'll send the tea there to ifbytea.com.
Check it out.
We'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection