All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 2, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:34
September 2, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Friday.
Got a lot to do.
Let's go.
Let's just get from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open.
800 282-2882 is a telephone number if you want to be on the program.
We got a full boat now, but lines open up.
You figure we're on a 40-second delay.
You can figure out when to call.
You anticipate the end of a call 40 seconds before it's over.
If you have that talent, that's how you get through here.
What's going on in there?
Oh, the puppies in it.
That's right.
Catherine brought the puppy in.
Two of my T gangs over in their office on the other side.
Catherine brought in Cambridge the puppy.
And it's an adorable little thing.
Staff totally distracted from doing their jobs.
Petting a little sheepdog puppy.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you here.
Again, the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
There is a news report from the Washington Post today, and I want to warn you this report is intended to sabotage the Republican presidential campaign.
John Boehner said yesterday that there is a triple threat that exists to this country.
Three items that the Republicans need to stay focused on and nothing else.
The triple threat is higher taxes, more stimulus spending, and federal regulations.
All three undermine the creation of jobs.
If you remember Ronaldus Magnus had a three-legged stool, three issues.
Remember what they were, snartly.
Well, yeah, the defeat communism, rebuild the military, lower taxes.
Those were the three things.
And he never lost focus of them.
Three things constantly discussed.
Makes it simple, doesn't complicate things.
The left would love for the Tea Party to get distracted, start talking about immigration, abortion, gay marriage, all this other stuff.
Because right now the chief vulnerability faced by Obama the Democrats is the economy.
Jobs, stimulus spending, federal regulations.
Those are the three things that are killing this country.
Those are the three things that every Republican needs to focus on.
Therefore, there's a story in the Washington Post today that is designed to irritate, aggravate, and anger people to the point they hope the Republicans start talking about this in their debate next week.
Here's the story.
Undocumented workers got billions from the IRS in tax credits according to an audit.
The IRS allowed undocumented workers to collect 4.2 billion dollars in refundable tax credits last year, according to a new audit that's almost quadruple the number of five years ago.
And the Washington Post report goes on to say that this money was from the earned income tax credit.
Nobody knows whether it's illegal or legal or illegal for illegal aliens to claim the earned income credit or not.
The IRS said that it lacks the authority to disallow the claims.
Illegals use taxpayer identification numbers rather than social security numbers to file their taxes.
And 72% of people using ID numbers claim the earned income credit.
So, I am telling you, ignore this.
Now, you can read it, you get all upset about it, but don't start demanding at this point in time that Republicans start talking about this.
We know immigration's a problem, and we know that whoever we elect is going to fix it.
We know that whoever we elect and nominate, the odds are is going to do something about the border.
Anything that distracts our effort from the economy.
Jobs, higher taxes, federal regulations is not a good thing.
Three things.
Three-legged stool.
Boehner identified him.
Triple threat undermines jobs.
Obama's going up to the uh Congress to make his giant speech.
Not about immigration, not about his he's going to talk about jobs and trying to make people think that he's got a program to create them in all of this.
I agree this IRS story in the in the Washington Post, the illegal immigrants and their refunds, it's outrageous.
Shelve it.
Shelve it.
This is, well, if you're worried about the independence, they don't care.
We've just got 14 months here, folks.
14 months to save this nation.
14 months to stop the assault on the private sector.
Now, I realize illegal immigration is a big assault on the private sector.
And don't get mad at me here.
I'm not saying forget about it.
I'm saying do not make this something prominent right now.
And the media, I think, is going to be over the next six, seven months or longer, you're going to see ramped up stories about gay marriage, all those...
Whatever.
social issues, illegal immigration, what have you, as a means of distracting the Republican presidential field from jobs, Stimulus spending, higher taxes.
This uh this EPA reg that Obama has shelved.
White House announced today that it's shelving a major planned EPA regulation that would have tightened smog standards.
If they win reelection, they're gonna put this back.
Just like if they win re-election, they're gonna raise taxes.
This is gonna happen if they win re-election.
They're taking this off the table now because it's an albatross.
The regime does not want the EPA putting something into play it's gonna cost taxpayers a trillion dollars while Obama's running for re-election.
It's no different than all these waivers that have been granted.
What is it now?
