All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:54
July 6, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, my friends, say it isn't so.
This is the worst news that Anthony Wiener has had.
Gosh, in I don't know.
Weeks.
CNN has canceled client number nine's show.
That's exactly right.
A New York Times website.
They're even shedding tears over this.
I mean, my website, my computer screen's wet.
Tears.
When I go to the New York Times to read about this, CNN has canceled in the arena with client number nine.
Elliot Spitzer.
After only nine months, they're gonna what they're gonna do, move Anderson Cooper's uh 360 show from 10 o'clock to 8 o'clock.
They're gonna move John King from 7 p.m. to 6.
Wolf Blitzer, I don't know, Wolf, I guess it's gonna go four to six, I don't know.
And they got a new show with Aaron Burnett at seven, the former street sweetie from C from CNBC.
So they um client number nine.
Now they did not say, they did not say that Elliot Spitzer is gone.
Now the Ditzer is probably smiling, Kathleen Parker.
You know, because she was originally part of Spitzer's client number nine show.
She was uh power play, Spitzer moved her out.
We called it, you know, affectionately here.
We call the Spitzer and Ditzer.
We assume that the Ditzer's probably smiling here.
Uh so that means Elliot Spitzer's gonna be home at night.
Well, theoretically.
Theoretically.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The executive in charge of CNN U.S., Ken Jots, said uh within an internal memo that the channel currently in discussions with Elliot Spitzer about an alternative role.
But Spitzer's own statement casts doubt on that possibility.
It can uh concluded by saying I thoroughly enjoyed my time at CNN.
So Spitzer is letting it be known he's gone CNN is trying to make it sound like they're trying to find a place for him.
Um I don't know when the changes are to fix, Sterdly.
Snurley seems genuinely excited about this.
I don't know.
I I don't know what what?
Yeah, I don't know why he's got a TV show in the first place.
Figure that out.
I mean, how in the world does that happen?
That's why I say that Wiener, that I'm I'm sure wasn't well.
If Spitzer get a TV show, but now those hopes have to be dashed.
One more thing on this uh final shuttle mission, these two astronauts that I met, this is probably six weeks ago now, two months ago.
Uh there's there's a female astronaut on this crew, and there's four of them, and I asked, in addition to having them try to explain to me how that thing comes down.
And by the way, each time I've this is the maybe the third time I've had a chance to tell a space shuttle astronaut that I just don't understand how that thing comes out of the sky.
Because here's here's why.
If your average Boeing 747 were to lose lose power in flight, do you think it's gonna glide?
And and and I mean it's got a glide ratio.
You never hear of it happening.
You seldom hear of a commercial aircraft losing power, but if it does, you you you you you the results are not good.
Let's put it that way.
But here's the shuttle with no power from 200 some odd miles.
And it comes down on target, and somehow they manage to slow.
It's it's in order to maintain orbit, it's at least 17,500 miles an hour.
Then they have to slow it down to get it to come out of orbit.
They managed to get that thing down.
I forget what the landing speed is.
Um 300 miles an hour, 200 miles an hour.
By contrast, uh your commercial jet probably lands at 140, 150, your average commercial jet.
120, depending on what the jet is.
This thing is it's it's it's landing fast.
No power.
Every time I mention this to these astronauts, they act like it's nothing.
Oh, it's nothing.
I know.
NASA.
The one the one government agency with innovation, exploration.
Shut down.
You know what?
I was, in fact, um flying to Joplin.
I got on the plane.
5 o'clock on Monday.
Flight attendant always has the day's newspapers laid out on the credenza.
And she had the Palm Beach post there.
And there was a headline on the front page of Palm Beach Post.
NASA losses, NASA job losses will not affect Florida economy.
I say, how in the hell can that story be written?
NASA's expecting 7,000 jobs to be lost with the shuttle program being shut down.
Now actually this may not be so bad because this is going to get privatized.
Space travel will be privatized, and it will continue to happen.
So it has it has hopes.
But still, do you think a George W. Bush were president shutting down NASA?
7,000 jobs lost that the Palm Beach Post would run a headline, no big deal.
Job losses will not affect affect Florida economy.
