All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:41
September 21, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, my friends L Rushbow, your guiding light, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned Maha Rushi behind a golden EIB microphone.
And we are having more fun a human beings should be allowed to have our telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, this this photo is not photoshopped.
It is a legitimate photo.
It's taken by Getty, and it's posted on the Getty page with the Getty watermark.
And it is a huge protocol.
Boo-boo.
You don't wave.
These are uh says here the captioned U.S. President Barack Obama waves while standing with other leaders during the open government partnership event at the United Nations September 20th in New York City.
So this was uh yesterday.
This looks like some of the people in this thing, it looks like the Star Wars bar scene.
By the way, I just got I just got the Star Wars movies on Blu-ray.
All six of them.
It's just that it's amazing.
Anyway, this is hilarious.
This is Alfred E. Newman.
This, folks, this this picture sums it up.
It just totally sums it up.
You are never supposed to wave in these pictures.
This guy's face is totally covered by Obama's hand.
Now, some people are suggesting that this was a setup that the photographer had just asked the group who wants to see Obama get re-elected.
So he's waving.
And he's the only guy in the room waving.
The only explanation that I have uh I have heard, all the wire services are uh are running this uh picture as well.
It's embarrassing.
By the way, I I I didn't play the soundbite of this, but uh he called in his speech today at the United Nations for gay and lesbian rights, which makes this anybody had any doubt a uh a campaign speech.
Uh uh it's just embarrassing, folks.
It just it truly is.
And no country should deny people their rights because of who uh people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.
There's a picture, apparently, when Obama got into his shoe exchange uh strategy, where the Palestinians and Israelis should should uh learn to stand in each other's shoes.
Apparently the Palestinian delegation just buried its head in his hands.
Oh, geez.
I don't know.
What are we up against here?
You know, you guys are Palestinians, you know what you what do you I think what you ought to do is just shelve this statehood thing.
It's not gonna happen.
But tell Obama you want to get into the solar energy business.
Turn this thing into just a giant financial windfall.
That's what I would do.
If I if I were the Palestinians, if I had if I had an inn, if I had a way to get to a boss, I say, look, it's clear what you got to do.
Get into windmills or solar power or something.
You get free money, and as long as you send a little of it back to uh to Obama, then uh then you'll be cool.
Uh one minor error.
The Sylindra executives were to testify on Friday, not today.
But everything else I got right.
Cylindra's chief executive and chief financial officer will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions put to them at a congressional hearing on Friday, according to letters from their attorneys obtained by Reuters.
So this is the thanks the House Republicans get for giving these execs extra time to get their story straight.
I mean, they were originally scheduled to appear before the House Committee on Monday.
Now, as a thought experiment, try to imagine if Cylindra were a Republican contributing concern that had squandered a half billion dollars in tax dollars.
We would hear a steady drumbeat from the news media and the rest of the Democrat Party about the public's right to know.
In fact, I think I'm right about this.
I think when Enron execs took the fifth, the media just they went livid.
They started polling it.
Public opinion polls on the Enron people pleading the Fifth Amendment.
And we'd be hearing all of the public's right to know.
How dare these people get away with taking the Fifth Amendment if it were a group of people that had donated to Republicans in the letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee on oversight and investigations, attorneys for Sylindra CEO Brian Harrison and the CFO WG Stover said that they had advised their clients not to provide testimony during the hearings.
Harrison is represented by Oric, Harrington, and Sutcliffe.
Stover is represented by Kecker and Van Nest.
Cylinder's offices raided by the FBI two days after the company filed for bankruptcy, although the FBI didn't say what prompted the raid.
Now the Daily Caller has a little update to this.
The law firms representing two prominent Sylindra executives are major Democrat Party donors.
The law firms representing the executives are Oric Harrington and Sutcliffe and Kecker and Van Nest.
Both are major contributors to Democrats.
Both have handsomely helped Obama, according to information retrieved from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Employees at Oric, Harrington and Sutcliffe, which is representing Harrison, have donated more than 1.3 million dollars to federal campaigns, political parties, and political action committees since 1990.