Over 3,000 waivers granted to various uh companies and institutions, waivers from the regulations of Obamacare.
But once the election's over, if Obama wins, those waivers are withdrawn, and everybody is subjected to the new plan.
But not during the campaign.
Don't doubt me on this.
This is why I, El Rushbo, am America's anchorman, truth detector, doctor of democracy, and am on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I have here a review of AP stories on unemployment.
And it is hilarious.
All three are from the AP by Christopher Rugaber.
And here's the uh I think I've got these in order.
Let's 30 a.m., 1124 a.m.
Uh.
Oh, yep.
Okay, here we go.
From this morning at 8 30.
AP story headline jobs report could show signs of modest growth.
This is before the news was released now.
Businesses, likely sh businesses likely.
This story ran before the job number of zero was announced.
Businesses likely shrugged off recession fears and kept hiring in August, although not nearly enough to lower the unemployment rate.
Analysts forecast that the economy added 93,000 jobs last month, down from 117,000 in July.
Unemployment rates expected to stay at 9.1%, according to a survey by fact set.
Okay, that's number one.
830 businesses Likely shrugged off recession fears, kept hiring in August, added 93,000 jobs in August.
Next story is at 11, about 11.15 this morning.
Same reporter.
Christopher Rugaber.
August began with rising fears that another recession was about to hit.
That was then.
A month later, the economy and the stock market appear more resilient, suggesting that consumers, businesses, and investors remain confident enough to keep spending.
A more authoritative test will come Friday when the government issues the August Jobs Report.
Employers are expected to have added 93,000 jobs, which would not be enough to significantly lower the unemployment rate of 9.1%, but it would solidify evidence the economy is growing steadily.
Many analysts now expect it to strengthen in the months ahead.
Okay, and then after that, Christopher Rugaber heard that the number was not 93,000 jobs added, but zero.
Zilch Zero Nada.
And he ran around the AP newsroom saying, Oh my God, get me rewrite.
Washington, employers added no net workers last month.
The unemployment rate was unchanged, a sign that many were nervous the U.S. economy could be at risk of slipping into another recession.
The labor department said Friday that total payrolls were unchanged in August.
The weakest report in almost a year.
So actually, the first report was 15 hours ago, then early this morning, and then the number comes out.
Three AP stories, the first two talking about revived growth.
93,000 new jobs in August.
Then they released the number, and the headline employers add no net jobs in August.
Rate unchanged.
Labor Department said Friday total payrolls were unchanged in August.
The weakest report in almost a year, first time since February 1945, the government's reported a net job change of zero.
Now, Reuters refrained from mentioning this detail in its report, the 1945 aspect.
Now this is a profoundly embarrassing.
It's hilarious, but it's embarrassing.
Two stories from AFI before the number is known.
93,000 jobs expected in August.
Signed, the economy is growing confidence, rebounding, blah, blah, blah.
Then the number comes out zero.
No mention of their previous two erroneous stories.
But the question remains, who told AP that there were going to be 93,000 new jobs in August?
Who leaked that to them?
and they believed it.
I explained that.
I explained how the rate stays at night, the The rate is actually, if the labor force were as large today as it was when Obama was immaculated, the U3 unemployment rate would be 11.4%.
The actual unemployment rate, you count people to stop looking.
Their benefits are perspired and all that.
We're up to 20%.
We are at 16.9% unemployment in the black community.
One, it's 20% one out of five Americans cannot find work in the greatest nation on earth.
We have journalistic malpractice going on here from the Associated Press, telling everybody in stories leading up to the release of the number that 93,000 jobs are going to be created.
What number do you think?
People might remember.
Two stories at 93,000, then the real news hits and it's zero and it's sort of undersold and no big deal.
The black youth unemployment rate in August was 46.5%.
Black youth.
That's teenagers.
The real unemployment number should be derived from the number of jobs actually filled in America divided by the number of Americans of working age.
That's what most people probably think it is.
But it's not.
The regime is reducing the size of the labor force.
They're basically saying fewer Americans want to work.
So there are fewer jobs to fill.
So if you lower the universe, that's how you have a unemployment rate that stays at 9.1% when not one person got a job.
Stop and think of it.
Not one job created in August.
Not one.
