All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:01
July 7, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, here we are.
We're ready to go.
More broadcast excellence.
Hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh, America's Guiding Light, America's Truth Detector, America's Real Anchorman, and a Doctor of Democracy.
Here at my own institute, I have my own institute, the Limbaugh Institute.
Advanced Conservative Studies have a chair here at the Institute that I sit in, endowed by me, the distinguished Attila the Hun chair, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Yeah, bare-faced truth about big fat lawyers.
Men with wide faces, snurdly, you qualify too.
Men with wide faces more likely to lie and cheat than narrow-faced men, but they seem to make better businessmen.
Is that because they lie and cheat?
Is that what the UK Independent thinks of business people?
Scientists believe they have evidence to show that the width of a guy's face relative to his facial height is an indicator of how powerful he feels and of his willingness to surreptitiously break social rules to achieve his goals.
The findings suggest that the width to height ratio of the face could be an ancient evolutionary signal of a man's aggressiveness when dealing with competitors, said Professor Michael Hazel Hoon of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who led the study.
Men with larger facial...
Do you believe somebody actually did this?
And you know that they got some sort of public money to do it.
Men with larger facial ratios feel more powerful.
Leads them to act unethically.
Now, the studies involved testing a group of 192 business students to see how readily they were prepared to either lie or cheat in order to gain an advantage over a competitor.
Men with wider faces were about three times more likely to lie and about nine times more likely to cheat compared to narrow-faced pencil-necked geek guys.
Our findings suggest that some men are simply predisposed to act unethically in order to achieve their goals.
And this has important practical implications.
For example, someone in the market for a new car may wish to pursue or peruse photos of salesmen online before visiting the dealership in person to increase the chances of finding an honest negotiator, said Professor Hazelhoon.
Right.
So we're supposed to judge ethical behavior by how someone looks.
So will people do this?
Go to a website, auto dealer website, find pictures of the salesman, find the wide-faced guys and avoid them when they go to buy a car now.
What are they?
Two words for the story.
Anthony Weiner.
Barack Obama.
Nancy Pelosa.
Man, we're talking men here.
Now, this next story, this is interesting.
This website, it's the daily, I guess it's the UK Daily Mail, but it does not look like the UK Daily.
It's some Daily Mail, so it might be from Canada.
But it's a story about the Obama effect on people.
And it claims that the Obama effect first grabbed Oprah and has now ensnared Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.
Here's a story from the Politico on June 23rd.
In an interview with CNN, Tom Hanks, who's been on a media blitz promoting his new movie, explained his endorsement.
The host Kira Phillips introduced the subject, saying, all right, President Obama, you've been a big supporter.
And Hanks interrupted.
He said, and I will be again.
Let me take it right now.
I'm going to vote for him.
I'm going to vote for his reelection in 2012.
I beat you to the punch.
And just for good measure, Hanks said, if you would have told me a few years ago that Don't Ask, Don't Tell would be repealed and about a billion jobs at General Motors and Chrysler would have been saved because the president was smart enough and strong enough and bold enough to do so, I would have said, wow, that's a good president.
I think I'll vote for him again.
Hank's movie has tanked.
Oprah's show is off the air.
Her new cable network is tanking.
Hank's movie is with Julia Roberts.
She's also a full-fledged supporter of Obama.
The movie, and by the way, Hanks did more publicity for this.
It's Mr. I don't even know the name.
I can't remember the name of it.
But it's tanking.
Nikki Fink, she's got her own website, Hollywood Insider, on July 2nd, Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts in Holiday Flop.
But Julia Roberts said she speaks with Obama, adding, I hope I don't get in trouble with Mrs. Obama.
Anyway, somebody's out there calculating the impact on celebrities' careers by how publicly identified with Obama they happen to be.
Now, I've got to find this.
Oh, here's the Fast and Furious story, but there's something I've gotten my stack out of order here that is highly unprofessional.
I have got to find this.
And it's in regard to the Mark Halperin thing.
You're going to get thrown off the air because of his comment about what Obama looked like.
And, well, I must have put this in some other stack, so I'll do the Fast and Furious.
It's about, it's, well, it's about some of the comments.
Tina Brown, Chris Matthews, and some of the others, the way they're characterizing Republicans in very dangerous ways.
Calling them terrorist bombers and this guy.