More than 95% of those donations went to Democrats, including 184,000 to Obama.
Now, put this in perspective.
1.3 million has been given to Democrats since 1990, so 21 years.
184,000 of it went to Obama.
Stephen Newmark, a litigation managing associate for the firm has bundled between 50 and 100,000 for Obama.
Keker and Van Nest employees, in the other hand, have donated $127,000, national level political donations, since 1990, 99% of which have gone to Democrats.
This firm is representing Stover.
Astonishing, is it not?
Astonishing, my friends.
Obama has cast himself as a warrior for the middle class.
This is a USA Today story.
These days, President Obama using the term class warfare as much as Republicans.
The only class warfare I've seen is the battle that's been waged against middle class folks in this country for a decade now, said Obama last night at a Democrat Party fundraiser in New York City.
He defended his plan to tax wealthier Americans to help pay down the 14.5 trillion plus debt, 16 trillion now.
Republicans such as Paul Ryan have accused Obama of pitting groups of people against each other, hence the term class warfare.
Obama's picking up the term and running with it.
You're already hearing the Republicans in Congress dusting off the old talking points, Obama told his donors.
You can write their press releases, class warfare, they say.
You know what Obama said?
If asking a billionaire to pay the same rate as a plumber or a teacher makes me a warrior for the middle class, I wear that charge as a badge of honor.
Well, um, here's the thing.
You know, we we conservatives, and I'm sure you are included when I say this.
What we oppose are crooked millionaires and billionaires, the sort of people who bundle for Obama and then milk the rest of us for stimulus grants.
That's who we oppose.
Obama likes those kinds of millionaires and billionaires.
Obama is in bed with those kinds of millionaires and billionaires.
That's the big difference.
You know, the headline for Mr. Obama cast himself as a warrior for middle class.
An appropriate headline would be Fox volunteers to guard chicken house.
What is it specifically that Barack Obama has done to protect the middle class?
What is it?
Was it passing a law that raises their health insurance premiums until they become unaffordable?
Was it putting the country on a path to socialized medicine?
Is that among the things he's done for the middle class?
Was it a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas that has contributed to increased gas and energy costs?
Was it all these jobs that have miraculously been created under Obama?
Was it conducting a war on prosperity that has resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs?
Double digit unemployment, 11 plus percent in real numbers?
Is that what he did for the middle class?
Was it pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to smother private sector businesses with regulations that stifle growth and profitability?
Was that what he's done for the middle class?
Was it pushing a tax increase on people earning $200,000 that will result in yet another wave of layoffs and business closings?
What has he done for the middle class?
Who in the private sector has more disposable income under the leadership of Barack Obama?
Who is better off under this failure?
Who is it that's making out like bandits?
I contend that if you don't have a political or personal connection to Obama, you don't have a shot.
You don't have a chance.
The truth is Barack Obama is a war on the middle class.
Our president has used middle class taxes to pay for his lavish vacations, pay off his political foot soldiers and cronies, shrink the private sector, load up on federal bureaucrats that we don't need and we can't afford.
It's a community organizer.
What is a community organizer do?
Have you ever tried to visualize the job of community organizer?
What is it?
Basically, you sit around and you agitate people.
Maybe you sit around and you tell them how they're getting screwed and you tell them how we're gonna get even.
What is a community organizer?
And what does it have to do with creating jobs and understanding how private sector economics works?
He is a war on the middle class.
He's a warrior for unions.
He's a warrior for Jeffrey Immel.
He's a warrior for Eric Holder, but he's not a warrior for you.
Barack Obama, his cronies govern against the will of the people.
By the way, Mr. President, if you're asking billionaires to pay the same tax rate as plumbers and teachers, then you're pushing for a tax cut for billionaires.
You might want to reexamine the way you're saying this.
I'll take a brief time out here, my friends.
We'll get to your phone calls coming up.
Bill Clinton scorches the Republican presidential field on climate change, says that the Republican presidential field is making our country look like a worldwide joke.