Actually was one.
And the networks were all ready to interview the guy today.
He got laid off August 31st.
It's open line Friday and time to go to the phones.
Where are we starting?
Santa Clara, Utah.
There is Santa Clara, Utah.
Never heard of Santa Clara.
So you're continuing your streak.
Santa Clara is in California, and it's where the 49ers trained.
But you've got you found a Santa Clara, Utah.
We're happy to take call.
No misunderstand.
Mark, Santa Clara, Utah.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Santa Clara is a suburb of St. George.
What did what is St. George a suburb of?
St. George is a city in southwestern Utah.
Okay.
Well, it's great to have you on the program, and I'm great to learn the geography.
There you go.
You learn something new every day, right?
Yes, even I. I'm happy to admit that.
Absolutely.
There you go.
Rush, I'm uh calling to try to hijack your airwaves to uh direct my message towards Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Yep.
I'm desperately attempting to try to get this guy to enter into the presidential race.
He said he doesn't want to.
Well, you know, he's he's he works for the people, though.
He chose his career, and I'm one of the people, and I'm just speaking up and desperately begging the man to please reconsider.
You know, Rush, we have five hundred and thirty-seven elected federal representatives.
Only one has a plan.
Five hundred and thirty-six are staggering around in circles, shooting themselves in the forehead with Botox or whatever they're doing.
One guy has a plan.
By Sherlock Holmes' theory of default, when you eliminate everything else, what you have left is your answer.
Apparently, Paul Ryan is our answer.
You should know that the Wall Street Journal editorial board has, I think today.
I'm right about this.
Uh just endorsed the economic plan of John Huntsman.
Now they previously endorsed the economic plan of uh Paul Ryan's.
Let's see.
Last month, yes, last month, the same editorial writers called on Paul Ryan and Chris Christie to enter the presidential race, calling the declared candidates a weak field.
Weeks later it seems, conservative intellectual class has found its candidate in Huntsman.
So the Wall Street Journal has uh since since Ryan said he's not gonna run, they just today have endorsed or this week have endorsed the economic plan of Huntsman, not I don't think they're endorsed his candidacy per se.
Uh I'm not even familiar with his economic plan.
Uh nor am I. Uh well the reason I'm uh a fan of Paul Ryan is because he has the courage to actually come up with a plan.
And also, uh, I watched him at the um the Love Fest for the health care symposium or whatever it was on a Friday afternoon where the Republicans went to the White House.
And uh Paul Ryan stood up and asked the president, uh, why are we even dealing with something like this when we can't afford the other entitlements?
And the president looked like a deer in the headlight and said, lunchtime.
He looked worse than looking.
He does not like him.
And he went after uh Ben Bernake one day and said, Is not the cruelest thing that you can do to a society to monetize its currency.
And Ben Bernanke's answer was it would be if we weren't gonna pay it back.
Which you know how they pay that money.
Yeah, I do, yeah.
That works out.
Uh anyway, I'm trying to to focus this, and what I would suggest is that perhaps Congressman uh Ryan could call your show and explain why he feels that or maybe he could tell you who he feels is a better candidate for president.
I don't think he is I'm hoping something like that could occur.
I don't think he's going to do that at this stage.
What the I don't think Ryan's going to identify a candidate yet.
Well, I could I'm a guy who shoots off the cuff and and Rush, I I am so concerned about the economic state of affairs that we're in right now that I I see our upcoming presidential election should be some sort of a referendum on a reality.
The American people have to choose between this current utopian progressive vision that we have and some sort of a fiscally responsible vision, and we have to have somebody on the other side to argue that point.
And right now, quite frankly, I I look at the whole ATM and it doesn't impress me one bit.
Not one bit.
So I I'm using your valuable air time to plead with Congressman Paul Ryan.
What do you mean you're looking at the whole AP minute?
What do you eight?
The Republican eighteen.
Oh, a team, eight.
Okay, okay.
I'm unimpressed.
And quite frankly, most of the people I know who are often.
Well, I'll tell you John Fund has a piece out today that runs in Newsmax.com in which he says that Sarah Palin is not going to run.
Instead, she is going to endorse Rick Perry.
That's what that's what Fund says.
The Mr. T of the GOP A team, ladies and gentlemen.
