All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:57
September 22, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
466 points down today on the DJI.
That's um.
I think we're down around 750 points.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average over the past two days since Bernanke made his announcement yesterday that he sees a recession down the road.
That's what everybody's reacting to on the markets, that in Europe.
I'm gonna tell you, folks, I don't think we got any bridges that are in danger of collapsing, but we might have people who are going to start jumping off of them.
And that might and but by the way, you know, Obama's if I I think he's good, this this uh this uh the Spence Brench bridge bridge he's going to there that links Ohio to Kentucky.
He's gonna try to tell everybody it's uh state of disrepair.
He ought to show us how brave he is and go stand under that bridge while making his appearance.
So the Dow was down 283 yesterday, it's now 466, 459, uh 460.
Uh so I people might be getting ready to jump off bridges here.
Uh and I don't think anybody's worried about a government shutdown.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, the House of Representatives unexpectedly defeated a bill that would fund the federal government past September 30th yesterday, as dozens of Republicans broke with their party to push for deeper spending cuts.
Now, when I saw this, I said, what in the name of Sam Hill is this?
Didn't we just fix this through the end of the year, barring what the Super Committee does?
Didn't we just raise the debt ceiling?
And yes, we did.
But guess what?
This is another one of those continuing resolutions that exists purely because neither the Democrats nor Obama have presented a budget.
And there is this the way the AP, sorry, Reuters has written this.
I mean, it's supposed to be a uh a news article.
It's more like an editorial at issue.
Here is a bill that increases government spending by another 24 billion dollars over what was agreed to five months ago.
The bill failed by a vote of 195 to 230.
But somehow, and I'm sure you've detected this, somehow it is the 48 Republicans who voted against the bill who are to blame for this.
The conservatives, conservative Republicans bashed for not compromising, even though five times the number of Democrats voted against the bill as did Republicans.
And the Republicans want to cut spending further.
The Democrats want to double it and not pay for any of it with matching spending cuts.
But they're not the problem to Reuters and everybody, no, no, no.
It's these 48 Republicans that Baeard lost control of, they're saying.
So I I this is a fascinating thing because what's really happened here, these 48 Tea Party Republicans have actually uh changed their mind since April.
In April, when Paul Ryan presented his budget.
They signed on to it and were all for it.
Many of the people who were voting for the Ryan budget back in April with this vote yesterday have signaled that they're now abandoning the Ryan budget and running from it.
They want even more spending cuts.
Now that tells me that these Tea Party people are damn serious and they are listening to their voters.
They're listening to the people and they understand the problem.
They're dissatisfied with their leadership.
I think Reuters is right to look at these 48 as the problem, but they're totally missing why.
These 48 are dead serious about the problem.
And they really changed their minds so much.
The bill adds new spending, but they have they have signaled that the Ryan budget, they didn't save this, but they've signaled the Ryan budget is is Uh is no longer their cup of tea.
There's 24 billion dollars in new spending for FEMA, basically, for disaster spending in this thing.
And of course, the possibility of a government shutdown is mentioned by Reuters in this story and others.
And of course, if that happens, scientific research and health care and national parks should be shut down.
It's the same paragraph cut and pasted.
Every other government shutdown story that there is.
So the Democrats want to double the amount of disaster aid in the bill and make sure that that's it's it's that there's no spending cuts associated with it.
And the FEMA guys are running around saying they're out of money and this and that and the other thing.
But I have to tell you, I was shocked when I heard this because like everybody else, I thought, wait a minute, I thought we did this.
Why are we voting on the debt limit again?
Why are we voting on anything to do with the budget?
I thought we did this through the end of the year.
No, we didn't.
Democrats want more spending.
And the uh House leadership was prepared to go along with it.
It's just 24 billion dollars.
And these 48 are saying, hey, what are the spending cuts?
Ever heard of Pago?
What did happen to Pago, by the way?
Audio sound bites.
Jeff Zelony is a New York Times reporter who has ended up as a member of the Fox All-Stars.