Rushlin boy, your guiding light.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Telephone number 800 28282, the email address Lrushbow at EIV net.com.
So I just checked the email during the break.
And this kind of stuff always surprises you.
Are you really going to be delivering the tea?
Are you just saying it?
Yeah, we can't just say it.
Can you imagine?
I say a grand prize winner in our two it by tea contest, Catherine and I are going to personally deliver the tea and we don't.
Yes, that that's that's just part of the grand prize.
There's other elements that the winner gets.
And it's all spelled out at two if by tea.com.
We're gonna uh we're gonna be blowing the door off these kind of promotions so now to the end of the year and we've we've got this little fun goal of ourselves to top each promotion with the next one.
I don't know how you top me personally delivering the tea but we'll come up with something and and no you know that's not a bad idea.
Maybe the next grand prize winner, Bo Snurdly, will wash your car.
I didn't tell you to get to the point.
Anyway, it's all spelled out.
The details at our website, twoifbyt.com.
But essentially, it's a year supply, two cases a month.
And you get to choose, of course, the kind.
But the initial shipment, the grand prize winner, we show up and deliver it in person.
And we're not going to just drop it off and say, hi, nice to see you, and split.
We'll hang around.
But there's some rules here.
If you're the winner, you can't invite the media over or the whole town over.
dinner and all of it's all spelled out there at two if by tea.com but to be part of the contest you have to uh you have to uh uh uh make an order between now and uh 1159 p.m tomorrow night uh George in South Windsor Connecticut you're first on the phones great to have you here sir hello yeah Russ you know the first and only time I did order your tea by the way was during the last contest and I and I have to say it was everything you said uh taste it pack the packaging uh how quick it came so uh I'm glad to hear that it is I you
know it it's uh I know people would expect me to say it's the best simply because uh it's got my name and and my visage uh Rush Revere on it but it is it is I it's it's just it's uh every time we we taste it ourselves we're really proud of it.
Let's just leave it at that.
But we're very, very proud of it, and I appreciate your comments on it.
Yes, it is.
You give a lot of things away, but that's what I'd choose if I got a gift from you.
But I'll tell you why I call it, because like you, I don't like the media picking my candidate.
And, you know, we can't, there's so many issues out there.
You can't find one candidate, one Republican candidate stands for all.
So I say the three most important that are a winner for any Republican candidate are, one, jobs in the economy, Two, energy independence, which gives you jobs and a better economy.
three uh repealing Obamacare and that again leads into the first one in terms of of jobs in the economy just those three things and I don't care what Republican you put out there with running on just those three items don't get sidetracked with Social Security and all that other you run on those three and you will win hands down.
Well, those are three really important things to stay focused on.
They all are related economically.
They all can be boiled in and put under that umbrella, every aspect that you mentioned.
Now, I'm like you.
I don't like the media picking our candidates either.
And I don't think that's going to happen.
You'd make a great campaign manager, keeping people focused on what's important.
Social Security and Ponzi scheme stuff was important when it came up.
Because when it was referred to as a Ponzi scheme and everybody dumps on Perry, it was important to point out all the other people throughout history who have referred to it that way.
And I also think that sometimes some people will look at illegal immigration as a sidetrack issue in this campaign.
Don't go there.
Stay focused on the economy.
But even illegal immigration is an issue that comes underneath that economy umbrella.
But there's a more important aspect to illegal immigration.
I touched on it last week.
And this cannot be said enough.
As far as presidential politics is concerned, it boils down to 235 electoral votes.
However you get there, you need 235 electoral votes.
Now, the Republican Party...
Party surrenders before a vote is even cast two huge states New York and California they are lost Now, New York 9 and the election results there could be a harbinger of potential change in New York State, but you can't count on it.
I don't know how much money Republicans are going to spend campaigning in New York during the presidential race.
California, for all practical purposes, is gone.
Therefore, we can't lose Texas from a presidential politics, electoral college point of view.
You just if the Republicans cede New York, California, and Texas before the election even starts, if those three states are thrown, we're cooked, and it doesn't matter what issues we're running on, it doesn't matter, they could nominate Alfred E. Newman.