Am I going to talk to Ryan?
You want you want me to demand that Paul Ryan come on the program and explain why.
Tell me privately why he's not going to run.
I don't think he's already said why he's.
I think he said why he isn't going to run.
I don't remember what it is.
By by the way, one thing, John Fund in this newsmax piece doesn't say he has any insider information.
He's basically saying arguing that Palin doesn't have any organization set up to run anytime soon.
That she doesn't have the exploratory committee, the campaign chieftain and all that.
So he he's just putting uh uh A and B together, getting C as he sees it.
No insider information on that.
He's just of the opinion she's not gonna run, but she will endorse Rick Perry uh soon.
That that's what her trips to uh Iowa are uh all about.
Here's Richard, White Plains, New York, open line Friday rolls on.
Hello, Richard.
Hey hey, Rush.
Um, real quick, um Hunchman was on Greta last night, and his plan was basically to reform the tax code.
He said nothing about entitlement reform or even uh cutting specs.
Yeah, I've since uh learned that that uh his tax overhaul plan is sort of like Reagan's eighty-six plan.
He would uh lower the corporate and individual tax rates, which would broaden the base taxpayers, he would eliminate loopholes and eliminate the capital gains and dividend taxes.
Yeah, but but he strategically avoided upsetting anybody on the left or even independence uh, you know, by saying he's gonna he's gonna cut anything.
He's not he's he should be a Democrat.
But anyway, the uh the the point I want to make was that uh three years ago when uh Obama was elected, yeah, I said it back then that if he didn't turn the economy around, um and his uh partners in the drive-by media are gonna blame Bush uh again as their uh re-election uh theme.
Yep.
Uh so I saw a poll last night that uh was taken recently um that shows sixty something percent poll believed uh the poor economy is still Bush's fault.
What poll was that?
You remember?
Oh God, Rush, there's so many Zog B rasp ah, you know, one of those.
It was on Fox.
I was right.
I haven't well I'm not disputing it.
I just I haven't seen a poll that says sixty percent still blame Bush.
Yeah, no, it was in the sixties, Rush.
Um I'm almost certainly positive of that.
I I'm just I haven't yet seen it.
I'll try to find it out there.
But I I was wondering if you ask those polled why they blame Bush, the the best answer they could give you is a guilt by association answer.
Well, you know, he was in office uh that's why it was his fault.
So, you know, since we have this simple guilt by association logic, that of course is driven by the liberal media.
That's not um and now you have Obama uh and his supporters in the media trying to re trying to blame a Republican Congress for our poor economy.
My question is, where was the guilt by association when the Democrats took over Congress the exact two years the economy tanked in 07 and 08.
All right.
This is a great question.
And I, of course, as host have the answer for you.
Now, there's an AP GFK poll from the other day, and I don't know if this is the one you saw, but that poll says that 51% blame Bush.
The reason that whatever percentage blame Bush is to be quite simple.
Three, if not four years of daily unstoppable smothering, smearing and criticism of Bush that was unanswered by anybody in the White House.
Exactly.
And in fact, even in the first term of the Bush administration, the media was trying to say that the economy then was bordering on recession.
They were trying to tell us when the unemployment rate was 4.7%, then five, and then five and a half percent, that we were trending toward recession.
And they were doing this leading up to the 08 campaign uh years prior.
This was all about making sure that a Democrat, any Democrat, before it had even chosen Obama, was elected president in 2008.
But if you have the Bush administration, I mean smotheringly smeared multiple times a day for five years, and the White House not once reacting to it, rejecting it, disagreeing with it, offering counter evidence.
What are people gonna do?
I rush, I equate the media uh to the artillery um for those four years shelling, you know, shelling the the the uh before the infantry goes.
Precisely.
Now you have you asked your the second part of your question is how come nobody is blaming the Democrats since Pelosi took over since 2007?
Sir, since 2007, this economy has been in recovery.
It's been growing as far as the media is concerned.
Look at this absolute abomination from AP just today.
And yesterday, yesterday, AP with a story, 93,000 jobs will be created in August.
It will be announced tomorrow.
Not enough to change the unemployment rate, but a sure sign that there are positive signs of growth.
Then the number comes out and it's zero.
