All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
August 10, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Starting a million conversations here is the reason God invented radio.
A pure delight to have you with us.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Okay, Americans want the new debt super committee to compromise.
Americans want leaders, they want results, they want stability, says Gallup in the latest poll.
By the way, the Republicans have announced their picks for the super committee.
Boehner has appointed a bunch of loyalists, which, well, makes perfect sense that he would appoint people loyal to him rather than people who aren't.
He's got Jeb Henserling from Texas, who's going to be the House chairman, the chairman of this thing, to balance Patty Murray.
So you've got Jeff Henscherling.
We have Representative Dave Camp and Fred Upton.
Both of them are from Michigan.
Upton is the guy on our side that went along with a light bulb ban.
He has since recanted of sorts.
Mitch McConnell of Senate named Republicans John Kyle of Arizona, Pet, Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rob Portman of Ohio to the panel.
Now, our people are much less partisan than Patty Murray and John Kerry, and even Max Baucus.
Henserling from Texas is our chairman to counterbalance Patty Murray.
So that's the committee.
And Gallup says that they've polled the American people, and the American people want the compromise to be the result of what the committee does.
So maybe, maybe Boehner should start using the phrase balanced approach from now on.
And maybe we ought to start talking compromise.
Obviously, those have been poll tested.
Obviously, Obama and the Democrats went out and poll tested because they use those terms all the time.
So they've obviously learned that they are effective.
We should just call debt reduction and cutting government a balanced approach.
We just redefine the term.
We just start using the term balanced approach and compromise and say debt reduction and cutting government is what we're talking about.
That's our balanced approach.
Cut government reduce debt.
If Obama can do that for massive taxing and spending and borrowing, we can do it too.
Obama poll tests these phrases, I have no doubt.
And I'm sure it's polling well because he keeps using it.
Okay, so let's go ahead and steal their success and just start redefining the terms.
It'll never happen.
Folks, this is just me whistling Dixie.
It's never going to happen.
Makes too much sense.
It requires too much commitment here.
But it would really tick them off because they think they own balanced approach.
They think they own compromise.
We ought to just take the terms since apparently they test well and just redefine them.
Balanced approach, debt reduction, and cut government.
Makes perfect sense.
It won't happen.
But that's what I would do.
Okay, the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael A. Nutter, Is telling marauding black youths in Philadelphia, quote, you have damaged your own race.
He said this to them as he imposed a tougher curfew Monday in response to the latest flash mob, spontaneous groups of teenagers who attack people at random on the streets of Philadelphia's tourist and fashionable shopping districts.
Mr. Nutter is the city's third black mayor.
He really got mad in a lecture to black teenagers.
He said, take those goddarn hoodies down, especially in the summer.
Pull your pants up.
Buy a belt.
No one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.
You walk into somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied, your pants halfway down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you.
They don't hire you because you look like you're crazy.
You've damaged your own race.
As I say, had I uttered those words, we all shudder to think.
No, no, it wouldn't be prudent and it wouldn't be good.
But Mayor Michael Nutter, the African-American mayor of Philadelphia, did utter the words.
And the head of Philadelphia's chapter, the NAALCP, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People, his name is Jay Wyatt Mondesire.
He said it took courage for the mayor to deliver this message.
Jay Wyatt Mondesire said these are majority African-American youths and they need to be called on it.
NAALCP went along with it.
Said this Jay Wyatt Mondesire.
Now, Snerdley, put this in perspective, Jay Wyatt Mondesire also told McNab that he wasn't black enough or some such thing back during the day.
Kid You Not, he said so he got involved in it somehow.
I forget precisely what Jay Wyatt Mondesire said, but he got in on it as well.
Nutter, the mayor of Philadelphia, said all of this from the pulpit of his church in West Philadelphia.
Well, I don't know if he's a preacher, but he said this from the pulpit of his church.
Yeah, he's a Democrat.
He's a Democrat.
What kind of question is that?
African-American mayor of Philadelphia, of course he's a Democrat.
That'd be Wilson Good, wouldn't it?
Wilson Good is the one.
He got so fed up, he just bombed the neighborhoods.
He did.
Wilson Goode, he was either the first or the second African-American mayor of Philadelphia.
He just blew up the neighborhoods.
You know, if anybody in Philadelphia called 911 to complain about McNuggets, he ordered the cops in there with bazookas and blew them away.