And as long as their voters show up and vote for Alfred E. Newman, as long as he's got a Democrat or a D by his name, that's all that's going to matter.
No issue is going to matter.
So how does this relate to illegal immigration?
Well, Texas has a lot of it.
And Texas politics from the governor on down is its own separate animal on this issue because of the long length of the border and all the other issues that come against Perry and his in-state tuition business is simply his way of trying to get Hispanic votes in Texas.
Most people look at that and they just can't abide it, and some people are willing to throw Perry overboard and off the bus because of it.
George W. Bush was in a political sense in bed with as many Hispanic organizations as he could in order to get some of that vote in Texas.
So there's all kinds of compromises have to be made down the road.
It is the EIB network, the home of truly politically correct thinking for 23 years.
always get it right.
I want to give you an example here of what I'm talking about.
Because I don't want to be misunderstood about this.
I don't want anybody to think that I am softening my position on illegal immigration here.
Don't think that.
But presidential politics is what it is.
Barack Obama is counting on attracting and getting the vast majority of the Hispanic vote, and we know how.
You know, you look at the story that Politico has today about Obama and the independents, not liking what they're hearing and seeing, the independents running away from Obama.
He doesn't really care at the end of the day.
What he's focused on is dependence.
He needs and wants to create as many dependent on him people as he can, and that's how he looks at Hispanics.
It's how he looks at every minority.
Here, listen to Soundbite 28.
This is Obama.
Remember now, this is an annual address.
The president always addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations.
And traditionally, this speech is always a lecture from the United States to the rest of the world about freedom and human rights.
Standing up for freedom, defending liberty, and spreading it.
That's traditionally been the message.
And presidents have not shied away from warning the thugs and the dictators around the world that they have an enemy.
That they have an obstacle in their way.
That it is the United States.
I mean, heavy, weighty, serious matters of grave concern that have to do with tyranny, torture, and the basic squalor that most humans encounter in their daily lives.
The unabashed pride in describing American exceptionalism, which this president does not share.
And, This is traditionally what this address to the General Assembly is all about.
We don't get anything like that from Barack Obama.
We get a collection of I did this and I said that, and I am going to do this, and I made that happen.
And I caused this to happen.
And I'm going to cause that to happen.
On the one hand, he goes out and tries to take credit for the Arab Spring.
On the other hand, he blames the Arab Spring for the current economic malaise in our country.
So he's all over the board.
Not even any seriousness.
What we got today from Obama was a campaign speech.
Here's a little sound bite of 15 seconds that illustrates it.
No country should deny people their rights, the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.
Now, I'm not opposed to that, but this is not the forum for this.
This trivializes what the United Nations is about.
Is it trivializes?
And once again, a potentially really good forum for a president of the United States to establish set an agenda so forth has been corrupted here and used as a campaign opportunity.
So Obama is intent on, I think, around the world creating as many dependent people on him, his party, as he can.
And the Hispanic vote, it's clear, it's how he looks at it.
He's not interested in their prosperity.
He's not interested in their economic growth.
He's interested in how they vote, pure and simple.
And that's true of every other constituency in the Democrat Party.
And you look at those constituency groups, and you tell me where they're making any economic progress.
Once the Democrat Party's put you under their wing, you are in trouble.
They become your official defenders, you don't have a prayer.
So it takes me back to this whole point about not losing Texas.
Now people got ticked off at Perry for his in-state tuition policy for children of illegals in the state of Texas.
It's a tough thing because we can't afford to lose Texas.
And those electoral votes.
Because Florida's not a lock and Ohio is never a lock.
But Texas right now is for us.
We can't lose it.
We can't lose New York and California and Texas.
Because then nothing else matters.
It's over.
I remember when I lived in Sacramento, there was a sedatorial race out there.
Alan Cranston, the incumbent, who, if he were alive today, would fit right in with the extremist bent, the Marxist leanings of today's Democrat Party.
He was a forerunner, a frontrunner.