A New York Times reporter is now one of the commentators, rotating commentators during the uh All-Star segment on special report with Brett Baer every night.
And he wasn't happy.
Jeff Zelony of the New York Times, not happy with Obama's speech to the UN yesterday.
It was a big moment, but a disappointing moment, I think, for the president.
I mean, he's tried to thread this needle here, really going back in the first opening months of his presidency.
I remember being in Egypt in Cairo, he gives you know the big speech to the Arab world, and he gives a lot of Arabs and Palestinians hope on this.
And a lot has changed and then actually not happened since then.
So today he tried to thread the needle.
He didn't do it very successfully, and he now is so besieged by so many other things.
Oh, so besieged, so put on, so over-besieged uh by so many things is our poor president.
Big moment, but a disappointing moment, I think, for the president.
Now, did the did the president leave the podium yesterday?
You know, a disappointing moment for me.
No, I'm sure he thinks he hit a grand slam.
He always does.
So uh there's such a disappointment after the promise of Cairo.
Oh, yeah, he was gonna make speech after speech after speech is going to change the world.
They actually thought that.
Liberals actually thought there's a world governed by the aggressive giving of speeches.
And that's all we needed was our aggressive speech giver, Barack Hussein Obama.
Mm-mm-mm, out there giving speeches.
And that was great in Cairo.
But yesterday, not very successful.
David Gergen, Anderson Cooper, 174, said this.
What was interesting today is how frustrated he is.
You know, a year ago, two years ago when he first came into office, he had these grand visions.
You know, went to Cairo and talked about this transformative change that was going to come between the U.S. and the Arab Nations.
More than a year ago, he promised he'd have a deal.
Fine now between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
He had these grand hopes.
And today we heard a very, very frustrated President Obama saying, you know, peace is a really hard thing to get done.
Is that what he was?
Frustrated?
I just thought he was out of words.
Very frustrated, President Obama.
It's not a really frustrated UN, very, very frustrated.
You know, peace is a really hard thing to get done.
It's really, really hard.
Yeah, that's a job.
We don't elect presidents expecting them to tell us how damn hard the job is.
You think a year ago Obama's worried about losing the Jewish vote?
Now he is.
Of course, there's all kinds of stuff.
So he had to give up.
He's having to say things.
There's things he said in that speech yesterday about Israel That I'll bet you when they rehearsed this that they had to tie him to the chair and say, you're not getting out of this room until you promise you'll say what we've put on the teleprompter here.
Because he's never said it before, and he's not going to say he may say it again a couple of times in the campaign, but all uh all of the the lavish praise, the understanding the circumstances that the Israelis face, he's never said it before.
He wasn't worried about the Jewish vote a year ago.
He could go out, he could promise the Palestinians anything.
And uh and now that reality has been turned upside down.
And if he was frustrated, Mr. Gurgan, it's because of what they made him say yesterday about the Mideast peace process and the shoe exchange strategy.
You'll remember that.
I this it really was breathtaking.
A president of the United States at the United Nations saying we're never never going to saw this till the Israelis able stand in shoes is uh Palestinians, be what it's like.
And when he said that, they cut to a picture of Mahmud Abbas, Palestinian head honcho, and he just had his head in his hands, shaking his covering his eyes.
Oh my Allah.
Oh, what are we gonna do with the it just what these world leaders thought they were getting.
What our media and everybody else told them they were getting.
And then what they thought they were getting on their own.
And it just hasn't worked out.
All right, uh brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen, the El Rushbo serving humanity simply by showing up.
We'll be back and move right on right after this.
No, my my friends, my only point here on this, let me let me say it more clearly.
Holding the line on spending, if you're an elected official, if you're a Republican, holding the line on spending is a winner for you.
The more of more Republicans in Washington who understand that, the safer they are going to be.
These 48 House Republicans, I'm sure most of them Tea Party people, but all of them no doubt conservatives, simply saying no more spending.