And they whole-hum report that never reference the fact that they were dead wrong in their forecast of 93,000.
The answer is there has not been a smothering smear of the Democrats and their economic policies every day for four or five years.
There hasn't even been that for a single day in the drive-by media.
So that's why people still blame Bush.
Not it's not just that.
While the media was smearing Bush, each and every day, multiple times a day, they were ginning up personal hatred for the guy along with opposition to whatever his economic policies were.
For seven years, we heard the Bush tax cuts were creating poor people and destroying the economy.
The White House never responded to it.
So the answer to your question is simple, frustratingly so.
But it's um very simple.
I mean, your your your analogy of artillery is a great one.
The the media is a constant barrage, and we don't have that.
We don't have it.
In fact, our side, look what happens.
Look what happens when Obama asks to upstage a Republican debate with a phony job speech.
Our smart people criticize our speaker for turning him down.
We don't have an artillery.
We got a bunch of appeasers in our media in Washington.
Because we're we're afraid of angering the independents or I don't know what else.
I almost shouted the F bomb there, folks.
I gotta get another call here.
Richard, you're dangerous.
Tim in uh San Diego, welcome to EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good, thank you.
I have a question for you and a piece of trivia, but if I may, I want to preface my comments by saying how proud I am of you for starting your new business.
Whoa.
You have started more jobs in this country than the president did in the entire last month.
Well, I d that I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you very much.
And it's true.
You know, I can't stop thinking about when you and Catherine went to Joplin and she was handing out some envelopes filled with cash to some of the vendors there.
Right.
And they were turning her down.
Because in twenty-three years of listening to you, I can't think of a more perfect illustration between the contrast of the liberal mind and the entrepreneurial mind.
The liberals stands in line to get free money from Obama stash, and they don't care where it comes from.
Right.
But these entrepreneurs in Joplin, they were very skeptical.
Where's this money coming from?
What strings are there attached?
Yeah, that's right.
What to explain what he's talking about.
We we took a a semi-load of uh uh two if by tea to Jopla on the Fourth of July and gave it away.
But we also knew that there were vendors that were showing from all over the region, not just from Joplin, who were selling their own beverages and hot dogs and stuff, and we didn't want, because we're giving our product away, we didn't want to take away their business.
So we put some cash in envelopes, and Catherine went around and offered them to each of the vendors.
And you're you're you're you're right.
The vendors uh were uh they they were a little suspicious here.
Where's you're right, where's this coming from?
What's what's the uh you know what is there a string attached to this and so forth?
Um you're you're great to remember.
I have a very cool wife.
And she came up with the the uh the idea to do this, and uh I should tell you that that uh it ended up that that most of the vendors were made to understand and they were appreciative and took it.
Uh and we did it simply because we thought it was the right thing to do.
Here we are taking a truck in there, giving our stuff away, and this is their way of earning a living.
So we just wanted to compensate them for whatever they might have lost by the fact that we were giving some tea away.
Well, the difference is you earned every penny of your stash, and Obama has never earned a penny of his.
Damn straight.
But when it comes to shovel ready jobs, I do disagree with you.
Obama has created some, and those are of the grave diggers who buried the people murdered with the fast and furious guns that he gave to our enemies.
Yeah.
So he does create shovel ready jobs.
Yeah.
Now, here is my question for you.
You know, WikiLeaks just released thousands of classified documents, and I'm furious about that.
But I'm wondering, do you lay the blame for this at the feet of Barack Obama, or do you think this could have happened to any president?
Well, I've wondered, because the WikiLeaks guy has to get his stuff from somewhere.
Now his source, we're told, is an angry gay soldier.
Uh I don't know that.
Brad Manning, yeah.
I I don't know that the fact he's gay has anything to do with it.
That's just how he's been described, angry, but he had to get it from somewhere where he's just bucked private, wasn't he?
Or or yeah, hacked his way through the system, uh, supposedly is all that we know.
So yeah, this uh Julian Assange had to get this stuff from some place.
I uh you know it's it's logical to to to think totally reasonable to think that an administration that considers the U.S. military as one of the problems in the world would take action to undermine it.
You're right.
I think he creates an atmosphere that's a lot more conducive.
