All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
August 11, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, folks, during the collapse of the old Soviet Union, the Russians used to say that after communism comes alcoholism.
What do you figure comes after Obamunism?
And whatever it is, I'm ready for it.
It has to be an improvement.
How are you, folks?
I am tired.
I'm just going to tell you, I'm tired.
Up late last night and a bunch of other stuff.
So you never know.
Show up here tired, giddy.
It tends to be unpredictable.
We're happy to be here, nevertheless, as is always the case.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
A lot of email that I made up the story about.
In fact, you know, this is becoming a theme.
And I'm actually, I'm wondering if maybe these emails are coming from actual supporters disguised as critics.
Because my email box gets flooded every time I make an assertion.
You're lying about it.
Just like you lie about everything.
You're just making it up.
The latest is the polar bear story.
Remember that the story that the journalists are the scientists being investigated for fraud?
You're making it up.
Well, so I go out and I find a story.
Here it is.
This version is from Human Events.
Polar Bears.
And of course, this comes on the heels of Al Gore absolutely losing it at the Abson Aspen Institute.
Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting.
And I even have one of the phony pictures here.
You know, I look at this.
I'm stunned that people ever bought that the polar bear here is on a melting glacier.
At any rate, these pictures of these polar bears on top of three feet of ice became an iconic image of the global warming debate.
But the validity of the science behind the picture presented as an ignoble testament to our environmental peril by Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is now part of a federal investigation and has the environmental community on edge.
By the way, this is a story in Human Events by Audrey Hudson.
Special agents from the Department of Interior's Inspector General's Office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died.
And the department is eyeing another study currently underwear on bear populations.
Biologist Charles Monette, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave on 18 July.
Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the fraudulent study, is being questioned but has not been suspended.
The disputed paper published by Polar Biology in 2006 suggests that the drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and or longer open water periods continues.
And of course, it galvanized the environmentalist wackos and led to the polar bears controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, now protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Let me I'll turn the ditto cam off just for a second, so I zoom in here on this so you people know what I'm actually talking about.
I'm sure you've seen this.
All right.
Here we go.
Now, that picture and many others like it.
Remember, those pictures were thrown out there by all of these people to show that the glaciers, the glaciers, were melting.
That was what was left of a glacier.
And now, of course, we know that this whole thing is fraudulent and it was from the get-go.
Anybody with half a brain that was fraudulent.
If you understand the libs.
So that's Audrey Hudson in Human Events.
In the Washington Post today, a piece by John Cohen, majority, it's a poll.
Majority of public has lost faith in government ability to fix the economy.
Now, the Post writes this story as though it's horrible.
Oh, no, how can this be?
The Post seems to see this as a disaster.
We, of course, here, you and I would see this as good news.
More and more people are waking up to reality.
Also, note that it says here, more than seven in 10 Americans, 70% for those of you in Rio Linda, more than 70% say the federal government is mostly focused on the wrong things.
Now, does that mean that most people don't think keeping a Democrat Party in power by redistributing the country's wealth should be the government's top priority?
The poll also claims the number of people who are, quote, unhappy with the country's political system is up significantly from two years ago.
How, ladies and gentlemen, is that possible?
Obama's been in the White House for two and a half years.
And most of that time, the Democrats held supermajorities in both houses of Congress.
How can it possibly be that people are looking upon government in disfavor?
How can it happen?
The Post doesn't understand it.
It's a poll, the results of which provide great angst for them.
By the way, the respondents of this poll, the typical sample, they oversample Democrats, they undersampled Republicans, and they still got results they didn't like.
32% of respondents in the poll were Democrats, 25% Republicans, and 37% Independents.
You know what they were trying to do?
I'm surprised they published this because the results are so bad.
They were trying, obviously, to get a poll, which showed that the vast majority of Americans are very happy with government and its ability to fix the economy.
And a lot of faith.
But it just didn't turn out.
This means the Post oversampled the Democrats, and they probably oversample the Independents.
I mean, after all, who really believes there are more independents than there are adherents to either party?
I mean, you get a poll here, 32% of the samples Democrat, 25% Republican, a grand total there of 57%.
37% Independent.
Where do you get that?
That's obviously an attempt.
A, it's based on a prejudice and a bias on what independents think.
And B, an attempt to oversample them based on what you think they think.
So you get the result that you want, except that they didn't.
But this makes the numbers even all that much more encouraging.