I don't care what your reason is.
We had a deal.
I'm not going back on it.
I'm certainly not going to have new spending.
It's not paid for because we don't have the money.
And they even they are politicians.
They did this knowing full well this is got the support of their constituents.
This is not rogue.
The others are rogue.
These 48 are essentially what you and and many Republican voters have hoped you were electing for the last 10, 15 years.
Who's next?
Tim in Salem, Oregon.
You're next on the uh EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Brush, you're a great teacher.
Thank you, sir.
Very much.
I appreciate that.
I would like to answer Ms. Warren's questions about business owners.
Yeah.
I may.
I started a business and had to provide the initial capital.
I took the risk that the service would be accepted.
I had to hire employees, pay their salaries from savings.
And I provided additional funds to support growth.
And I provided training too.
But the funds I provided represented 96% of my accumulative savings over 40 years.
So I didn't get a lot of those things from government.
I put everything in it.
Well, of course you're right.
But were I Elizabeth Warren, it would be easy to blow holes in what you're saying.
How so?
Well, who set up?
Who who regulates and who sets the interest rates for your savings account that allowed you to earn money?
The government.
Who is it That protected the bank and saw to it that your deposits were insured.
So that you didn't lose it to marauding bands government.
This is the point that were you born in a public hospital.
If so, they've got their hooks.
This is the way this woman looks at it.
I know you're exactly right in your analogy.
You're a hundred percent right.
Wealth creation makes all the rest of this possible.
Other in in a in a anything other than a tyrannical dictatorial society.
As I said, you can build roads without capitalism.
The Romans did it.
They just used slaves.
It can be done.
But there's no wealth generation created, and there's no there's no private property.
There's nothing.
There's no prosperity, period.
Obviously, except for the elites who uh who run the show.
I'm glad you called, uh, Tim, I appreciate it very much.
Harland, Texas, this is Regan Regan, you're next.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hi.
Uh hi, Rush.
My name's Reagan, like the president.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Uh yes.
Uh homeschooled fight in Texas, Aggie did a uh the this whole thing with the in-state tuition for illegals has been mischaracterized.
The bill states that in order to get in-state tuition, you have to have first applied for citizenship.
And that's in there because the United States Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny public education through illegal aliens.
Mm-hmm.
That's right.
And uh it was passed by over two-thirds of the Texas legislature, which is what it takes to overturn a governor's veto.
So if Rick Perry had vetoed it, it would have just been overturned again.
Well, he's still he's catching heck for it, uh uh and because he's leading in the polls, and his weed is light lead is widening.
And in fact, Reagan, I don't know if you've seen this.
It's kind of meaningless right now, but I forget what it is.
I didn't bother printing it out because it's a presidential poll and it's 14 months away, but Obama's only four points ahead of Perry in a prospective presidential race, five points ahead of Palin.
And so Perry, having announced and is an actual candidate is a target.
Did you notice, by the way?
Reagan, did you know there were two executions in America yesterday?
Uh no, I didn't.
Well, there was one that took place in Georgia that everybody was all hepped up about, and there was one that took place in Texas that nobody cared about.
The one that took place in Georgia, the execution was of a uh uh African American who had killed an off-duty cop who denied it.
There were 50 anti-death penalty protesters outside the prison where it happened, and of course, around the world, activists were paying attention.
And then in Texas, a white supremacist was executed for killing a black man by the name of James Byrd.
This was back during the 2000 uh campaign, presidential campaign in this uh you're 16, so you might not remember this, but James Byrd was uh attached to the back of a vehicle and driven to his death, being dragged behind it by this white supremacist.
So he was executed last night.
There wasn't one syllable of protest.
Not one, but the Reverend Sharpton was all over television.
I even went to Georgia trying to make hay about what had happened there.
And I kind of surprised me because the execution of the white supremacists took place in Texas.
It would have been an excellent opportunity to go after Rick Perry.
Well, you know, but they didn't because of race.
The race of the victim and the race of the uh of the convict who was executed.
