All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
September 30, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Friday, and you know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
And a golden opportunity for those of you out there to actually pretend that this program is yours when you get on the air.
You can talk about whatever you want.
You think that you too could be a host.
This is your chance to show it.
Because on Friday, you can talk about whatever you want.
Smart, brilliant, stupid, wacky, crazy.
Question, comment, go for it.
Let your imagination be your guide.
Telephone number is 800-282-288-2, the email address, L Rushball at EIB net.com.
I wish I could remember.
I I didn't, I didn't print this out.
I was working feverishly last night, late into the night, prepping the program, and I just can't remember who this guy.
I don't think.
And it doesn't matter.
And it's it was not that it's anybody particularly well known.
And I always, you know, I try to catch myself, folks.
You know the power of the printed word, wherever it's printed, be it on a piece of paper, be it in a book, be it a pamphlet, be it on a on a web page, if it's printed, it it automatically has credibility.
Particularly when measured against the spoken word.
Just it's just the way it is.
Not a complaint, just an observation.
You can read some of the wackiest, stupidest stuff, but because you're reading it, hmm, I wonder, couldn't this possibly be true?
You hear somebody say it.
Imagine, I'll give you a great example.
Read something Ron Paul says versus watch him say it, and you'll probably have a different attitude about it.
When you hear him and watch him say it, you oh my God, what a kook.
When you read it, hmm.
Oh, this might make some sense.
Anyway, I uh uh this guy's theory on Obama and the regime filing their appeal after they uh their partial loss at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, they want a speedy resolution on the constitutionality of Obamacare at the Supreme Court.
They want it before the election.
So they have filed their appeal.
They could have sat on it.
We want the appeals.
This guy's theory is got two prongs.
And one theory is that Obama cannot lose if the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare before the election.
If he wins, and the Supreme Court says, hey, there's no problem here, this bill's constitutional, then he can brag about it.
And he's got a campaign uh uh weapon.
He can wave that ruling around from the court and he can wave Obamacare around these Republicans, look what they try to do, but we fought him back.
And these are the people that want to run the country now, so that's a win for him, obviously if they find it constitutional.
But it might be just as helpful to Obama given his You know the number of people who think he's got no prayer of winning reelection.
That number across the spectrum, not just from the inside the Beltway Wizards of Smart, but I mean from the across the spectrum in this country, the number of people who have come to the conclusion that he's toast.
I cannot emphasize that enough.
Now, this is not an invitation to get overconfident, because that's an assessment that people are making today.
And if the election were today or tomorrow, that'd be true, but anything can happen in the next 14 months or 12 months, anything can happen, and and none of it's predictable.
So you can't say that he's an automatic landslideable loser unless the election happens With current circumstances still in play.
But if the Supreme Court were to say, sorry, Mr. President, but this piece of legislation is unconstitutional.
That could even be viewed as a win.
Because Obama could do two things with that.
One, the albatross of health care is removed from around his neck.
Because it is a major negative.
The Obamacare bill is one of the many reasons why his poll numbers are shrinking.
You can look at the poll numbers of the American people, likely voters, registered voters, adults.
I don't care what the sample is, you're always going to get a majority of people who don't want it, who don't like it, who want no part of it, don't like Obamacare.
So the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional.
So he gets to cry and point, look what the evil Republicans have taken away from you.
free health care.
The Republicans and their friends on the Supreme Court, we had a health care bill that was going to lower your premiums, it was going to expand your coverage, we're going to have free health care, and the Republicans don't want you to have free health care.
You would see a campaign featuring that.
Oh, yeah.
There's no question he would do that.
Now, we can argue all day long about whether it would work, but he could turn a loss at the Supreme Court on health care into a campaign advantage.
And there are theories that he wouldn't mind because project number one's getting re-elected.
Some people, I can hear you shouting at Rush, come on.
You're losing sight of the ego aspect.
Getting health care as a as a piece of legislation passed, the first president, the only president 100 years to ever be able to do it.
You think he'll just casually cast it.
Yeah, I think if it meant his re-election.
Well, it would energize his leftist base because it would automatically it would turn them into victims and underdogs, victims of the system, Republicans' special interests, and who knows these backroom deals they might have made with Anthony Kennedy and whatever judges voted and the racism involved.