I looked at that.
You know, I just laughed.
But I've been amazed.
These astronauts, and I guess it's understandable, it always works.
And they don't seem to worry about it.
But again, they told me the way they train for it is in a Gulf Stream 2 with the thrust reverses deployed.
And then I also knew there were only four astronauts on the crew.
So why the thing holds many more?
It's the last mission.
Why only four?
He said, Because there's no possibility of a rescue mission.
Every other shuttle flight, there's always a shuttle that can be ready to go up to the space station where this one's going.
Or to a stranded shuttle and get and rescue.
This, there's no possibility of a rescue.
So they'll have to stay.
If something happens to the shuttle on the way up or up there, they'll have to stay the International Space Station and come down on a Russian Soyuz, which doesn't hold.
Doesn't have a high passenger capacity.
So that's why there's only four crew.
They're kind of looking forward to it, having all the room.
In fact, uh Mark Kelly's mission, uh, Gabby Gifford's husband, they only had four on that one, too.
For the same reason.
There's no possibility.
These shuttles, as they've completed their final missions, they're effectively mothable.
We are stopping the shuttle mission, basically because of the age of the fleet, and the International Space Station is essentially built, which was its primary mission.
It's I mean, that's that's what they say.
Uh ask Obama.
In fact, I don't know that Obama actually shut down the shuttle program.
I'm not I that this might have happened before Obama, and he's just saying too I have to check timeline on it, but that's, I think.
Those are the uh reasons.
Florida today, February 2010, 23,000 now expected to lose jobs after shuttle retirement.
The Palm Beach Post headline, losing shuttle program to hurt Space Coast far worse than Palm Beach County.
That was Sunday, July 3rd, 2011.
But there was there was another headline that said something different.
Well, but that was back in February 2010, and that was Florida Today, which is the USA Today's Florida's version.
But the Palm Beach Post headline uh losing shuttle program to hurt Space Coast far worse than Palm Beach County.
Well, maybe that was the headline.
I uh I I thought there was a different headline that's that it wouldn't have hurt Florida much.
Uh at all.
So anyway, they go up Friday.
This is their uh this is it.
and by the way, if you're interested, there is, and it's fascinating, there is an iPhone app, and I think it's also works for the iPad for the and I'm gonna have to get the net.
Don't have you know, if you go in the app store on your iPhone or iPad, just search shuttle.
I'm sure you'll find this app.
It will track this mission.
It'll track based on your GPS, the phone knows where you are, it'll tell you where the shuttle is as it orbits the Earth.
What's so funny, Sterdly?
Oh, well, that's nothing new.
The phone knows where you are.
It doesn't know that you're who you are, but it.
Anyway, just for the purposes of being able to show you, apparently graphically, it's a fabulous app, and it's a freebie, and it's uh it's a it's the it's an app built just for the the last shuttle mission.
It's not the NASA app that tracks every mission.
This is the one for the I think 135.
STS 130, I think that's the name of this mission, 135, last one.
Okay, we got before we go to the break.
We have the audio.
We dug deep and we found here's Christina Roomer, April 12th, earlier this year, Washington University in St. Louis.
She is the former chairwoman of Obama's White House Council of Economic Advisors.
You ask me, I think what we're experiencing is in fact closer to a growthless recovery than to a jobless one.
Because GDP started to grow more than a year and a half ago, but with the exception of just a couple of quarters, growth has not been noticeably above its trend rate of about two and a half percent a year.
I don't rejoice at the news that we added 216,000 jobs in March.
About a hundred thousand of that two hundred and sixteen thousand is needed every month just to keep up with the growth in the labor force.
At this rate of job growth, it would take most of a decade to replace the eight and a half million jobs that were lost in the recession.
It's it's worse than that, but at least she got she got pretty close to that.
But how about the notion here of a growthless recovery?
There's no such thing, folks, as a growthless recovery.
I mean, by definition.
But this is what she was telling the young skulls full of mush at uh Washington University in St. Louis.
We gotta take a break.
When we come back, you know the global warming crowd is in a panic because there hasn't been any warming the last ten years.
Wait till you hear.
Wait till you hear the reason why.