Mary Catherine Roper, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia chapter, the ACLU, said her group sees the curfew of these youths move as legal, with its sole caveat being that it not evolved into an excuse to hassle any of the youths on the street.
Let's not hassle these people.
They're the ones doing the hassling.
Let's not hassle them.
The state ACLU, the Pennsylvania ACLU, filed a federal lawsuit last year challenging Philadelphia's police force use of stop and frisk searches.
A settlement announced in June announced a program to continue along with safeguards to prevent the use of racial profiling.
So, Mr. Nutter, the mayor and ally, strong ally of President Obama, vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, took to the pulpit of his Baptist Church Sunday to deliver this 30-minute sermon about black families taking responsibility for their behavior.
Among other things that the mayor said was the Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn't happen here in Philadelphia.
So every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time.
They need to be around now.
The mayor told the parents, if you're just hanging out there, maybe you're sending them a check or bringing them some cash by.
That's not being a father.
You're just a human ATM.
And if you're not providing any guidance and you're not sending any money, you're just a sperm donor.
At City Hall on Monday, the mayor said the gangs will be confronted.
You want to be aggressive?
We're going to be aggressive.
Let me just share this with you.
We got the biggest, baddest gang in town, a committed group of citizens and a committed government, and we're working together and we're not going to have this nonsense anymore.
Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia.
To the black teenagers of Philadelphia.
If he's not careful, they might, in fact, start calling him a Republican.
Except that he's a close buddy of Obama's.
In fact, when he started talking about the Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ a long time ago, I thought he was going to, you know, say in Hawaii back in 50 years ago or so, but he didn't.
He went all the way back.
Wilson Goode, yep, first black mayor of Philadelphia.
John Street was the second black mayor.
Now, this takes us to the piece I talked about, UK Mail Online.
It's a piece by Max Hastings.
Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare-dependent, brutalized youngsters.
I want to read his conclusion first.
And as printed out at my font size, is page 10 and 11.
So there we have it.
It's the conclusion now.
A large, amoral, brutalized subculture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn and skills which might make them employable.
They are too idle to accept work, waitressing, or doing domestic labor, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.
They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving antisocially or indeed criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so.
They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and they look to no future beyond the next meal, the next sexual encounter, or the next soccer game.
They are an absolute dead weight upon society because they contribute nothing, yet they cost the taxpayer billions.
Liberal opinion holds that they are victims because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential.
Most of us would say that this is nonsense.
Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute and denies the underclass the discipline, the tough love, which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.
Only education, together with politicians, judges, policemen, and teachers, with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all of our lives, can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.
They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings.
My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters in London.
Unless or until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for best geology, which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights for whom their monstrous excesses were a great fire, man.
He's quoting one of the protesters earlier.
Hey, man, it's a great fire.
It's a great fire.
Now, that's the conclusion.
The rest of this piece is unrelenting in its assault on these people.
Who they are, the rioters, why they are what they are.
What has made them who they are.
And he beats around no bushes.
It's socialism.
It's liberal.
This is the flower of socialism in full bloom.
And we got close to what this guy said yesterday when we played the audio sunbites of those two drunk British women.
It's about people who own their businesses and the rich.
We're going to show it up.
We can do whatever we want to do.
It's pointed out to you, it's not the haves versus have-nots anymore.
It's the productive versus the non-productive.
Those are the new battle lines.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
More phone calls coming up as the EIB network rolls on unstoppable here at the Limboy Institute.
Here we have actual audio of the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, Sunday morning at the Mount Carmel Baptist Church.
Take those dog-on hoodies down, especially in the summer.
Your cancer and buy a bet.
No one wants to see you on the board or the fucking button.
Nobody.
If you walk in somebody's office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arm, on your face, on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won't hire you.
They'll hire you because you look like you're crazy.
Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, from the pulpit of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church, wanted you to hear it in his own words.
This past Sunday, talking to the flash mobs, riotous black youths in Philadelphia.
John and Yonkers, as we head back to the phones, I appreciate your patience.
Hello, sir.
Rush from my wife, Elaine, my little girl, Emily, and me, John.
My question to you, and I'm going to make it short.
If we got two super committees, one Democrat, one Republican, what the hell do we need the rest of the head and the rest of the Republican?
That's exactly.
That's exactly the point.
That's exactly the point that I was making yesterday about this super-secret government we've got going on.