I mean, the Post, this John Cohen guy is obviously discouraged.
You can read it.
You can sense it as you read it.
Barely one in four Americans has confidence the federal government has the ability to fix economic problems.
And most Americans share Standard and Poor's indictment of the country's policymaking process.
According to our new poll, the spreading lack of confidence is matched by an upsurge in dissatisfaction with the country's political system and a widespread sense that Standard Poor's characterization of U.S. policymaking as increasingly less stable, less effective, less predictable is a fair one.
When it comes to economic issues, the erosion of public trust is deep, just 26% now have even some faith the government can actually solve problems.
Confidence is down 21 percentage points in October of 2010, less than half what it was in 2002.
It is plummeting consumer confidence, citizen confidence in government.
I mean, if this is real and if it holds up, if I mean, if this translates at the ballot box, and that's what always, of course, is the real final analysis of whether or not this means anything, is how it translates at the ballot box.
These are encouraging numbers.
More and more people seem to be waking up to reality.
One big issue says here: public concern that the government's failing to address major problems.
More than 70% say the federal government mostly focused on the wrong things, a sentiment that is also sharply higher than it was last fall.
And 78% of those polled are unhappy with the country's political system.
That's also up significantly from two years ago.
Now, about half, 45%, are very dissatisfied with the country's political system.
Dissatisfaction crosses party lines.
Intense unhappiness peaking among independents, more than half of whom report being very dissatisfied.
That just cannot, that cannot sit well with these people in the state-controlled media.
The independents, I mean, those, don't forget now, independents, they're smarter than everybody else.
They're more open-minded.
These are the people that were most easily manipulated, shaped, flaked, and formed into believing and buying into the whole Messiah spin that the media cooked up in 2007, 2008.
And what is this?
The next story we have from CNN money: tax increase on the rich would impact just 3% of taxpayers.
What's happening here?
It's small, but I mean, two stories in a row, some kind of a record, a breakout here of truth from the state-controlled media.
As the government looks for ways to climb out of its massive hole of debt, all eyes are on the rich.
No, they're not.
All eyes are on government.
All eyes are not on the rich, but it's CNN.
President Obama and many of his fellow Democrats continue to call for higher taxes on the wealthy.
And according to results of a CNN ORC International poll released yesterday, many Americans agree that's the only way the country can dig itself out of its current economic mess.
About 63% of the 1,008 people interviewed over the phone said they think that the new bipartisan committee should raise taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses.
But, asks CNN, just how many of these rich people are there?
Now, you people know this.
As regular listeners here, not only do you know how many of them there are who earn over $10 million a year, some a little over $8,000, you know what their combined total tax payments are.
Let's see.
Let's read further together here and see what CNN says.
Just how many of these rich people are there?
And are there enough of them for a tax increase to really make a dent in the U.S. trillions of dollars in debt?
President Obama has defined the nation's wealthy as those who make 200 grand or more.
According to a recent report from the IRS, that leaves out about 97% of the taxpaying population.
Well, Shazam.
So they're accurate here.
3% is who we're talking about.
The report, which provides a complete breakdown and analysis of returns for the 2009 tax year, found that only a mere 3% of tax returns were filed by people earning a gross adjusted income of $200,000 or more.
Americans earning $1 million or more were even more rare, comprising just two-tenths of 1% of the population of tax filers, accounting for a mere 236,000 of the 140 million tax returns received in 2009.
So the number of millionaires filing taxes, people earned more than a million dollars, 236,000, compared to 140 million tax returns received in 2009, the wealthiest taxpayers, those earning $10 million or more in adjusTedros income are even less prevalent.
There were only 8,274 people belonging to that elite club, according to the IRS.
And CNN gets it right here.
They're a week behind, but they got it right.
Yet, even though these high-income earners are a minority, Obama says their proposed tax increases would boost revenues by $750 billion over a decade.
Not quite the multi-trillion dollar figure the U.S. needs to pay off the deficit, but for many of those who responded to the CNN Orc international poll, it's evidently a good enough start.
So the class envy works.
At least CNN got the number right.
Taxes on the rich would impact just 3%.
Now, what they're trying to say is go ahead and do it.
My God, only going to affect 3%.
Soak them.
Let them have it.
Okay, folks, there are more and more analyses of just who the people are in London and other UK cities who are rioting.
Now, I don't think anybody is going to do a better job than we did explaining all of this on this program yesterday.