Larry Crown is the name of the Hanks movie, by the way.
Have you heard of it?
See?
See?
You haven't even heard of it.
And you got kids that go to movies.
John Henricker, Heinrich, I don't know how he pronounces it, at Powerline, Fast and Furious blows sky high.
Yesterday morning, there was a stunning development in Congress's investigation of the Justice Department Fast and Furious gun running program.
Do you remember this?
This is where ATF allowed a criminal element to purchase AK-47s and other weapons and ammo at Phoenix gun stores, Arizona gun stores, and then take them across the border into Mexico.
The theory or the stated objective here was to track this stuff back to Mexican drug lords so we can find out who they were and how they were using the stuff and all that.
And it turned out the weapons ended up being used to kill Americans.
And I'm going to tell you right now, as I mentioned the first time I mentioned this whole story to you, I will guarantee you, well, it's pretty hard to guarantee it, but I am confident.
I'll put it that way.
I am confident this is a government-run program that's out of the Justice Department.
It's Eric Holder, and that means it's Obama.
It'll never get up to Obama, but don't doubt me on this.
This was an attack on the Second Amendment.
This, the purpose of this, was to have it all go wrong, have American guns because they're so widely available.
You can go into any gun store in America and buy a thone rifle, quote unquote, have end up owned by Mexican drug lords.
And we were supposed to be so appalled and outraged by that that the American people would clamor for gun control.
That's what they were trying to do.
Nobody's going to ever convince me otherwise.
Nobody.
But the power line guys reported stunning developments in Congress investigation of the Justice Department Fast and Furious gun running program yesterday morning.
It was revealed, and this is big.
On July 4th, Kenneth Melson, the acting director of ATF and the Obama regime's intended fall guy in the scandal, broke ranks with his superiors.
Without their knowledge, my friends, Kenneth Melson gave an interview to Darrell Isa's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accompanied only by his personal attorney.
While a transcript of that interview is not yet public, it's clear that he blew the whistle on senior officials in the Justice Department.
Yesterday, ISA and Senator Charles Grassley released a letter that they sent yesterday to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Here are some excerpts.
Yesterday, acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson participated in a transcribed interview regarding Operation Fast and Furious and related matters with both Republican and Democrat staff.
He appeared with his personal counsel, Richard Cullen of Maguire Woods LLP.
His interview had originally been scheduled for the Justice Department to occur on July 13th in the presence of Department of Justice and ATF lawyers.
As you know, however, under our agreement, department witnesses who choose to attend a voluntary interview with their own lawyer are free to exercise that right rather than participate with counsel representing the department's interests.
After being made aware of that provision of our agreement, Acting Director Melson, the ATF guy, chose to appear with his own lawyer, not DOJ lawyers and not ATF lawyers.
We are disappointed no one had previously informed him of that provision of the agreement.
Instead, Justice Department officials sought to limit and control his communication with Congress.
Mr. Melson said that he had told the Office of Deputy Attorney General at the end of March that the department needed to reexamine how it was responding to requests for information from Congress on the Fast and Furious program.
According to Mr. Melson, he and ATF senior leadership team moved to reassign every manager involved in Fast and Furious from the Department Assistant Director for Field Operations down to the group supervisor after learning the facts in those documents.
Now, the evidence gathered by ISIS Oversight Committee suggests that the Obama regime may actually have financed the purchase of these firearms by known criminals, which then wound up in the hands of Mexican gangs and were involved in murders, including the murder of an American Border Patrol agent.
The agent, the evidence that we have gathered, raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons out of the country, but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have bought those weapons, may have financed those engaging in buying these weapons.
While this preliminary information is preliminary information, we must find out if there's any truth to it.
According to Acting Director Melson, he became aware of this startling possibility only after the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and the indictments of the straw purchasers, which we know and now know were substantially delayed by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Maine Justice.
The full transcript of Melson's testimony will be a fascinating document.
In the meantime, it appears clear the Fast and Furious scandal reaches to the very top of the Obama regime's Department of Justice.
So, the acting director of ATF decides, I don't want to wait for lawyers from the DOJ and the ATF.
I'm going to get my own and I'm going to go testify privately, which he did on July 4th.
He said, apparently, taxpayer dollars were used to buy these weapons that ended up in Mexico.
Now, from Hillbuzz, Mexico ticked off.