In a French news agency story.
Say, all of you on the hold on the phones, I want you to hang in there and be tough.
I'll get to you.
I really will.
Um great bunch of people on hold here, but I've I I promised this global warming story.
It's from the French news agency.
And this this is China's soaring coal consumption in the last decade held back global warming as sulfur emissions served as a coolant, according to a study that takes head on a key argument of climate skeptics.
Now I would think this would prove that climate skeptics are right, was not the burning of coal the worst thing we could do to create greenhouse glass grasses.
Try again.
Was not burning coal the worst thing we could do to create greenhouse gases that elevated the Earth's temperatures.
Obama wanted to put the coal business out of business because it was the number one contributor to global warming.
And now the the the planet hasn't warmed in ten years.
And so they're saying China in its soaring coal consumption is the reason why.
While 2005 and 2010 are tied as the hottest years on record.
No, I that's B. I don't even want to get distracted with that.
Skeptics have charged that an absence of a steady rise from 1998 to 2008 disproves the view that people are heating up the planet through greenhouse gas emissions.
Robert Kaufman, a professor at Boston University, said he was motivated to conduct this study after a skeptic confronted him at a public forum, telling him he had seen on Fox News that temperatures had not risen over the decades.
This guy panics he hears that somebody said on Fox News that the temperature going so he had to go out and do a study.
Nothing that I had read that other people have done gave me a quick answer to explain the seeming contradiction because I knew that carbon dioxide concentrations have risen.
And of course it was simply out of the realm of possibility that carbon dioxide levels do not cause an increase in global temperatures.
They can't let go of the theory, but they don't I mean folks, look here here's the summation this is truly hilarious.
A scientist set out to prove the global warming skeptic set Fox wrong which by the way is the epitome of bad science.
That's that's not how you do science is to go prove somebody else wrong.
Anyway he wanted to find an explanation for the lack of any global warming over the last ten years so he blames China's burning of coal because that prevents the sun's rays from reaching the earth which is exactly what they used to call the greenhouse effect which is what they used to call global warming.
So, I don't know how to accept this.
The very culprit is now being cited as the savior, or the explanation for why there hasn't been any warming.
So by this guy's study and reason, we ought to start burning coal left and right, if indeed there's global warming going on.
We ought to throw away this green energy crap right now and just go all coal all the time.
More hilarious than this, the study claims that temperatures rose in the 70s after nations started to take action to curb sulfur emissions.
So the real culprits to blame for global warming are the environmentalists who made us cut back on our use of coal that's what we have to conclude here.
China's coal burning stopped global warming how many of you seriously ask yourself how many of you have heard for for years now that coal leads to global warming now the temperatures didn't rise they didn't go up out there for ten years and they panicked and experts at Fox were saying see there's no global warming so this yuckada yuck had to go into action get into action try to figure out the explanation.
Okay.
Tom in San Antonio Texas I'm glad you waited welcome to the EIB network sir and hello.
Hello Rush thank you I I just want to comment you've covered it a bit already but on the hypocrisy of the president lecturing us now on on deficits.
And it's even I think it's even worse than what you covered before because it's it's such recent history just from January on you remember this date of the union in in January in the after the shellacking the Democrats took largely based on out of control spending the president presented a speech that outlined all the investments we needed to make and then a budget that locked in trillion dollar plus deficits for the foreseeable future.
Right.
And totally kicked the can down the road to coin a phrase on the entitlement problems that we are facing now.
And then after Paul Ryan and the House Democrats jump off the cliff, present an adult budget that starts to get to dealing with some of those issues the president's lecturing on us now, he gets a do over I've never seen it before the do over budget where he remember that speech he gave with Paul Ryan sitting in the front row and the president's up there lying about what literally about what was in the in Ryan's budget proposal.
Right.
Oh he was staring daggers at Ryan he was staring daggers at him he couldn't he couldn't stand what Ryan was saying in that exactly exactly and and it it uh frankly every time the man opens his mouth now I it it it I get that chalk that fingers across the chalkboard feeling because it's so obvious that what he's saying is an attempt to completely re and this isn't just the past history of the two years, this is just four or five months.
