All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:53
September 16, 2011, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
El Rushbo's serving humanity.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
And at all times with my right hand over my back pocket.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Oh, yeah.
I got hands in my back pocket like you couldn't, and you wouldn't.
You might believe that.
Happy to have you with us, my friends.
And the fastest three hours in media and the fastest week in media.
Open Line Friday means for the most part, you get to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
I have this.
I had his little contest going.
You know, not one caller has attempted to win the tee, Snurdy.
Oh, that's right.
That's right.
That's right.
I'm glad you, Reminder.
I got to ask.
It's the first caller I ask.
That's right.
Because there's a big news story out there today.
Tom Ridge endorses John Huntsman.
So the first caller I ask who can correctly identify both Tom Ridge and John Huntsman will win some two if-by-tea.
I mean, if somebody sees it as Tom Ridge endorses John Huntsman, what?
Who?
So we'll find out at random if anybody in this audience knows it.
Folks, there's a guy, Tea Party guy, I think he's a freshman congressman named Tim Scott, Republican South Carolina.
He introduced a one-sentence jobs bill in the House of Representatives, and it passed.
The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, colon or semicolon, prohibits the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
That's it.
That's his bill.
Everybody can actually read that one.
U.S. House of Representatives has passed South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott's bill to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
The 1 p.m. vote, it was yesterday, the 1 p.m. vote broke largely along party lines as expected with the Charleston area Republicans colleagues supporting his bid to limit the federal agency's authority.
This is all about Boeing.
Tim Scott proposed this legislation this summer in response to the National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing.
The NLRB alleged that Boeing built a second 787 Dreamliner production facility in South Carolina in retaliation for union strikes at its main Washington state aircraft plant.
His bill, which again is called the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, prompted a heated debate on the House floor.
The proposal not expected to clear the Senate, of course.
That's still all Democrat, well, enough Democrat votes to stop it.
Again, his name is Tim Scott, Republican.
And he's, by the way, black, and he has the full-fledged support of the Tea Party, which many people say is not possible because, of course, the Tea Party is racist.
And there is an executive summary of the bill.
And it's four sentences longer than the bill.
Do you want to hear the executive summary?
Again, a one-sentence bill and an executive summary of four sentences.
H.R. 2587 would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
The bill would amend the NLRB or National Labor Relations Act to prohibit the NLRB in future impending cases from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
The legislation would effectively prevent the NLRB from restricting where an employer can create jobs in the United States.
The bill would eliminate an extreme enforcement remedy available to the board.
More than a dozen alternative remedies remain available to hold employers accountable.
The bill would apply to any complaint for which a final adjudication by the NRLB, NLRB, it should be, has not been made by the date of enactment.
Congratulations, Congressman Scott.
Simple, straight to it, one sentence bill.
You remember our man in Washington, Mark Murano.
He's now a global warming watchdog, and he's got a website called Climate Depot.
And he just sent me an email.
Greens, give Gore two thumbs down.
Gore's climate reality show faces strongly negative reviews from his fellow global warming activists.
Murano has gone out and found as a UK Guardian story, and other scientists around the world are dissociating themselves from Al Gore and his latest PowerPoint demonstration.
And what Murano's doing is good because the rest of the drive-bys are not covering it, other than the UK Guardian.
And that was a column.
That was not a news story.
That was a column from a global warming aficionado who is all worried that Gore is becoming a hindrance to the whole movement, that he's so polarizing, he's become a joke.
He's not the same Al Gore that won the Oscar.
He's not the same Al Gore from the movie.
He's now just, he's hurting the movement.
Who?
Al Gore depressed, have low-T?
No, we haven't heard anything about that.
All we've heard about, all we've heard about is Obama.
All we've heard about is the New York Times.
This is reported by Gawker, New York Times investigating whether or not Obama is clinically depressed.
By the way, Tim Scott is historic too.
Tim Scott's the first black Republican congressman from the Deep South since Reconstruction.
Now, Mark Murano, by the way, got the email of the Nobel Prize guy quitting the global warming movement.
That was his scoop.
A lot of other agents, like Fox News, has picked that up.
That is out there.
But it was Murano who got the email on it.
And Muranov has worked with James Inhoff, senator from Oklahoma.