The guy that won the Republican primary that year to run against him was a guy named Ed Shao, and he lived in the Bay Area.
And Ed Schau was not a full-fledged conservative.
He was better than a rhino, though.
But he was pro-choice.
This resulted in a lot of Republicans just not even showing up to vote.
So Cranston won re-election.
And I think the Republicans, I can't vote for a guy that's pro-choice.
I just and that mattered to them, and that's the way they behaved.
Turnout on the Republican side was low, Cranston re-elected.
Shortly thereafter, I forget it might have been the Bork confirmation hearing, something came up.
If we had had another Republican vote in the Senate, might have been Bork.
This is the 80s now.
My memory is on this is a little foggy.
But if we had had Xiao in the Senate and not Cranston, and Xiao could have won if the Republicans would have shown up and voted.
It was that close.
Then we wouldn't have had a bunch of grief that did ensue from being one vote shy.
I forget specifically what it was.
I think it was the Bork uh no, no.
Yeah, it could have been.
It'll come to me at some point.
Now again, I'm not I'm not saying that I'm changed my mind on illegal immigration.
I'm trying to explain why a guy like Perry might have a policy.
He's got to have.
And by the way, George W. Bush, you'll recall that Bush and uh and Carl Roff both thought uh meaningful comprehensive immigration form was the way to make the Republican Party a majority party forever.
And that was one of their motivations behind their comprehensive immigration reform objectives.
And it stemmed, you know, people Bush have such uh affection adoration for the Hispanics and Jeb Bush in Florida, same thing.
Uh Bush is governor of Texas.
It's an issue there that that's uh higher on the priority list than it is in in other places.
Yeah, well, yeah.
Look at Prop 187 is is uh is is another example too.
That's that's California where the people of uh of the state in California in mass voted to say we're not any longer going to use our tax dollars to provide the education and welfare, health care and all that for the children of illegals with California.
A federal judge threw it out saying that uh people basically didn't know what they were doing and it was unconstitutional, and uh who do you think you are?
Uh we in the judiciary run this country, not you voters, uh you uh i it's it really is tough.
And all this stems from this caller saying, look, there are three issues.
And all the issues he mentioned all related about uh about economics.
And illegal immigration, of course, has economic implications as well, but there's it's far more cultural, border security, all kinds of things.
I'm not defending Perry.
I'm just saying that there is something to think about in all this.
We desperately have got to get the Democrat Party out of power.
That is at the top of the priority list, and there's nothing else close to it because so much is associated with it.
We've got to have control of the Senate, and we have to get rid of Obama.
There cannot be somebody with a D next to their name as president.
If that happens four more years, if Obamacare isn't repealed a number of these uh uh agenda items that have been put into place are not stopped and and roll back, we're gonna be dealing with a different country than you and I have ever seen.
And it's one that we'll we've never envisioned.
We feared, but we never envisioned it as actually something coming to pass, and it's in the process of coming to pass.
Now I gotta take a quick time out here, folks, as you chew on that.
We'll come back, get back to more of your phone calls as the EIB network rolls on.
Stay with us.
And we constantly have to try to put things in perspective here, folks.
I mean, even here at the EIB Institute for Ideological Purity, got to face some realities.
Now he's got an email.
What do you mean?
How could we ever lose Texas?
How could we ever lose California?
We used to own California.
Ronald Reagan of governor then uh coming out of there as president in the 80s.
Wasn't 30 years ago, we owned California.
How can we lose Texas?
I mean, that it it would not it does seem like a stretch right now, but for crying out loud to think that it's not possible is a little short-sighted.
Anyway, who's next?
Steve in Omaha.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Thank you for waiting.
Yes, Rush.
Deeparty and Freedom Loving Ditto's from the Heartland.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Very much, sir, I appreciate that.
Hey, uh, you said something earlier in the show, Rush, that uh that really gave me an idea.
You said you said whoever controls the language controls the argument, and that is so true.
And that that brings up something you talked about uh a couple, three, four weeks ago.