Why do we, you know, legislation is not made with 14 members of Congress meeting in secret in the Oval Office.
That's how we ended up with a debt deal.
We got secret meetings that Republicans were not even allowed to permitted to be part of and gave us Obamacare and now this supercommittee.
This is just how everybody washes their hands of it, John.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think that that is a country communist rush.
It's a shame.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
All right.
Okay, John, that's from Yonkers, New York, country-going communist Sarah in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
Regarding the market slide, don't you think short-selling is definitely a huge factor in this because the Clinton administration removed the circuit breakers, including the uptick rule.
It's being totally exploited, and the traders are making billions on it.
They have to buy back in.
They have to cover their shorts.
Back to the bounce.
Goldman Sachs probably drove the market up so they could start selling again.
Now that George Soros is driving the market down.
I think if you want to find somebody that's really shorting the market, there was a story out that some unnamed billionaire is scoring big, and everybody's trying to guess who it might be on the market plunge.
And of course, the educated guess everybody's making is George Soros.
But I mean, short-selling is as much a part of the market as going long is.
There's nothing inherently sinister about it.
The Kennedy family got wealthy doing it.
Why haven't the Republics restored the uptick rule?
Restored Glass Siegel to protect.
Well, explain the uptick rule.
Pardon?
Explain the uptick rule to people who don't know what it is.
In very general terms, they can't short sell except on an uptick in the market.
That's what Goldman Sachs did yesterday.
Except they're not required to do it.
They did it to increase their profit margin.
And it provides some protection against a short-selling slide, which is apparently a factor in what's happening.
Well, obviously, there are people selling short in this.
There are people selling short all the time.
But there's nothing.
Short selling with no controls on it will drive the market into the tank, and those traders will make billions driving it down.
Yeah, but I think, isn't there a rule in place that if you're going to go short, you've got to have your margin called.
You can't just go short without nothing to back up what's going to happen.
I think there's something's been put in place.
I'm going to have to double check that because that's just on the fringes of my fertile memory here.
Well, thank you.
It would be great if you would look into that.
Regarding Wisconsin, which is inspiring, I still greatly fear that the 2012 elections, and you did a brilliant segment on this not long ago, that the issues won't be a factor, that that election will be taken by fraud, that the Acorn is alive and well, heavily funded with billions.
This country is a good idea.
It's the only way the Democrats can win it.
It's the only way they can win it is by fraud.
Nobody will vote for them.
Well, as always, there's a lot of confusion over what the uptick rule is.
I found three, just in the short four-minute timeout we had, I found three different versions of the uptick rule.
And basically, the uptick rule is that you cannot sell short unless there's an uptick defined as a buyer.
There has to be some.
You just can't Wildly sell short unless there is a buyer.
That's the uptick.
This was done to prevent or reduce downside stampedes and it worked well.
But now there's some information out there that says the uptick rule is not currently in place, that it was allowed to perspire, or they just eliminated it.
Example: One source says that the rule was removed in 2007.
It says the uptick rule refers to a trading restriction that disallows short selling of stock except on an uptick.
For the rule to be satisfied, the short sell must be either at a price above the last traded price of the stock or at the last traded price if that price was higher than the price of the previous trade.
Now that's easy to follow.
Rule 201, so-called naked short-selling rule.
But that might not be the rule that I had in mind, since this one doesn't deal explicitly with margins.
It's more about actually identifying the stock.
But there is, apparently, folks, bipartisan support to reinstall the short uptick rule.
McCain even ran on it, so you know it's bipartisan.
But the uptick rule is not in place.
It went into effect right now.
It went into effect 1938, was removed when Rule 201 regulation SHO became effective in 2007.
So we are back in a situation like 1938, and that's what the caller was talking about.
There is no uptick rule.
So there's naked short selling that's permitted.
So I'm sure that helps.
Norma in Indianapolis, hi, great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
I'm really honored to speak to you.
The piece that you were reading a few minutes ago, where the author was giving all the reasons why there were riots in London.
Yeah, that was Max Hastings in the UK Mail on the Line.
Oh, okay.
I'm going to look that up.
It really opened my eyes, and it got me thinking: why are the poor people in the United States of America not rioting?
And I got to thinking, it's really, our poor people here in the United States are pretty advantaged compared to the other countries with food stamps and Medicaid, et cetera, et cetera.