There are a lot of people out there who are doing great work.
Andrew Breitbart, you know, people forget that the whole Anthony Wiener business started with Breitbart publishing the pictures.
Breitbart published the pictures that Weiner was sending, and Weiner denied it.
And remember, Breitbart then went over, he basically hijacked the Wiener press conference.
He went there and there was a Wiener press conference and Breitbart shows up and basically hijacks it before Weiner got there, told his side of the story, then Wiener, apparently blindsided, not really understanding what happens, shows up anyway and does his press conference and looks even more foolish.
But at that point, Weiner was, I think he had admitted it and was now in the process of trying to explain it or apologize.
And then also make amends to Huma.
I'm trying to save some things there.
And then it was after that that Breitbart published pictures of Weiner taking his laundry to the laundromat because only he and Huma had a washing machine in Weiner's New York flat.
I think Weiner did vote.
I think I saw a story where Weiner voted.
Well, now you asked me that.
I think I saw a story that he voted.
I think he and Huma are back for, you know, he and Huma went on a great Rekindle the Romance vacation to Italy after a Rekindle the Romance trip to Miami, South Florida somewhere.
Anyway, I have another soundbite from James Carville, and it's from last night.
He was all over CNN last night, and this time he's on Anderson Cooper 117.
And Cooper said, you say the president should panic or the White House should panic, that he should, and I'm quoting, fire somebody and indict people.
Those are fighting words.
What do you mean, Mr. Carville?
Well, I think that when you look at these two elections, I think they do mean something.
And even in Nevada, that was a seat.
I think we lost by 8,000 votes in the presidential race, and we lost by 22,000.
It's not going in the right direction.
I think the president needs to show the country that he is unsatisfied with the pace of this recovery.
And the way that you do that is you make changes.
James, can I say something to you?
I know you're probably not listening to here about it, and you might be listening.
Let's see, what is this?
The president needs to show the country he's unsatisfied with the pace of this recovery.
James, I ask you a serious question.
I'm serious.
I'm not trying to be inflammatory.
I'm not doing showbiz here.
It's an honest, serious question.
And I think you guys better take some time and answer this honestly and seriously.
When you say on CNN, you think the president needs to show the country he's unsatisfied with the pace of this recovery.
Do you think he really is?
James.
I know James.
I can call in James.
And James, I ask this with all sincerity because if it were me, two and a half years in, And everything I'm doing is making it worse.
And I double down and keep doing this.
Let me put it a different way.
James, if I were unsatisfied with the pace of the recovery and I had just found out that the things I'm doing are not working.
And if I really cared about reversing the directionist economy, I would change what I'm doing.
I wouldn't make changes in people because it's my ideas.
I would change what I'm doing.
Do you see any evidence that Mr. Obama, President Obama, needs to change what he's doing?
He could fire everybody.
And nothing would change if he doesn't change.
If he keeps doing what he's doing, James, and I'm dead serious, I'm speaking to you from the heart here.
If he keeps doing what he's doing, this talk of a second recession, fine and dandy, I don't know that we came out of the first one, but if we did, and this is another thing, if we did come out of the recession, that first recession was Bush's, and it was your party said so.
So the Bush recession's over.
If we're heading back to another one, that's the Obama recession.
This is the Obama economy.
If you're going to say that we recovered, the Democrats' position is that we had a recovery from recession, then everything that's happened since that recovery is owned by Obama and the Democrats because for two years there was nothing the Republicans could do.
The Republicans didn't have the votes anywhere to stop anything.
And you can read the New York Times.
You can see that the New York Times is telling the world it's the Democrats who don't like Obama's bill, not the Republicans.
You can listen to Boehner and Cantor, and they're out there begging to work with the president.
Not Harry Reid and not Peter DeFazio and not Jim Webb.
You can change, you can fire, you could indict, you can ask what would Stalin do, but if Obama doesn't change, none of this is going to change.
So my question honestly is, is he unsatisfied with the pace of the recovery?
Because I frankly, I don't know how showing up at bridges that are supposedly structurally deficient is going to change anything about the economy.
I don't know how his re-election is going to change anything about the economy.
Wiener, I'm sure he voted several times, snurdly.
Why do you keep asking me?
I'm sure he voted.