You can hear all of this.
Yeah, look at the Supreme Court.
They had it.
There are no black people up there except one, you know, conservative black, and that's not authentic.
Oh, speak.
Speaking of that, there is a political story today.
I've got to get to this.
The politico has revived the whole notion of Obama's black authenticity.
Yes, yes, that's back.
Not I, El Rushbow ray politico is raising it.
It may be time for the magic Negro.
I mean, it's right up that alley.
It's right up the instruments on the left, elements of the left are trying to distance themselves from this guy now.
That's how far down he has plummeted.
So anyway, those are just a couple of theories being banded about with uh with Obamacare.
And if if the court does find it unconstitutional, and somehow Obama gets re-elected, he finds some back war back door way to get it back and have it more public opinion-oriented.
Uh who knows.
But you know the left, folks, they don't stop.
They don't ever stop.
So that's why all this is a never-ending lifetime battle.
Now, Jake Tapper has filed uh another random act of journalism here.
And ABC News news study underlines unfulfilled promises of health care bill.
ABC News that going after Obama on Cylindra and the solar energy scandal, and now this, a new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation underlines that many of the promises surrounding Obama's health care legislation remain unfulfilled.
Though the White House argues that change is coming.
Wait till you hear this, folks.
This is this is just a it it's so quintessential.
Workers at the Flora Venture Flower Shop in Newmarket, New Hampshire, remember when presidential candidate Barack Obama promised that their health care costs would go down if they elected him and his health care plan was enacted.
On May 3rd, 2008, the president told voters that he had, quote, a health care plan that would save the average family $2,500 on their premiums, unquote.
Last year, workers at the Flora Venture Flower Shop saw their insurance premiums go up by 41%.
The manager, Pat Cowig, whose husband has medical issues, said I basically work for the health care payments anymore.
The Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums topped $15,000 a year for the first time in 2011, increasing a whopping 9% this year.
That's more expensive than some cars out there.
This is three times more than the increase in health insurance premiums just a year ago.
The study says, Kaiser Family Foundation study says that up to 2% of that increase is because of Obamacare, such as allowing families to add grown children up to the age of 26 to their policies.
Now I can imagine there are some of you in the audience who are for the first time realizing that it's actually going to cost somebody to keep your kids on your health insurance policy until they're 26.
Do you realize how many people thought that was just a no-charge event?
We find out now that the rising insurance premiums and the rate that they're going up is due in part to Obamacare and specifically to the provision that lets children stay on their parents' policies up to age 26.
That's because it costs money.
You thought that you were not going to have to pay anything for an insurance premium for your kid if you kept the kid on your policy up until age 26, as opposed to the kid going out and having to get his own policy.
But wrong-o!
So, Whoever's insured is going to be paying a premium.
So everybody's premiums are going up, and all of these saps who believed Obama are now scratching their heads and wondering what the heck happened here.
What about that $2,500 in savings that the president promised?
So Jake Tapper called the White House.
He called the deputy chief of staff, Nancy Ann DeParo.
And she said, well, yeah, that family will see that saving by 2019.
That's what she said.
Many of the changes in Obamacare are starting this year and in succeeding years.
And by 2019, we estimate the average family will save around $2,000.
Now, how many of you who bought this notion that your health insurance premiums are going to go down by $2,500 thought that you would have to wait 10 years for that.
And how many of you now hearing that it's not going to be 2019?
It's going to be 2019 before your premiums reduce $2,000.
How many of you now believe that's ever going to happen?
Nobody's premiums are coming down under Obamacare.
There's not one cost of anything that's coming down.
The only way they're going to be able to save money is with their death panels and rationing health care.
They're going to put private sector health insurance companies out of business.
But Shazam, all of a sudden now it's going to cost somebody to keep those kids on your policy up to age 26.
That's not just a no-charge thing.
And now the $2,500 Obama was running around.
And he was saying it a lot.
He was promising it frequently.
Yeah, yeah, says the White House, yeah, that'll be in 2019.
It's not $2,500, it is $2,000.
Average family will save $2,000 in their premium by 2019.