Yeah, I know, I know.
And by the way, I'm glad now this is an example.
Tom here has been waiting since the first hour of the program to make this comment.
And I really appreciate that.
If you just joined us, what we're talking about is the uh deficit or the uh debt limit meeting that uh happening tomorrow at the White House and what Obama's trying to do.
And we made the point in the first hour here that all Obama's gonna try to do is to get the Republicans to go along with raising taxes, and the Republicans in the House.
I don't know about the Senate Republicans, but the Republicans in the House are not gonna do it.
Well, they'd better not.
They can make Obama cave on this.
The Republicans in the House can force Obama to cave on this.
Clinton is out there telling Obama that the Republicans in the House will cave.
That's how I know that they know their position is weak.
There's Bub is out there, hey, yeah, I don't want you to hang in there against these guys.
I mean, I remember it was like 1995.
I roll these guys, I rolled Newton, I know how to deal with these guys.
Okay, okay, just for fast as you before you even know it.
That's they're worried about it.
But in addition, here's Obama positioning himself after all of this destructive spending, all of this debt that he authored, that he wrote, he is the architect.
All of a sudden now he gets to talk about fiscal responsibility.
He gets to have the Congress up there and start lecturing them about fiscal responsibility.
As though he's been a spectator for two years.
That's thing about this.
It rubs me wrong.
It rubs me wrong.
Now, I wanna I want to go back to this French news agency story on the lack of global warming and the explanation for it being way too much coal being burned by the ChICOMs.
The cherry on top of all this.
The study was co-authored by none other than Michael Mann.
Disgraced from the University of East Anglia, the Hadley Climate Center.
Michael Mann is the uh author of the bogus hockey stick chart showing warming trends since the 1700s.
That it everybody now admits that the hockey stick chart is wrong.
Some won't admit that he fabricated it, but everybody knows that it is um that it is it is wrong.
Oh, that's right.
Obama's doing that stupid Twitter town hall right now.
What a you know that what's the maximum number of characters on Twitter?
140?
Right.
So there's some really in-depth questions you can ask.
When you have 14 character limit.
Uh these people just Twitter town hall.
Somebody somebody sent me an email saying at Bahner Twittered to Obama, where are the jobs.
Now that obviously didn't happen.
Somebody pretend somebody pretended.
God, I wish it had.
Obama said that John needs to work on his typing skills, called in a...
It did happen.
Okay, well, it's it's gotta be a uh pretender, pretending to be Bayner.
Well, I wish it wasn't.
Obama called it a slightly skewed question.
Where are the jobs?
A slightly skewed question.
Uh Coco Jr., get me the audio on that.
Everybody MSNBC's having orgasms over this thing.
We've got to have audio of that.
Back to the phones.
This is Joey in Austin, Texas.
Joey, thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Megadiddos from the South Austin Barbecue Society and what an honor it is to speak to you.
Thank you, uh sir, very much.
I'm a young man, but I feel like I've been waiting my whole life for this occasion.
Now, having gone through Joplin recently with my wife, unfortunately, we missed you by just a week, and I've been listening to the remarks made about Joplin.
In yesterday's show, you kind of made remarks that there weren't any other than local political people there, that there weren't any major, and that sparked a thought experiment in me, which was what would have happened had someone say like the president showed up to Joplin for this event.
I think it's a good analogy for private versus public what you get.
If the people of Joplin had got the president, then they would have had to pay for his flight.
They would have had to have paid for all of his security, but paid to have his teleprompter set up, probably waited for him.
And the only thing he would have brought would have been gifts of higher taxes, wealth distribution, problems for small businesses, and a message that they should have waited for the federal government to rebuild their town rather than build themselves.
However, and I'm making some resumption here, but uh being a listener, they're educated assumptions that Rush Limbaugh came to town, I would assume that you paid for your own flight.
You didn't need a teleprompter, and you came bearing a truckload of free gifts.
And that's the difference between what you get from the private sector versus the public.
Now that is a fascinating way to look at this.
Um you're right, of course.
I paid for my own flight, but I always do.
I did bring a truckload of tea.
And you know what else we did?