And then I got to thinking, and this is a general idea.
But wait, wait, wait a second.
Do you know that in the UK, unemployment benefits are forever?
I didn't know that.
Well, it's going to be that way here soon, anyway.
Yeah, unemployment benefits are forever.
Now, they're interminable.
Wow.
Okay.
According to a member of parliament who appeared on our affiliate in Detroit today, WJR, according to a British member of parliament, unemployment benefits you care interminable.
Wow.
Well, look at it this way.
Look at it this way.
Let's see if I can, if I can explain this in a, you know, what we'd like to do is take the complex and make it simple here.
So if people believe In a society, if people believe that there will be the same amount of wealth no matter what they do, whether they work or not.
If people believe that there will be the same amount of wealth no matter what they do, then if they think they're being denied their portion, they are going to take it because they think it's theirs.
And isn't that the promise of socialism?
Isn't the promise of socialism that the government will be referee and will guarantee equality of outcome?
Churchill aptly describes socialism as spreading misery equally.
But if you are a young person and you are raised to believe that the amount of wealth in a nation is just what it is, no matter what you do, and you are denied yours, like that business owner in the UK, as far as and this piece by Max Hastings, these people are totally ignorant.
They have not been educated.
They have been propagandized.
They have been indoctrinated, but they have not been educated.
There's no such thing as thinking in these people.
They are just barely on the human side of animal is what he.
I mean, if you read this whole thing, he says that in this.
They're just barely on the human side of animal.
And they have been led to believe that the pot of gold is the pot of gold and it's always there, no matter what they do.
And if somehow their portion doesn't end up with them, then they're being cheated.
And they see people that have what they think is their portion of the wealth, like the business owners of the rich, and they are going to, in some cases, like the UK, they're going to riot to go get it, or they're going to riot to make it uncomfortable for the people who did get their portion of the wealth because it's unfair that the rioters didn't get theirs.
Now, to me, such an explanation, because of course I provided it, makes total sense.
A lot of people agonize.
How can people think this way?
How can people behave this way?
How can capitalism be so misunderstood?
It's easy if it's never taught.
If all you're taught is that anybody who has anything came by it in an ill-gotten or criminal way, if you're taught the premise of social justice and economic justice is that a portion of everything is yours, but somehow you don't end up with it.
And by the way, who is the agent that's supposed to provide it to you?
Think of it that way.
You're raised not to think, you're being propagandized and you're being indoctrinated.
And you're told that in a land of economic justice, what's rightfully yours is rightfully yours.
It's never really defined.
You're never told you have to work for it.
It's just there.
But you live and you grow up and somehow, if you don't do anything, it never gets to you.
Your portion of the wealth of the society never gets to you.
And you see, I'm being cheated.
I am being scammed.
And who's scamming them?
And not the government, because they've been told the government is going to provide all that for them.
The government is the agent, the referee of all of this fairness, of all of this justice.
So, when the government doesn't take these steps, because it can't, because the government does not create the wealth, but these people are raised to believe it does, when they're just barely on the human side of animal and they don't know anything, and they haven't the slightest idea because they have no sense of personal responsibility how to acquire anything.
If they end up feeling deprived, whose fault is it?
It's certainly not the government because they've been raised, they've been propagandized.
The government is Santa Claus or whatever provider agent that you want to use.
So, if they don't end up with what they think is their fair share, it's not the government's fault.
It's somehow that business owners, or that corporate jet owner's, or that rich person down the road at a doctor, or what have you, or the CEO at AIG, or some Wall Street fat cat.
The closest we have to this in this country is a government union worker.
If they don't get what they think is theirs, guess what do they do?
What are they prone to do these days?
Raise hell, riot, threaten.
But in the case of the UK, these are really, he describes these people as feral humans.
Feral humans.
Brief time out as you ponder all of that.
Folks, it really is simple to understand.
Maybe tough to accept, but it's simple to understand.
If you understand, if you accept that this is how the young people of the UK have been called educated, if you want, just to use the term.
Same thing here.
There's a certain amount of wealth out there, no matter what you do.
Corporate jet owner somehow has got more than his fair share.
And somehow you don't even have yours at all.
Injustice.
And of course, you believe in government first, last, because the government is the justice.
So then it must be people in government who are standing in your way.
In this case, the Conservatives, the Republicans.
So at the point in time when the government says, you know what, we can't afford all this anymore.