Okay, it's Open Line Friday and Emmy's phone calls.
People have been waiting.
Keith in Lincoln, Kansas.
Keith, can you identify Tom Ridge and John Huntsman?
Yes, Department of Homeland Security for Tom Ridge and John Huntsman, ex-Governor, Utah, Ambassador to China running for President of the United States.
Well, I don't think too many people would have been able to identify both of them.
Bully for you.
All right, so you're a big winner of...
Have you ever tasted Two F by Tea?
No, but I'll sure try it.
I try to try anything one time, maybe.
Well, again, I want to warn you.
It's like listening to the show.
You don't just do it once.
You try it, you're addicted.
This is the best iced tea you've ever tasted.
It looks the best, tastes the best.
It's in the best bottle.
It's got the best logo.
It's got the best label.
Now, we've got two flavors.
We've got regular and raspberry and both regular flavor or sweetened in diet.
Which do you prefer?
I'll tell you what.
Don't even just tell me, do you like sweetened or our diet?
How about can I get unsweetened?
Yeah, you're getting you want.
I'll take Unsweetened, and if you want to send me a call.
Well, no, no, wait.
We don't have unsweetened.
We've got either sweetened with sugar or diet.
But we don't have unsweetened.
I'll take the diet, and it's good for antioxidants, too.
Tea is one of the major antioxidant solving solutions there are.
Well, that's a croc, but if you want to believe it, that's fine.
That's cool.
Well, that's funky dory.
Hey, I've got, I also got the six-step solution to our economy and jobs.
Well, wait a minute.
I'm not through with the tea questions.
You like raspberry or regular.
Tell you what, I'm going to send you a couple cases of both.
And that way you'll know which one you prefer.
So after the phone call here, don't hang up.
Snerdley will pick up and get the information from you where to send it.
Okay.
Since you answered the question probably.
Okay.
Now, you called about what?
Job six-step solution to solving the economy and jobs.
Six-step solution for jobs.
Okay.
Okay.
First of all, AT ⁇ T's acquisition of T-Mobile.
The Justice Department trying to put a stop to 5,000 initial jobs, 96,000 infrastructure of AT ⁇ T trying to take over T-Mobile.
Not only that, but the second step would be bowling in South Carolina.
Why would unionization be tried to be forced into a right-to-work state like Kansas, which South Carolina is, the plans to build?
Let's put 100,000 people to work.
Let's build the Delta airplanes.
Let's have job creation.
Let's don't let unions and unionization be forced upon a state that doesn't even have it.
Then you've got the Gibson Manufacturing Corporation with products, 1,200 workers, regulations, trying to tell them if they'll move overseas, they'll get the regulations off their back.
This is the government for you.
Then you got the Keystone Pipeline.
Let's take the Alberta pipeline to the Texas Go.
Let's create jobs.
Let's drill offshore.
Obama approved it, number five, because he knew that EPA would stop it.
Let's drill.
Let's drill domestically.
Let's secure the border like Kerman Keynes does.
Let's take our armed forces when they come back from Afghanistan, Iraq.
They're on the payroll.
Let's put them there.
We do not have 16 more months left of Obama and Biden.
I say step down, Obama, Biden.
Let Boehner and the Republicans take over.
Okay.
All right.
Those are six steps.
But you have a fatal flaw, and that is that you think Obama wants jobs, and you're advising him what to do.
My question to you is what needs to happen in order for your six steps to be implemented?
Well, first of all, he's got to stop the stimulus.
And I'll give you an example in my solution this month.
I have a house payment rush due for $600.
I have credit cards due for $500.
I got a $500 pickup payment.
I got $400 in gas for it.
I got $400 in utilities and $400 in groceries.
That's $2,800.
I've got a credit card limit that'll take my bills every month for $2,500.
But I'm going to go ahead and put it on there because $0.40, every dollar of mine is going to be borrowed, and they're going to go ahead and find a way to help me pay for it when I ain't got the money.
And that's exactly what Obama's doing with his stimulus.
Yes, I know.
That's exactly right.
So really, yours is a one-step solution, and that is defeat Obama.
Otherwise, it ain't going to happen.
My friends, welcome back.
It's Rush Limboy and this, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
They have published today unemployment rates state by state, Nevada at 15 point something percent.