I I I do want to I do want to make because it was funny the way it happened.
Catherine, we loaded some money, cash, as Al Sharp said, cash money.
We put some cash money in some envelopes, 'cause we felt bad.
We're going in there with about three thousand cases of two if by tea, and there are vendors out there selling hot dogs and other beverages.
So we went in and we gave each uh vendor an envelope of cash money.
And Catherine went around and she said the reaction was hilarious.
That this didn't want to say, What is this?
They didn't believe it.
They thought this is weird.
No, I don't want to get anywhere near this.
And finally they understood they took it.
Some of 'em some did.
I think most of them did.
But we um we didn't want the truckload of tea to cost any of these other people any other money or any money.
And I remember I got a note from a guy in Tulsa who said, You're crazy.
I mean, probably more vendors showed up there than otherwise would have because you were there.
Well, maybe so.
They estimated a crowd at 35,000.
Look larger than that to me.
But uh I think uh i if if the people in Joplin would have uh uh they would have appreciated it just as much if Obama shot he'd been in there.
I think he ha he did go.
He ha he he stopped at Obama a week after uh in Joplin, a week after the tornado hit.
When he got back from uh from Europe.
But uh Joey, it's a nice thought.
I I uh I appreciate I love the thinking.
But uh what Obama would not have brought any gifts.
We had that that visit would that vi what we can say?
Not gifts that he paid for.
I mean, he has a tendency to re-gift things that you already owned, from my understanding.
From your understanding.
It's they're re-gift things anymore.
You're exactly right.
And hands them out as his own.
I appreciate it.
Joey, here's Brittany from El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Mr. Limba.
I'm a fresh baby turned wayward youth, turned true believer, so it's an honor, sir.
Thank you.
Um heard some comments you were making about NASA and wanted to hear more about your position on what are the the merits or necessity of agencies like NASA and other federally funded scientific endeavors.
Um I'm a scientist and work in the aerospace industry, and it's it's my opinion.
No one loves space more than I do, space research and and development and things like that and advances, but I don't think it's the proper function of the federal government to spend People's tax dollars on huge expensive endeavors like that.
I believe there's a purpose for it, there's a value, and that if the private sector is allowed to pay for it, there's people that will benefit from the research being done in space, and they're the ones that should pay for it and develop the the science.
Okay.
So just wanted to hear more from you.
All right, fine.
Now there NASA actually has a bunch of phases.
The NASA that that I refer to as the home of uh innovation is the NASA of the sixties.
Now I I grew up in Cape Girardo, Missouri, and I my father was an aviation official.
He loved aviation flight.
He was an expert as much as he could make himself.
I remember once you this you may not know this name.
One of the early uh PR, and this sells him short to refer to him as PR, but one of the one of the space agency people that went around the country and became quite famous in selling the concept of NASA and manned space flight in the moon was named Shorty Powers.
And he was named Shorty Powers because he was short.
And Shorty Powers came to our little town in Cape Girardo, Missouri, in the arena building and gave us a speech on the space program at the time.
I was probably nine or ten.
This was maybe twelve.
This is the early sixties.
My father took me to it.
And it was the most fascinating thing I can remember hearing.
Shorty powers was laying out for everybody that showed up, and there were about 800 people could squeeze in this room.
He was laying out what the plans, and this is back in the day, uh Brittany, when when this was happening, this was the essence of patriotism.
This was we were going to put a man on the moon, the the Soviets had Sputnik up there.
We were responsible responding.
We were talking about manned space flight, the uh Mercury program had been announced, the astronauts had been chosen, and NASA's out there selling it.
They've got some guy running around from Washington going to community to community and and and really talking it up.
And it was the essence of patriotic at that point.
And the things that that became a part of everyday American life, affordable advances in lifestyle were directly attributable to scientific discoveries that were necessary for space flight.
I remember a list that had that my dad had, and he gave speeches about it.
I can't I don't remember all of the things, but um you remember Tang?
You I'm sure you know what Tang is.
Do you know what Tang is, Brittany?
Lots of things.
It wasn't just Tang, diapers were invented by NASA.
Okay.
Well, then you know what I'm talking about.