But Jay Christian Adams, the name might ring a bell.
He used to work in the civil rights division of the Justice Department, and he quit when Eric Holder decided we're not going to prosecute the new Black Panthers because we don't believe here that it's possible or that it's relevant to pursue crime committed by blacks against whites.
This is the guy that quit.
Has written an analysis of the mob and why they're doing what they're doing in London and in America as well.
I also want to go through and finish my partially completed dissertation explanation on private property, its relevance and importance.
Plus, we've got your phone calls.
We've got audio soundbites.
We've got Joe Scarborough saying that if I am still rooting for Obama to fail, that I'm rooting for America to collapse.
We've got Joe Scarborough, a member of the 94 Republican freshman class in the House of Representatives saying this.
So it's well, you know, we're going to have.
Snerdley just said that idiot Chris Matthews.
Well, Snerdley, I know what you're talking about.
I got a lot of emails of what Matthews said last night.
I think we're approaching here the psychological.
I think we're approaching where we might actually need serious professional help where Matthews is just nice.
It's gone beyond being even funny.
It's just, it's so far from reality.
Well, I think we've got that.
A lot of other stuff on the program today, too.
And I got to take a break.
We'll do it and we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Snerdley, I think, is a sign of effectiveness.
Snerdley is all upset because last night on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, you know, I don't know if he's lost his mind or it would be insensitive to mock him and made fun of him until he goes through some rigorous therapy.
I'm not a psychiatrist.
I'm a radio guy.
Last evening, Chris Matthews went on MSNBC and told his audience that he heard me say that I want to roll back, he heard me say that I want to roll back Harry Truman's integration of the U.S. Army.
I don't think we've mentioned Harry Truman on this program in a week.
And we certainly haven't talked about the integration of the U.S. Army.
I don't know how long.
He said that he heard me say it.
Now, the other day I got a note.
Larry Elder was substituting for Sean Hannity and some guy called Larry Elder and said, you know, them boy running around calling Obama tar baby.
Well, I've not called Obama tar baby.
Who did?
It was some Republican, you know, some Republican Colorado, Colorado Congress.
I think, Snerdley, this always happens, this stuff always happens when a new level of effectiveness has been reached.
That's really what all this means.
But I don't know, Matthews, there's something seriously wrong here.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We're always happy to go back and correct the record.
Never, never.
And we talk about anything other than rolling back the Democrat agenda for the last 65 years.
I don't even recall using the numbers 65 million, 65 years, 65 this, or what have you.
But all I could think when I heard about this, you know, Matthews didn't say that he heard somebody else say or that somebody told him.
Said that he heard me say that I want to roll back Truman's integration of the U.S. Army.
And he didn't twitch and his eyes didn't glaze over.
There was no spittle coming down the chin.
He just said it.
He had a fierce scowl on his face when he said it.
Rush Limbaugh wants to end Truman's integration of the Army.
And all I can tell you, well, where's his staff?
Are they following in the footsteps of Val Sharpton?
Are they trying to create a tension?
You know, Sharpton, you know what Sharpton says now, Snerdley?
Did you hear that?
Sharpton says he did all that on purpose to set debate for me.
To set debate for me.
Listen, he wants to preach to my choir.
Well, who wouldn't want this audience?
Problem is, none of them has the ability to go out and get it on their own.
They have the slightest idea how.
They're all a bunch of parasites, every one of them.
But it's still comical because it just always happens when there's utter panic setting in on their side about their own prospects.
And I guarantee, folks, they are scared to death over what their prospects are with Obama and this economy and the undertow of conversation about Hillary or somebody running against Obama.
I mean, that's being talked about in Democrat circles.
And I don't know how real it is, but I know that there are people talking about it.
There's an unsettledness out there, a disquietedness, a general sense of panic.
This is not how it's supposed to be.
You know what?
The Chris Matthews and the media, they are very close to the rioters in London.
In terms of anger, disappointment, this is not how it was supposed to be.
We were supposed to have utopia.
This was a new kind of politician.
And the politics of old was supposed to vanish.
And there really wasn't supposed to be any more opposition to a president.
Everybody was supposed to sign up.
And there was going to be this massive nationwide love affair, worldwide love affair, not only for Obama, but for our country again.
We were supposed to have an economic rebound.
None of this was supposed to happen.
And they have no choice but then to look at themselves when trying to explain why has all this happened.