And they start cutting back on food stamps, education benefits, whatever.
And then these people that haven't done anything their whole lives because they don't know how now end up with even less than what they started, which was nothing, then it's utter panic.
Anger, feral behavior, and bingo, you have what's happening in the UK.
Stoked, by the way, as well.
I mean, it's not entirely spontaneous here.
It's being stoked by people that have vested interest in all this chaos as well.
Be back.
Don't go away.
That's correct.
The UK has guaranteed income, open-ended unemployment benefits.
You could lose your job at age 20 and still be paid unemployment at age 60.
Yeah, businesses have to keep paying in the whole time.
Well, but that's not that you guys are looking at it two steps behind.
You guys are, my God, how can that be?
How does the math work out on that?
It doesn't.
You're exactly right.
What we're seeing in the UK is the manifestation of how that is impossible because they've had to cut back other things.
Unemployment wasn't the only thing that was interminable.
Education.
Look what happened when they started last December forcing them to pay a little bit for their education.
They rioted again there, too.
This is a, I guess it's turning into a fascinating subject.
I'm presenting this in as easy a way to understand as possible.
And my own staff is greeting me with frowns and looks of confusion and in some cases utter despair.
Of course it makes no sense.
Of course it makes no sense.
You're trying to make sense of it.
I'm not trying to make sense of it.
I'm trying to explain to you the absolute folly of it.
Why socialism doesn't work?
Why we've gotten to the point that we've gotten.
I think it's, I don't know of an easier way to explain it.
You have a bunch of young people.
We're facing the same thing here based on the way they've been educated.
They don't think they have to work for what they get.
It's just there.
The wealth of a nation is just there and they get their portion.
Whatever they do.
Economic justice.
Social justice.
They get whatever.
And if it doesn't find its way to them, which it won't, money does not knock on your door.
Opportunity does, but money doesn't.
Then they're clueless.
They don't understand because they see other people with money and they don't equate it with work.
They equate it with existence.
They equate it with entitlement.
The way they look at people with jobs is mine, that's even more unfairness.
Somebody in the government is being really unfair.
Why, not only those people get their share of the wealth, and by the way, they don't use that term.
They don't know share of the wealth.
That's my term to explain it in terms that you and I converse in.
These people I'm talking about don't even understand the term share of wealth.
They just think that there are certain amount of dollars out there.
There's a certain amount of stuff.
That there's a certain, everybody should get a Blackberry.
Everybody should have a car.
Everybody should have a house.
And when that doesn't happen to them, there is no economic justice.
And since the government, they've been told, is the guarantor of such things, it can't be the government that's screwing them.
So it has to be the people that have the houses and the cars and the blackberries that are hoarding it all from them.
Or even worse, it's the conservatives.
Those people in government who they've been told don't want anybody to have anything.
I've got an acquaintance who recently re-entered the investment business.
And he's trying to reestablish his business, actually going door to door in his little neighborhood, knocking on doors and trying to get people to invest.
And he told me, he asked me what to say to this one guy.
He knocked on his door.
And this guy has $100,000 to invest.
And he's mid-60s, close to 70.
And this guy was just fit to be tied over, not that my friend showed up, but just, you tell me what have the Republicans ever done for the working men.
This is my friend said, what would you say to this guy?
So I wrote a reply back.
There are people who are in their 60s who have, you know them.
They believe the Democrat Party's for the working man.
What does that mean?
It means that the Democrat Party is going to make sure you get your car and that you get your apartment or whatever you're going to get.
And if you don't get it, it's somebody else in government's fault or that corporate jet owner who has more than he should have.
And you ask how in the world people can support tax increases.
If they think somebody's going to get punished as a result, they'll be damn well for it.
Because the people we're talking about, their level of sophistication is zero.
All they have on their mind is getting even with people who have more than they do.
And whoever promises them that they'll do that for them, that's who they're going to vote for.
It's happening in the UK.
And of course, the people making the promises, we're going to tax those people and they're going to, even after all this problem, the rich still have their jets and the rich still have their businesses and these people get even angrier because there is no pain and they want to see the pain.
The only pain is their own.
They're the wards of the state and they're the ones that have been lied to and it's the Democrats that have done it to them.
No, the only thing the Democrats care about is just say enough every four years to make sure these same feral humans keep voting for them on the same false promises.
That's all they care about.
▲
Export Selection