But there were there were countless things.
I wish I had that list in front of me.
It was impressive.
And at that time, that was uh th those advances and innovations had a profound increase on the lifestyle of the average American.
So many things became affordable to them because they were necessary for manned space flight.
Now, I think those are the glory days of NASA.
Um the glory days because it was necessary.
The the politic, it was a a a defense necessity for the space race in the 60s, and it was for political posturing against the world.
No, no, no.
Well, there were some def well now.
Wait a second.
Now, there were some defense ancillaries that that would resulted from this.
Because don't forget that even though Sputnik was uh benign, the the fact that the Russians could put a satellite up there and perhaps the next one would be armed, it was scared to death out of us.
So there was a defense component to it back then.
Now, what what is your are you are you asking me if I'm being a little bit hypocritical today in suggestion, not at all.
I've I've been listening for a long time and I agree with everything you say.
Just today I did hear a note of of tenderness and warm feelings toward NASA, and I just wanted to get that position clarified, and I I think you could explain it.
Um I just I don't know, it's a huge chunk of change NASA is, and and I don't think that that regular people should be well, also in the industry, NASA is way less efficient than the the private public sector companies that Are starting up doing the same exact thing.
It's run by the government.
It spends huge amounts of money on things that everyone else could do so much cheaper.
I don't disagree with that.
But back in the sixties, there was no private sector entity capable of doing what we embarked on.
No one had enough money to do what they were doing.
In the 60s.
Exactly.
Exactly.
But what's your what I don't want to misunderstand what your what is your point about that?
Well, that now I think the government should not have such a large role in NASA.
I don't think so much money should be spent there.
I I think that the government should step back, pull some of the capital out, or maybe hold NASA to a higher standard.
But regardless, allow the private sector to take over more of the financial responsibility and the financial benefits industry.
I don't think there's any allowing to it anyway.
I guess it's a necessity now because Obama's turned NASA into into Muslim outreach.
Yes, that's true.
You said your rocket science.
Yes, sir.
I'm I'm an orbital spacecraft propulsion systems engineer.
An orbital orbital spacecraft, you know, satellites, um, propulsion systems.
The way that the satellite or orbital spacecraft gets into space and then oriented the way it's supposed to be so it can talk to Earth or you know, point the cameras at it or whatever it's doing.
Cool.
Cool.
You're actually a rocket scientist.
Yes, sir.
And so you work for private sector concern.
I do.
I worked for Boeing for a few years, and now I I work for a private contractor, but it's a defense contractor.
I I work, you know, one way or another for the government.
Well, that's cool.
That's cool.
Brittany, thank I'm uh look, I'm really short on time and I have to go, but I'm glad you called.
Thanks, sir.
I'm honored and flattered so much.
You better know I'm honored and flattered that you're in the audience.
I really am.
Rush baby from the get go.
Uh Shorty Powers, John Anthony Powers was his name.
He was known as the voice of the astronauts, the voice of Mercury control.
He was the eighth astronaut, and he was an American public affairs officer for NASA from 59 to 63, and it was great.
And I remember he came to Cape Girardeau, Missouri when I was like 10 or 1, and uh I got to meet him.
That was big stuff then, folks.
We were racing the Soviets, and they were riding ICBMs.
The Soviets went there was definitely military component to what they were doing with Sputnik.
We're scared to death here.
I'm getting notes here about the T-38.
The Air Force guys call it the white rocket.
And it was supersonic, or it is supersonic.
I mean, literally, uh, we'll post a picture of one at Rush Limbaugh.com and see what's sitting in one's like.
You're literally on a rocket with the shortest little white wings.
It's um it's the astronauts limo.
All right, from what I have been told about this Obama Twitter town hall.
And provided Coco Jr. had been paying attention and is not lazing it up up there.
We are going to have a treasure trove of audio tomorrow.
From this Twitter town.
Obama's apparently talking up tax increases.
If we just go back to Clinton tax rates, oh, we could we could pay for Medicare.
You know, garbage uh garbage like that.
So we'll have that, and uh of course whatever happens else between now and then that's worth it.
Discuss it.
See you then, my friends.
▲
Export Selection