It could happen to any president, but when you have a president who apologizes for the country, says the Constitution is fundamentally flawed, that creates an environment that's a lot more conducive to treasonous acts and hurting your own country.
If the guy at the top wants to fundamentally change the fabric of society, and he surrounded himself with radicals, then you know what problem does a low-level guy who has access to classified documents have about helping him rip that fabric apart.
Exactly, because you end up inspiring those low-level guys, they think they're doing their patriotic duty.
I agree.
Now, here's some trivia for you.
Next time you see Bob Schaefer interviewing Obama about the hackers over at WikiLeaks, remember that if you rearrange the letters to the words Barack Hussein Obama, it spells I am a hacker's anus, Bob.
Now, if that is true, you can check it out for yourself.
I'm no lie.
Wait a second.
Barack Hussein Obama can be made to spell I'm a hacker's anus.
I am a hacker's anus, Bob.
Now they'll probably never schedule another interview with poor Bob Schaefer or something after that, but uh it's true.
Check it out for yourself.
That'd be an analgram.
That is correct.
All right, well, I didn't know that.
I didn't spend a lot of time rearranging Obama's uh letters in his name, but I appreciate that.
I found some program called Anagram Genius, and it did it, and I went, hey, that's that's kind of fitting.
What is it?
Uh is it a smartphone app or is it a computer app?
Uh I don't know.
I don't have anything to do with it.
It's probably probably uh available on a uh you know a download for Well, wait a minute.
You used it.
You said you discovered it.
Well, what device did you use it?
Oh well, just on my on my home computer.
On your home computer.
Matt.
Windows, what kind?
Windows, yeah.
Windows.
He said well, anyway.
Hey, you know, yesterday you said you're not a fanboy for Apple, but you also said you spend about twenty-five percent of your time just trying to find out when the next release is going to be.
It sounds like a fanboy to me.
Uh no well, what I meant by I'm not a fanboy, I don't know code, and and I I don't uh uh uh I I'm I I'm not even proficient enough to use terminal, which is a uh a poor man's uh attempt to write code to change some things in the OS operating system.
I mean, I can do it if somebody comes up with a command I can paste it in there if I want to, but I'm not I was just trying to tell the real fanboys when I was talking about jobs that I don't pretend to be anything other than a uh a high-end and fairly well informed consumer.
Uh but the great stuff about Apple products is you don't have to know how they work.
They just do.
Now when I say spend ten to fifteen percent of my time, what I what I mean I am so excited about IOS five, the operating system, the new system for the iPhone and the iPad.
Uh and the iPhone itself, iPhone 5, I just try to stay as informed as I can on all the rumors of what the phone's gonna look like and what iOS 5's actually gonna have in it.
Uh I'm just and the reason is that stuff increases my productivity profoundly, and I have fun at the same time I'm being productive.
Yes, here we are.
We're back.
Uh folks, listen to this.
This is from Ed Henry at Fox News.
I have a little inside information on what uh Ed Henry has told uh some producers and people at Fox in uh what could be a way of lowering expectations for next Thursday's big economic speech.
AIDS to Faro Obama are privately spreading word that he will not present his entire jobs plan in the address to a joint session of Congress.
Which makes this An even bigger farce.
Presidential aides say that Thursday's speech will be part of a bigger plan that the White House will roll out throughout the fall.
The president hitting the road for speeches and town hall appearances.
AIDS have already confirmed Obama will be traveling to California, Colorado, and Washington state for a three-day swing later this month that'll include economic events as well as some fundraising.
De move could be a way to try and lower expectations for the joint session appearance.
Could also be an attempt by the regime to show the president's trying to stay all over the economy, heading into what likely will be an uphill re-election battle.
There's no question a president will want to keep returning to jobs.
One aid told Fox News.
I don't want to downplay the speech next week.
It's going to be substantial, but the idea that this is the be all in all is wrong.
Not going to be the whole plan.
They're throwing it up against the wall and hoping it sticks.
And they're already lowering expectations within the media for the speech next Thursday.
This is going to really irritate Frank Rich, who said this had better be a dynamite speech and not a mouse.
Okay, so the said Henry Fox report indicates this joint session speech has been confirmed to be a political election speech.
▲
Export Selection