They have held near supermajorities for much of the last four years in the House of Representatives, then in the Senate, and now they add the White House to it.
They're looking every day.
They wake up and look out over the country and they see the consequences of what they believe.
And in those rare moments where the reality permeates and they admit the truth to themselves, they realize it's their policies that have done all this.
And as it was pointed out the other day, these people all have 401ks as well.
They all have retirement accounts and they've all got kids and they've all got futures to be concerned about.
And, you know, at some point they start saying, is my kid's future worth supporting this guy?
Now, they're not ever going to voice that.
So, when these moments of panic and disquiet set in, you go out, just like the rioters in London, you go out and you attack who you think is responsible for foiling all of this.
And it's clear that in the case of many on the left, Obama would have been a stunning, overwhelming, resounding success if it weren't for me.
So, now I become the focal point of blame.
I become the target.
But how in the world do you go out there and tell your audience that you heard me say that I want to roll back Truman's integration of the Army?
And you do this, by the way, on the night that the President of the United States pulls this little trick with that picture at Dover, which many of the SEAL Team six families had asked the White House not to do.
No cameras, please.
No pictures at Dover.
We don't want any of this.
I mean, you haven't gotten to this point yet, but in discussing it, folks, that is truly what Obama did at Dover with that photo.
I mean, that is as disrespectful and shameful as it's hard to rank it in discussing other shameful moments of this regime.
But turning it all on me, you have to say, where was the staff?
Did they bother in the commercial?
You know, Chris, that didn't happen.
But of all the shortcomings at MSNBC, not seeking help for the troubled Chris Matthews, that's about as low as they can get.
Clearly, he's in need of some serious assistance over there.
And let's stick with that.
Right, here's Scarborough this morning on his show.
They were talking about the economy, the stock market, and Obama's leadership.
I'm rooting for the president.
We all are rooting for the president.
If Rush Limbaugh is still rooting against the president, then he's also rooting for America to be in a fast decline, rooting for his stocks to collapse.
These are precarious times, and we need a president who knows what he's doing, and we need a president who has the support of the American people.
We don't have either.
We don't have a.
Joe, I'm just, I know you work where you work, and I know that that carries with it some requirements and limitations.
But for crying out loud, it's too late.
The whole point of I hope he fails, it's too late, Joe.
He succeeded.
Joe, is the point.
He has been a resounding success.
Joe, if you're rooting for the president, you are rooting for your stocks to continue to collapse.
If you are rooting for the president, you are rooting for precarious times to become even more precarious.
If you are rooting for the president, you are rooting for a president who does know what he's doing.
And, Joe, if we ever get to the point the majority of the American people support this president in these policies, then his mission will have been successful and completed, and he will have transformed this nation, and his objective and goals will have been met.
It's too late.
Talk about, gee, I hope he fails.
He succeeded.
In his view, his objectives, his agenda.
He looks out over the country, and whatever you see, Joe, he sees total success.
He can't wait to do more of it, Joe.
Did you see the latest press conference, Joe?
He wants to raise taxes even more.
He wants to spend even more.
He wants to double down and do even more of what brought us to where we are.
That's how successful he's feeling.
I was rooting for the country when I said I hope he fails.
But it's too late, Joe.
He's succeeded.
Okay, we're back.
It's Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Barry, in Atlanta.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
You're up first today.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Very good.
Thank you.
I want to preference this by saying, Rush, you're my favorite.
I've been with you since the very beginning in 88.
Well, appreciate that, sir.
Thanks very much.
And a side issue, but my ex-wife went to high school with you, but that's neither here nor there.
I think Chris Matthews is a bonehead, and every day he shows it even more.
But I'll tell you what he's talking about.
He played the clip of what you said yesterday, where you said we need to turn back every Democratic initiative of the last 50, 60 years or something like that.
That's what he's talking about.
He basically then looked at every Democratic initiative for the last 50, 60 years, and those were the only two he could come up with that made any sense.
Yeah, meanwhile, it is his party that is the party of segregation.
Jay William Fuller.
Exactly.
His party.
That's his premise.
That's what he's talking about.
Yeah, we've got the soundbite.
Here it is.
This is, there are two of them.
And we'll talk about the Wisconsin recall elections first.
Let's listen to Rushboat today and what he said about what it meant last night.
The people of Wisconsin have fended off what amounted to a government union takeover.
If the taxpayers of Wisconsin can win against all those odds, we should be able to do the same thing in every state and in Washington, D.C.