Look at this from the Los Angeles Times, California unemployment rate, 12.1% in August.
Has a president ever carried California with unemployment that high?
I don't know if unemployment has ever been that in the modern era anyway, but we know Obama will carry California.
Now that leads me to something very important.
As far as politics and Republicans goes, we've lost California.
We have to admit that.
Electoral votes in California are written off by the Republican Party.
There's not much money spent out there.
There isn't much of a Republican Party presence in California.
It's, in a political sense, it's a lost state.
Now, this takes me to Texas and Governor Perry and why, ladies and gentlemen, illegal immigration is so important and why he faces a controversy here over the in-state tuition for the children of illegals.
One of the reasons that we've lost California is illegal immigration.
There's no denying it.
It's not the only reason.
Ronald Reagan, a good friend of mine, pointed out to me this morning, Ronald Reagan could not win California today.
That's no, no, Reagan could not win California today.
That's how far gone it is.
Now, my point here is that as Republicans, you know, just throw out issue by issue by issue.
We can't afford to lose Texas the way California has been lost because we can't win 235 electoral votes if we have to write off both Texas and California.
It's crucial that Texas stay Republican and illegal immigration is going to be a key issue factor in whether or not that state remains Republican or goes Democrat.
And the Democrats know this.
That's why, I know I'm grabbing this out of the blue here.
What reminded me of it is the unemployment rate in California and the fact that Obama is still going to carry it.
Can't have that happen in Texas, or we're just not going to have the numbers.
And then after that, Florida.
If Florida enters the lost category, as California has, then wherever people stand on issues isn't going to matter.
The issues don't matter in California.
Do they?
In a presidential race?
All that matters is whether there's somebody running with a D next to their name.
And if there are, they are, they're going to win.
That's the recent history.
Now, upsets happen.
Who knows?
14 months from now, we could have a 50-state landslide for the Republican nominee.
Might be able to happen with the right nominee.
Not naming the nominee, that's the point of this.
The point of this is the borders have to be controlled.
This is, it's a very, very serious thing.
I'm just looking at numbers.
They're throwing issues out.
This is why Axelrod's telling everybody not to worry about 2012.
They've got the Hispanic vote locked up in their minds.
So when it comes to 235 electoral votes and we throw out, we concede New York and California.
We can't afford to have Texas join that list or we're never going to win the presidency, no matter what the Democrats do to the economy and no matter who we have running.
That's that's that's 1980.
That's that's uh Reagan won New York and that's that's years ago.
And that's an exception.
We don't have a Reagan.
We don't have a Reagan that's in our list of potentials here.
If we do, somebody tell me who it is.
Do you think we do, Snertley?
We don't have a so I mean Reagan's are once in a lifetime.
I think we've got some people who could be close.
Anyway, just something to think about here, folks.
That's why, you know, these candidates and what they stand for on these issues matters.
That's why I preach, not in a religious sense, of course, not being distracted by extraneous things in these primaries that don't matter.
Here's Delia in Tyler, Texas.
Delia, thanks so much for waiting.
Great to have you.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm fine.
And thanks for your continuous conservative communication.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Certainly.
I just want to bring a possible perspective of Michelle Botman.
I observed the last Republican Tea Party debate and, of course, watching all the candidates as they interreacted and communicated.
And I noticed when Michelle Botman was trying to make her point, trying to look strong and, you know, of great strength, that when she was disagreeing with Rick Perry, when she got into the HPV and she kept interjecting the same thing over and over, even though he kept saying, opting out, she kept harping on the same thing.
She began to not look at him face to face like the other candidates would do because when they would challenge other people, she began to turn her face away from him, talk away from him, and look up in the air.
And to me, that is not a presidential stand that you take when you have a disagreement.
Let me tell you what's happening there.
That's television.
She's not disrespecting.
She's thinking that there might be a camera on her and she's talking to the audience.
She wasn't disrespecting Perry by not looking at him.
That was not her intent.
Her intent was to find the camera lens.
Now, normally, when a camera is live, there's a red light.
You know which camera's on.
She should have seen that there wasn't a red line.
Maybe the red light was on.
I don't know.
It's been so long since I've actually paid attention to this kind of stuff because, as you know, I don't like television.