The more that's known about Fast and Furious, the more apparent it is the U.S. screwed up and allowed, we're talking 2,500 assault rifles here and revolvers to be transported into Mexico by thugs.
These guns were supposed to be traced to high-level mob-type gun traffickers and drug cartel members, but for some reason, ATF agents just sat back and let the bad guys be bad guys.
And in the process, numerous people were murdered with these weapons, including the U.S. Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.
Now, Mexican officials want the people responsible for Operation Fast and Furious to not only be tried in the U.S., but also in Mexico.
So, this program, folks, and you know why they did.
All this talk about tracking the movement of Mexican drug cartel members and so forth.
Yeah, it sounds good.
This, I know liberals, I know it sounds they would never go that far.
Come on, don't, folks.
This is really not that bad compared to things they're totally capable of and have done.
And I tell you, I believe that one of the primary objectives here was to get the American people so upset that they would clamor for more gun control.
I think that's what they were trying to do.
Andrew Breitbart's website, big government, a post here by A.W.R. Hawkins, which was worse, Watergate or Operation Fast and Furious.
After the Washington Post broke the news of the Watergate break-ins in 92, the Nixon administration circled the wagons in 1997, a full 25 years later.
After the fact, Catherine Graham, who was with the Post in 72, vividly recalled how Nixon began making threats of economic retaliation against the Washington Post.
According to Catherine Graham, Nixon bullied the paper, sought to silence it, launched a campaign to undermine public confidence in it.
Judging from what Graham said, it appears that Nixon wanted to be sure that people understood that if they continued to pry into Watergate or talk about Watergate or break news about Watergate, as it unfolded, there'd be harsh ramifications.
Now, keep in mind, Nixon had nothing to do with planning Watergate, only with covering it up once he learned of it after the fact.
Now, Watergate provided the left with such a singularly sweet opportunity to bring down a Republican president.
They have never gotten over it.
But no one died during the Watergate break-ins or as a result of Nixon's cover-up.
Switch gears and jump to 2009.
The ATF special Operation Fast and Furious, 2,500 guns in Arizona sold to straw purchasers under the assumption those guns are going to end up in the hands of Mexican drug cars.
You know the rest of the story.
Worse than Watergate.
People died back after this.
Okay, phone call time.
And yes, I found what I'm looking for here, but people have been waiting for a long time.
It always happens to be on this program.
And where are we going?
Logan, Utah.
Scott, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
Yes, sir.
This is an awesome experience.
Well, I just had a question.
I'm kind of confused.
You were saying you didn't know why people didn't understand.
And you were trying to explain it to us about the defaulting on the debt and all that.
No, no, no.
I did not say I don't know why people.
I said Obama is counting on you not understanding.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I'm confused.
I, if I look at it in my aspect, say I had a $100,000 credit card and was maxed out and I could not, I could barely make the payments on it.
To increase my debt and apply for more debt and get, say, a $200,000 debt limit on there, that would give me no more working capital than I already had on my debt limit, would it?
And so I would be no better off making the payments to my debt than I was when I had the $100,000 debt limit.
All it would do is increase my payments in the future, wouldn't it?
Okay, but in this example, tell me what it is you're not understanding that I said.
Well, no, no, no.
I understand what you say.
I'm wondering why we're even talking about this, why our legislatures are even talking about increasing the debt limit.
It's not going to do, it's not going to give us anything.
Oh, okay.
You're exactly the point.
We could reduce the debt limit and still not default.
Right.
But why are we saying that we're going to default right now when...
Because the president sets the agenda.
It's up to the Republicans to either shoot it down or play along with it.
Presidents have power.
Yeah, but if we increase the debt limit, that's going to make us more in trouble in the future, wouldn't it?
Well, of course it is.
We don't have the money that we're spending now.
The debt limit raise or increase is simply a request by Obama to let me be more irresponsible.
So us, like this, the bigger scale, the national scale, it's no different than what it would be on my smaller scale, is it?
Because I always hear the term, oh, you don't understand macroeconomics.
Well, there is a big difference, and that is you can't go print money to cover your debt, and you can't just borrow it easily and so forth.
You can't.
They get to pretend that there is no limit.
It's like, you remember the old, I don't know if you remember the House bank scandal of 1988 and 89.
Yes, I do.
A little bit.