It was fascinating.
Now, I know that's not what you called about, but it all it does relate to uh to Perry.
I take it you're a big Perry supporter.
Oh, yes, sir.
Why?
What do you like about him?
Uh I love his state rights support.
Uh that's one of my main issues.
How did you uh get interested in that at age sixteen?
Well, um, like I started I started reading some books and I started learning about our founding, and like people like Dr. David Horseman and books like the Cosmopolitan Club dossier and things like that.
It's really, you know, enlightened me.
And uh just The founding is full of state rights and nullification.
And I think it's one of the main things we need to bring back.
Well, you're right.
You're dead.
Rick Perry is profoundly a states' rights guy.
He uh people often misidentify Perry as anti-government.
He's not anti-government.
He's a big state government guy.
He loves using state government, but he is anti-federal government.
Out to Wazu.
But he's uh when you just start with state government.
Well, that's an interesting thing.
I don't it'd be interesting to see how he would make that transformation since he he loves state government.
Uh he he he he he believes in the benevolent use of it.
He's not, from what I can tell, interested in very many limits on state government power, but federal government, get them out of my eyesight.
I don't even want to smell them, is his attitude.
If he gets elected president, and if he if he keeps that attitude, uh, and he's I think he's articulating his view on federal government overreach regulation, too much power extremely well.
Uh it'd be fascinating to see if that attitude about the federal government held up when he's got the reins of power.
I remember Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger, uh if I had been governor and been treated like Schwarzenegger was, I would have been happy to get it over with and get out of there.
But he said, Oh God, can't I miss it?
The power.
All that power I had.
And I'm thinking, what did it get you?
You uh what I it it's just it must be something you and I can't relate to.
Having never won elections to run a state or a government of any kind, I don't know.
Here's a shocker for you.
Shell oil gets Alaska drilling go ahead from the EPA.
Shell Oil set to tap Alaska's vast oil reserves now that the uh EPA has issued a final air quality permit to allow exploration development north of the Arctic Circle.
The permit allows Shell to set up its noble discoverer drill ship in the uh Chookchi Sea along with a fleet of support vessels, including icebreakers and oil spill response craft.
The company will be allowed to operate them no more than 120 days annually starting in 2012.
The permit sets strict air pollution control limits on the drilling equipment.
So for an entire four-month period, an unelected regulatory body is allowing a private business to work.
And you you probably go, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what happens?
Good news here.
Uh but yeah, but you look at it a different way.
The EPA, unelected regulatory munchies.
Yeah, we'll let you drill four months out of the year.
Who are they?
Well, they have immense power.
But there's a there's a sentence in this story, environmental groups are enraged at EPA's decision.
Now the hitch always has been pollution from their boats.
That's what the EPA has used to shut this down up till now.
Air pollution from their boats, not the oil, not the possibility of spills, air pollution from the boats.
And the denial, the EPA's denial of the permit up to now was based on computer models.
They had a bunch of computer models which predicted what the air pollution would be from the support vessels and the actual drilling rig.
All right.
I don't know where they got the models.
I have no idea.
But nevertheless.
Snerdley, are you a Netflix customer?
Don, you netw Netflix.
Brian, I'm not either.
There's the story about Netflix in big trouble here.
Uh, because they changed their pricing structure, and I'm I'm I'm I don't use it.
So when I saw the the story in the original controversy erupt, I was I was uh care, I don't use the product, but I looked into it uh and I this is a teachable moment here.
The founder of Netflix is now running around apologizing for not realizing how his customers would react to a major price increase and change in subscription plans.
Apparently 600,000 customers have said no to the change.
And the stock price of Netflix took a nosedive.
Now the the founder of Netflix is a guy named Reed Hastings.
He's got a successful company here.
But he admits to not realizing how his customers would react to a major price increase and change in subscription plans.
I guess he didn't do any market research in advance.
just came out with a decision.
It's...
There are people out there who believe that central planners like this uh Elizabeth Warren Babe or Barack Obama.