I don't pay attention when I do do television.
And the football game was going on.
Well, I wasn't watching the football game.
I was watching this.
I'm just saying, I don't think this isn't, this isn't a criticism.
She was guarding against the fact that if they did put the camera that was trained on her, if they went live to it, she wanted to make sure she's looking at the American people, trying to look strong and firm and committed to them.
Obama does the same thing.
I mean, Obama does it all the time.
He looks above the camera.
He looks above everybody.
Hell, when Obama prays, he looks up.
Well, that's true.
But, you know, the point is, is that she wasn't listening to Perry.
She kept repeating the same thing, and he kept saying opted out was another issue.
And I have, you know, I have history with a child in Texas, a female, and we were giving the information, and we opted out.
There was no pressure.
She was not tied and duct taped and made to take that thing.
Again, it was overdone.
I know.
This is the problem with television.
If there were no television cameras there, you would have seen an entirely different way that these people would have been talking to each other.
But with their cameras there, and maybe these cameras, I don't know, they might have been far away.
She might not have been able to see the red light when it's on, and she might not have been able to know.
I wasn't there, so I don't know how far the cameras were away from the participants on the stage.
But this is just television.
It just alters things.
And as far as not accepting what Perry was saying, remember now, she won the Iowa straw poll.
He comes out of that the winner.
Then Perry announces, and he's at the top of the heap just for announcing.
He hadn't done anything yet.
She's got to do what she can in that debate to recapture support.
So she's got a point.
She's going into that debate with two or three things that she's going to pound on.
And one of them was that vaccine business.
And she wasn't going to let it go.
And she was going to keep after it and after it and after it, regardless what Perry said.
Now, your reaction's not irrelevant because you're a potential voter and you're a viewer and you watched it and you were off-put by the way she was acting and maybe what she was saying.
That's important.
But you called here to tell me, and I'm trying to explain to you that what you were watching was not necessarily what you were seeing.
I guess it's the best way to put it.
She was campaigning.
She was not trying to have a conversation with Rick Perry.
She's having a conversation with potential voters.
And this is why I'm a firm believer that there should not be cameras in courtrooms because it just changes the way everybody behaves, including the judge and including the lawyers, of course.
And if they ever show the jury, including them, it just does.
It turns the whole thing into a reality show.
Anyway, Delia, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
Where do we go next?
Ben in Indianapolis.
Ben, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's a great honor to speak to you today.
I want to say thank you.
There's a whole lot of pin-up energy out here for that conservative candidate you're waiting for, and it's called Sarah Palin.
She's driven the conversations, and she's driven the last elections.
She is the answer.
She's just waiting to get in.
And when she gets in, it's going to be worse than a tsunami.
She already has everything set up, and she has 4 million people on her Facebook.
She's ready to roll, and I think she is the right person.
She's, if you look at what she says when, she does make it appear like at some point she is going to get in this.
Nobody knows, nobody knows for certain, but I'll tell you that the times that she chooses to comment on something and then what she chooses to say make a lot of people are thinking that she's signaling it, that I mean, she's telegraphing it, making it as loud and clear as possible without actually saying it, that she is going to get in.
So time will tell.
It's interesting to read the conventional wisdom of the intelligentsia glitterati throughout Washington because they're split on this.
No, she's not going to run.
She's going to keep on doing what Limbaugh does.
She's just going to be a political celebrity.
And she's going to keep on earning a lot of money.
She's going to keep inserting herself.
And she's not going to get no way.
And then other people think that she's telegraphing without any question that she's going to enter the race.
Bachman, I'll bet you it's in the back of her mind.
And if Palin gets in, then that changes the whole Bachman dynamic.
Well, he'll change the whole dynamic, period.
Anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Ben.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
Back to wrap it up after this.
All right, folks, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence has come to a screeching halt.
But it's never really over.
We just come to screeching halts.
We have a weekend break.
Week two of the national.
Darn it, I meant to do.
Oh, no, I had a couple of environmental wacko pics that I was going to do.
It slipped my mind.
Ah, darn it.
Well, we'll have to shelve them and do them next week.
Going to be a good schedule of games next week.
Have a wonderful weekend, folks.
▲
Export Selection