Members of the House were able to write checks for any amount whatsoever, no matter how much money they had in their account.
The checks were covered.
It didn't matter what their salaries were.
You and I could never do that.
But no, you understand it fully.
You've got a down pat.
Don't doubt yourself.
Here's that story I was looking for earlier.
I think there's a new strategy out there.
I don't think this is happenstance.
It's for the drive-bys to specifically to refer to Republicans as terrorists and suicide bombers.
And, you know, folks, the last thing I don't, I'm very uncomfortable giving these people any kind of publicity anyway, because nobody really watches them.
And it's very frustrating for Cookie and Cookie's little helpers because they, you know, most of this crap happens on MSNBC.
And I've told them, I really don't want to give them any.
Nobody else watches them.
Why should we give them any attention?
And they get very frustrated because MSNBC is the best example of where all this crap is happening.
It does happen throughout the left-wing media, but MSNBC is just where it's all codified, condensed, concentrated.
Chris Matthews, I can remember when he once guest-hosted this show.
He was sufficient that we could put him on here to guest host the program.
That just wouldn't happen anymore.
I don't know what's happened to the guy.
I really don't.
That whole network is loony bin.
And it's a loony bin filled with people who are overflowing with uncontrollable rage and anger, unhappiness, misery.
By design, this is their niche.
They've chosen it.
Chris Matthews said Tuesday it was scary that Republicans like Michelle Bachman were willing to not face the warning signs about raising the federal debt ceiling and take the United States right off the cliff.
His guest was the Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri.
She noted it was a misconception that raising the debt ceiling would permit Congress to spend more, which is my brother went to law school with her.
And I remember he used to say she was okay.
They've gone not, I mean, the misconception raising the debt ceiling would permit Congress to spend more.
Anyway, all we're doing is making good on the spending that's already occurred, she said.
It's like they bought a new car and don't want to make the payment.
That's a crock.
It's not true.
And then later speaking with Joan Walsh at Solana, who is also out of control, she's, and these people are all part of the cabal that they, you know, Duke LaCrosse case without any evidence that those lacrosse play are guilty of sin.
These people were recently embarrassed on a similar type of story.
They all piled on.
They were all wrong about it.
I forget what it was.
What?
They defended DSK?
I don't think it was DSK.
I'll find out what it was.
Anyway, Joan Walsh was a guest, and Matthews said Republicans' plans to hold a debt ceiling hostage until Democrats agreed to budget cuts was terrorism.
Now, I say this in the concept, okay, if we're going to suspend what's his name, Halpern, for using the word dick, I'm just telling you, there is a lot worse and more incendiary language out there being used.
This is dangerous stuff.
I mean, it really is over the line.
Tina Brown, Republicans are acting like economic suicide bombers.
That was on MSNBC.
She was talking to Mika Zhazhinsky.
Tina Brown is the editor of the Daily Caller and Newsweek now.
And Chris Matthews back, he called the Republicans the Wahhabis of American government.
Meaning that the Republicans are Muslim terrorists.
Wahhabiism is the militant Islam.
And I'm just saying, this stuff is far more incendiary than what Halpern said.
And of course, it's not civil.
It just isn't civil, and we're supposed to be civil.
Remember that?
Obama goes out there to Arizona, Gabriel Gifford's thing, talks about the need for all this new civility because these people lied about Sarah Palin being responsible for the shooter out there and then me.
You got these guys making these kinds of comments?
Who's next?
Frank in Waco, Texas.
Frank, hello, and welcome to EIB Network, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Rush, great to talk to you again.
Thank you.
First, I have to say, if the Democrats had half the compassion that they claim to, they would let us use our food stamps to purchase live locks.
Never know.
That's right.
Hey, on the debt ceiling stuff, you are, of course, right, completely right on that.
I mean, none of us could run our household the way that they're attempting to run it for us with this money.
But, you know, you said, well, it's easy armchair and we're not there and maybe they just have to cut some kind of deal.
Well, then I said, okay, fine.
If they say the only way to do it is cut a deal.
And if they say that you have to, you know, quote-unquote increase revenues and it's okay to do one first and the other 12 years later, then fine.
Boehner can say, okay, we'll just take your idea, but we'll reverse it.
We'll cut the spending now and we'll increase the revenues in 12 years.
Okay.
I like the theory behind it.
It'd never fly.