Many members of the Obama regime ought to make winners.
Their decisions, pick the winners and losers.
Figure out who the winners ought to be, who the losers ought to be, what the price of anything ought to be, the supply, the demand, all of that should be done by central planners, people of government.
These are the people that know best.
Here is an example of it.
Here's a guy in the private sector who actually is acting like a central planner, just dictating what it is.
It's his own business, his own country, company.
But what an uh uh uh astounding mistake here to make.
I I just I I find that the taken to task for splitting the formerly unlimited DVD and streaming video options into two categories, and then bumping the price by 60% is what he did.
Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings offered a very public maya culpa in a missive to 25 million Netflix subscribers with an open letter on the company's website.
Thousands of Netflix customers took to the blogosphere in outrage.
The stock price tanked, third quarter guidance was refined down revised downward by a million subscribers.
Hastings apologized for his arrogance in fumbling communication of the plan when it was announced in July.
Now this is a classic example of central planning in the private sector.
It's exactly how central planning happens.
A bunch of people who think they know what they're doing.
The difference here is that the customers of the company were able to raise hell and get out of it if they didn't like the price.
Central planners in government g uh make a mistake like this with every winner or loser they pick.
Hello, Cylindra, and we're stuck with a bill, and we can't do anything about it.
Richard and Fort Myers, Florida, hi.
Great to have you on the uh EIB network.
How are you, Russ?
I appreciate you taking my phone call.
You've been but by the way, Netflix is not lowering the price.
They're just apologizing.
They're not changing the price structure.
I am a Netflix customer.
Might not be in the future, but that's a pretty steep price increase if we didn't know it was coming.
I know.
Well, I appreciate everything you do.
I tell you that.
Um for you and a lot of other talk show people, we wouldn't have any any idea what's going on in the middle.
Well, I appreciate that, sir.
I really do.
Um my biggest concern is I don't hear anyone asking the question.
Who sent the FBI to Solendra?
And why?
Did the Yeah.
Did the president call the attorney general and say, get the get in there and you know, how'd that work out?
That's a very logical question to have.
And where did all the records and computers go?
Well, they went to the government.
I know.
And now, of course, uh all of the heads of Solendra, of course, it's now a criminal matter, and they don't have to testify.
No, but you know, in fact, I doubt very seriously if we'll ever find out.
Well, they indicated earlier uh that they were going to participate, that they would answer questions.
And it was this week that they informed everybody through their law firms that bundled campaign donations for Obama that they're going to plead the fifth.
Well, it's a great question.
The government has their records.
Well, no, they could they can still testify.
I mean, they might the government has the records, they could check it if they wanted to.
But they're an FBI there.
They they obviously got the uh impression that there's a criminal investigation against, you know, uh, you know, that they might be involved in.
So they've, of course, been you know, advised by the.
Look, it's it's very, very logical to connect some dots here.
Would be who could who could blame anybody for thinking, okay, give these guys 523 million, and it's gone, and a company's bankrupt, and it was never a thriving business.
It was never even a real business.
Obama made it a centerpiece of the future of this country, green jobs.
This is the future.
This is how it's gonna happen.
Now it's belly up.
And a day or two after they file for bankruptcy, there's the FBI carting everything out of the company and out of the homes of the CEO and the CFO.
Now, very logical to say who ordered the FBI in there, and for what?
Is the government going to make the case that these guys misled and lied to Obama?
Or is there stuff in the records here that if it's turned up and and uh made public, it looks bad for Obama.
That's a natural thing.
I'm sure that's what you're thinking about out there.
That this is uh this is a raid to hide evidence, not uh not produce it and uncover it.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
I gotta take a quick break.
Folks, I've delayed mentioning this.
I will not be here tomorrow, and it ticks me off.
I have something to do tomorrow that that can only be done tomorrow, and it involves the time this program is on.