We ought to be able to roll back Obamacare.
In fact, we ought to be able to roll back everything Obama has given us over the last two and a half years.
We should be able to roll back the whole Democrat agenda for the last 65 years.
Yes, we can.
So the whole Democrat agenda for the last 65 years.
Now, you got to be, you got to look long.
You have to be looking for it.
You have to be shameless to make a statement like that and then say this.
Well, here's Rushboat with his agenda.
He wants to get rid of the integration we did under Harry Truman in the United States Armed Forces.
That was what Truman did since 46, which is 65 years ago.
He wants to get rid of the Brown case, of course, integrating our schools, at least the public schools.
He wants to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Bill, the voting rights bill, the ability to vote at the age of 18.
What else is on this guy's freaking list of what he wants to roll?
Is this the right-wing agenda, John?
This is bigger than Wisconsin.
Is this what the Rushboat crowd would like to do if they could win elections to get back everything back to World War II that was done progressively for this country for race or youth or sex or whatever?
You know, in actual fact, in actual fact, Truman had to desegregate the U.S. Army by executive order rather than through legislation.
And you know why?
Because everybody knew that the congressional representatives of the solid South, all white Democrats, would have stonewalled any legislation.
Everybody, nobody wants to admit it today, but everybody knows that the old segregationists were all these Democrats, back when Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, J. William Fulbright, Hammond Talmadge.
And it was, that's right, it was another Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the military.
The Democrat agenda fought desegregation in the Army and everywhere else.
But, you know, fuck, this is, I know it's getting worse, but it's only a testament of effectiveness.
This is what you have to understand.
To take a statement like roll back the whole Democrat agenda for the last 65 years, everybody with the modicum of understanding means we got to get rid of the socialism.
We've got to reduce the size of government.
We have got to get government out of the central, being the central facet in everybody's life.
We do have to roll.
We do have to repeal Obamacare.
We do have to fix Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
They're busted.
They're bankrupt.
They don't work.
Democrat social programs have led to what's happening in London, the same thinking, the same type of mentality.
It has led to the paralysis of law enforcement for crying out loud.
Liberalism has led to the paralysis of law enforcement because the people committing these crimes are entitled in liberalism because they have been so put upon.
They are so disadvantaged by whatever socioeconomic unfairness that we have to understand their rage.
And if they destroy somebody else's private property, we can't stop them.
It'd be racist to try it, discriminatory to try it, insensitive, politically incorrect, or what have you.
The Democrat agenda fought desegregation in the Army and it fought it everywhere else.
Tip O'Neill country was segregated.
Boston.
And Chris Matthews was his L.A. legislative assistant or whatever ranking high is more than a spokesman for him.
But Sterdley, you make the mistake taking all this personally.
You do take it personally.
You can't take it personally.
These people are looking at the utter implosion of everything they believe in.
Everything they believe in can be pointed to and said to be responsible for the decline of the United States of America as an economic power, as a military power, as a bulwark of freedom.
They get up every morning and look at themselves in the mirror and they see the reason that there is mass dissatisfaction with government.
Who runs it?
Whose policies are in charge of government right now?
Well, gloating in Europe that their growth rate's better.
It may well be.
I mean, their credit rating is better than ours.
They got a higher credit rating than we do, and so do the frogs.
The French have a higher credit rating than we do.
That's why I say it's too late to run around and say, I hope Obama fails.
That train left the station.
He has succeeded.
Truman had to desegregate the U.S. Army by executive order rather than the legislation because everybody knew that congressional representatives of the old South, people Chris Matthews thinks are the epitome of justice and fairness.
They're the old racists.
They're the old segregationists.
The old Democrats.
Truman had to desegregate the army by executive order because it would have never happened if he would have relied on the legislative process.
I've got to take a brief time out here with my friends, L. Rushmore, serving humanity and obviously driving people crazy simply by being here.
And we must never forget Woodrow Wilson segregated a whole U.S. government in the first place.
Democrats equal segregation in this nation's history.
That's why there was a Republican Party in the first place.
You know, folks, I got this 23 years ago.
We had our 23 anniversary back on August 1st.
I must tell you, 23 years ago, I never imagined that I would be so effective, so loved, and so popular that they would create an entire television network devoted to misreporting or reporting what I say on the radio every day.
There's a TV network.
That's what MSNBC does.
It exists to report what I say on the radio every day.
▲
Export Selection