And of course, it would illustrate the folly of their idea.
Well, exactly.
I mean, yeah, it'll never fly.
And it's ridiculous to even have to entertain the idea.
But at least, like you say, it would break the folly of the idea.
Yeah, I like it.
Okay, Mr. Press, we'll do the spending cuts now.
We'll get to the spending in 12 years.
And it works out either way, doesn't it, Mr. President?
Still end up at the same place, don't we?
Great idea.
By the way, speaking of this Matthews and Tina Brown stuff, Obama said during his Twitter town hall today, or yesterday, that the GOP was holding a gun to the head of the country.
I mean, these people on the left are using this incendiary, murderous type lingo.
And of course, you ask, where is the civility?
And this is the same man, Barack Obama, who lectured us on dangerous rhetoric after the Giffords shooting when he kicked off his reelection campaign in Tucson.
Here's Emily, 13 years old.
Hi, Rush.
Hi, Emily.
She's from Newburgh, New York.
How are you, Emily?
I'm good.
How are you?
Very good.
Thanks.
Well, first of all, I have a question.
So I hear you're 99.8% right all the time.
99%.
I documented to be almost always right, 99.6%, yes.
Oh, 0.6.
Okay.
I was wondering.
Yeah.
So lately I've been talking to just people and my friends and stuff, and it seems like they all just are so ignorant as to matters going on and issues.
And I've also come to notice that people who are ignorant at a young age and stuff, they usually end up voting Democratically.
And I just, since you're able to convince people so well, I was wondering if you had any advice for me.
Well, the best way to convince anybody of anything is to believe in it yourself and to be able to explain it and then be passionate about it.
Really, there's nothing like confidence.
Confidence will make you a leader.
Confidence will make you persuasive.
And confidence will create admiration for you.
It'll also make people jealous of you, by the way.
It creates all kinds of reactions in people.
But the best way to persuade somebody of something is to really believe it.
And I would tell them, you know, they'll probably ask you, well, how do you know, Emily, how do you know?
And then you can tell them how you know.
And you can say, there's one word here that can really help you.
It's called read.
And then you point them to places to go where you've learned it.
If they want to believe in you, if there's any number, tell them to listen to this program, you know, under cover of darkness or, you know, in the closet or something where nobody will know.
But you're talking with a 13-year-old.
You're special.
If you're up to speed on this stuff and if you have a very deep rooted interest in it, you're quite unique.
Most 13-year-olds really don't care about any of this yet.
Exactly.
And then I was also wondering, so I hear you got some new 2FIT.
And I was wondering, I actually am on a road trip right now.
I don't live in Newburgh, but that's where we just went through.
I live in Ohio, and I was wondering if you had any stores that were going to sell it.
We have not.
We've not gone the distributor or retail market yet for a very simple reason.
And that is we want to control our own distribution.
You remember when my first book came out, I go to the bookstore and I would find it in the fiction section turned upside down or the cooking section.
And we don't want the same thing happening with a tea.
We want to be able to control our own distribution.
So it's not in retail stores.
But I'll tell you what I'll do.
If you hang on here after we finish talking, which will be in mere seconds, if you give Mr. Snerdley your address and I'll express mail you'll ship you some overnight.
We've got regular diet and with sugar.
Well, it's sugar.
It's not fructose or corn syrup.
And we've got raspberry, regular in diet.
Which would you want?
You got a favorite?
I do, but if I announce favorite, I'm going to create a run on it.
Let me, I'll tell you what I'll do.
I will send you a, do you like diet or regular?
That's the first thing I have to know.
I like regular.
Right, okay.
I'm going to send you a case of regular and a case of raspberry.
Thanks.
I'll send you two cases.
And we're having meetings later this week on the new flavor.
I got to start taste testing the new flavors that we're thinking of expanding here.
So don't don't go anywhere, Emily, and we'll send you some.
Snerdley, pick up the phone there for her before she gets away.
In the meantime, we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Snerdley, did you get Emily's address and all that?
Good.
I'm still talking to her.
Okay, good.
You know, she's 13 and she's really into this.
Most people, I have found, don't start thinking for themselves until they're 40 about anything.
And oftentimes by then, it's too late.
Okay, folks.
Sadly, we are out of busy broadcast moments for today.
21 hours.
We'll be back with Open Line Friday.
▲
Export Selection