It's one of those rare things, and it really mark Stein in here, it's gonna be fine, but it ticks me off because I'm I'm gonna have to wait till Monday to tell you what happens in the debate tonight, what it really means.
Normally I would do that tomorrow.
Uh but I'll have to have to wait till uh Monday.
But this is I'm apologizing here in advance.
It's just one of these weird things that that can only be done that includes the hours this program is on.
Can't be done on weekends, can't be done at night.
So it's is what it is.
And it's very frustrating, especially to be happening on the day after the debate.
But it is what it is.
Don't worry, Monday will come around soon enough, and uh at that point, it'll still be fresh enough.
There will be other debates, but this is gonna be a big one.
I mean, because the Florida straw poll has been Saturday.
And the Florida Republican guys are running around saying, you know, trying to build up interest in their straw polls.
Hey, the winner of our straw poll is gonna be the nominee.
We'll see.
Did you see, by the way, Ron Paul said that he would hire Dennis Kucinich in his administration if he's elected president?
He did.
Yeah, yesterday he didn't say, I didn't see if he mentioned a specific post.
Uh just Ron Paul wanted Department of Peace.
I don't know.
That's right, was Kucinich who wanted a Department of Peace.
But I wouldn't put it beyond Paul.
Uh Well, I hope that comes up in the debate tonight.
I hope you said that you would put Dennis Kucinich in your uh on your cabinet to explain why.
You know, it's shouldn't say this.
Never mind.
Never mind.
I see Hunts.
Yes, I see Huntsman's running third in some polls, which has got him worried because that's not he doesn't he doesn't want to win this.
Doesn't want to win this.
Where did I see this?
Somebody put this idea in my head.
I better not utter this because I don't remember who did it, and I don't know if it's got any validity to it or not.
Better not, better not, better not.
We'll know soon enough, anyway.
Welcome back, Rush Linbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Andrew Breitbart has a piece today at one of his websites.
This book that's out about Sarah Palin by Joe McGinnis.
McGuinness has sent emails to people admitting he can't has no proof for anything that he's asserted.
Or some of the most explosive things.
And Breitbart publishes one of the emails, an email below sent January of 2011.
McGuinness reveals that his manuscript, then under legal review at Crown Random House, could not prove its most headline grabbing allegations.
And yet many of these salacious stories that lacked proof in McGuinness's own words, the author's own words, ended up in the book and on television shows everywhere during his current media tour without proper sourcing and without any apparent new evidence to support them.
Now this looks like the uh the makings of a very lucrative lawsuit.
And Breitbart says, was Random House aware here that the author was making a desperate overtime bid to save face?
And if so, why did it allow him to come forth with most of these tawdry accusations without proof or proper sourcing?
And the email from McGinnis is to a guy named uh Jesse Griffin, who is uh the the author of a of a another low rent anti-palin blog that's now defunct, who was obsessed over um who really was the the well, the paternity of Trig Palin.
Says McGuinness is typing emails, writing emails to this guy.
Dear Jesse, legal review of my manuscript is underway, and here's my problem.
No one's ever offered documentation of any of the lurid stories about the Palins.
And this guy's just finished.
This is the guy that rented a house next door to him.
And the book gets published, and there's no sourcing.
There is no solid backup for any of the salacious allegations in the book.
This is uh I'm not it's I'm not surprised.
I'm I'm it's you get ticked off about stuff like this, but it's just the desperation.
These people are telling us who they are afraid of, and they'll stoop to anything.
They'll even sacrifice their own integrity and character if it requires it.
Gotta be a break.
Gotta take it.
Back and wrap it up after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, folks, it's been a blast here, and I really am going to miss not being here tomorrow.
I'll be able to watch the debate, but I'm not even going to have an opportunity to call in tomorrow.
I don't think.
Maybe.
We'll see.
But definitely back here on Monday.
Uh, Mark Stein will be here tomorrow holding down the fort.
You have a uh a good one tomorrow, a great weekend, and we'll see you back on Monday.
I literally can't wait.
▲
Export Selection