You said uh well, you were talking about baseline budgeting and how they have a three, four or five percent increase cooked into the budget, so the CBO has to score, you know, if there's a if they got a four percent increase cooked in the budget, then the CBO has to cut a one percent.
If they have to increase by three percent, they gotta score that as a one percent cut.
So my proposal is hey, if the Republicans get control, which they probably will, one of the first things they gotta do is change the this baseline budgeting thing.
So a one percent increase is a one percent increase.
Well, that would be last year's baseline.
And when we increase it, that's an increase.
If we go lower is that's a decrease.
And then we've got real honesty about the next budget.
Yeah, are you on a cell phone?
Yeah, I am.
Yeah, I just thought so.
Um I that is that is uh that'd be wonderful if that would happen.
I I put this in the category similar to gosh, wouldn't it be great if we could just have a flat tax.
Sounds wonderful, and there's always going to be some Republicans who are for it.
But um at the end of the day, they're never gonna write themselves out of that much power.
You realize the power that members of Congress hold with the tax code.
It is the greatest single power for social architecture that exists in Washington today.
The tax code.
And to simply write that off, say, okay, guess what?
15%, 20% flat tax, whatever it's fair tax, what you want to call it.
Great idea.
Makes total perfect sense.
But people who think that their job requirement number one is spending money are somehow going to limit their ability to do so.
It is achievable, I think, on the baseline budgeting side.
Uh and we're we're we have to get to the point where a cut is actually a cut.
Remember this statistic, because of baseline budgeting.
The Republicans could propose as a fix a budget freeze.
Just not spend anything additional for two years.
Go ahead and factor in inflation, and you increase the budget by the inflation rate every year, but no more, not a dime more.
If they did that, because of the baseline, the CBO would score that as a nine trillion dollar cut over ten years.
Now you say, whoa, wait a minute.
Nothing's been cut.
That's right.
But the baseline suggests the budget's going to grow by nine trillion dollars over ten years.
Or eight, whatever it is.
That's built in.
And if the money isn't spent, it gets scored as a cut.
That's the law.
The law would demand the CBO score that as a cut.
And as long as that system exists, we can't win.
We can't win a budget battle.
Because as long as the word cut doesn't mean cut.
This is how the school lunch program can grow by 3.5%, and yet a major issue evolve.
Republicans want to starve kids.
Wait a minute.
School lunch budget's growing by $3.5 trillion.
They have three and a half percent.
No, no, no.
It was supposed to go by seven.
You're gutting the program.
This is a this is what happened back in 1995.
So it's true.
Whoever controls the language controls the debate.
And uh what if you you may not have heard what the caller heard.
There's a establishment Republicans in Washington do not like being called establishment.
They uh they run from it.
Uh they are trying to redefine conservatism so that they are conservatives, not us.
That people like David Brooks Would become the new conservative.
The conservative establishment in Washington, the Republicans want to replace the word Republican with conservative.
Because the term conservative or Republican establishment is not sitting well with them.
Because it simply means accurately part of the Washington elite.
The Democrat establishment, the Republican establishment are one and the same in terms of their overall objectives and goals.
And so this is something the Republicans plus the their undeniable lack of affection for conservatives in general coupled together.
So there is an ongoing effort.
You will not see this.
There aren't any stories written about it.
It's not a discussion item on cable news.
You wouldn't even know that this internecine fight's going on if I hadn't mentioned it to you.
But it is.
Don't doubt me.
Brief timeout.
Thanks much for the uh for the call.
Steve, a quick break and back before you know it.
I don't know where the time is going.
Two hours down already.
And some of me feels like I just sat down.
Look at the stack I haven't got to.
Most of it.
And that's been happening with greater frequency.
All the time doing show prep, valuable it is, no question.
But then things happen, and I got so much stuff.
I'm going to try to get through to some of this stuff in the next hour, folks, because it's crucial.
It's important.
It wouldn't be in the stack if it weren't.
So sit tight.
More of your phone calls coming up.
And uh very interesting sound bites, a couple of those two.
▲
Export Selection