The Kaiser study also indicates employers are switching plans and shifting costs onto employees.
Half of workers In smaller firms now face deductibles of at least $1,000, including 28% of people facing deductibles of $2,000 or more.
The Flora Venture Flower Shop mentioned earlier here, their new policy increased the deductible that employees pay to $5,000.
Now what do you bet these people in that flower shop, some have voted Obama?
They believe it's $2,500 crap.
They believed costs coming down, kids for free up to age 26.
And now their deductible is up to $5,000.
So Jake Tapper still talking to Nancy Ann DeParle of the White House.
Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the president's promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it?
She said, no.
No, the president was not saying that Obamacare would guarantee everybody can keep his or her preferred plan, it just that Obamacare wouldn't force anybody to change.
But it is forcing massive changes because the costs are skyrocketing out of control.
Just like Obama said unemployment would be kept at 8% or less if we passed his stimulus.
You can see what it is.
It's 11% to 19%, depending on where you go.
It's an absolute disaster.
And this is one of the reasons why with this news coming out, Obama can't put up with news like this for the next year and hope to be re-elected.
So if the court comes along as you know what, this thing's unconstitutional, really fine.
Get it out of my hair for now.
We'll go back and tackle this later.
I don't want this uh around my neck as an issue.
I can't campaign on it.
So it's quite understandable, but the thing to take away from this is that there's no free lunch, there's no free insurance coverage premium or treatment.
There's no way the prices are going down when a liberal is in charge of the program at just not humanly possible.
Look at your bank free.
We open the show with your ATM fees, your debit card fees, all because of the Durban Amendment, another Democrat to the Dodd-Frank bill.
Banks are charging all kinds of new fees to make up for the losses that bill imposes on them.
And as always, the end user, the consumer, pays.
Okay, it's open line Friday, and back to the phones we go.
Falls Church, Virginia.
Hi, Jim.
Glad you waited.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Um, now I know that Republicans uh are big supporters of tax cuts to create jobs, so I'm a little confused here.
I mean, if you Google American Jobs Act uh online, you'll find that in the jobs bill, $250 billion of it is uh payroll tax cuts for working people and also the job creators, the employers.
So I'm wondering if you would uh ask our congressional Republican leaders to support a payroll tax cut of $250 billion.
Would I ask the Republican leaders to support a payroll tax cut of $250 billion?
Because you have a lot of cloud, of course.
Well, that's true.
Uh I mean, a majority of the A Jobs Act is tax cuts, so I was wondering if if you could help us get that through.
No, a majority of the jobs act is tax increases.
In fact, it's a there's zero tax increases, Rush, and uh anybody Google American Jobs Act American Jobs Act and find out that's not log are you calling from or reading from?
Do you realize what is it?
And if you can go to the congressional record, I'm sure you'll easily find out.
I'm telling you, this is not arguable.
You are there's there's not one tax cut in that thing that is real.
It is a total tax increase bill.
Let me ask you, what is it that funds Social Security?
Um, well, uh I well, is it the payroll tax?
Right, right.
Now that's the only funding source for Social Security.
So we got a Democrat president who wants to cut funding for Social Security.
Well, any tax cut is going to take away from the general funds.
Uh, that's not taking away from the uh many tax cuts raise revenue.
Many tax cuts raise revenue and generate new money to the treasury.
Well, look at who are we going to help?
middle class and then put social security recipients on ice or we're going to help both of them and give oprah maybe a three percent tax increase like under the clinton administration see See, this is what I find fascinating about you guys.
I mean, on the one hand, if see you you're out there constantly lying about the fact the Republicans want to kick Social Security recipients out of their homes and deny them food and make them eat dog food, then your president comes along and cuts the only funding program that they've got in half, and you support it.
And then you want to call it a wonderful tax cut bill.
If this bill were filled with tax cuts, everybody and their uncle on both sides of the aisle would be rushing to sign it.
But this president doesn't believe in tax cuts.
wants tax increases, and that's all this bill is.
I got an interesting email during the break.
Rush, I can remember in the past where you had a caller like that, you would try to teach them why they were wrong.
Why did you just not ask the guy to hold on and tell him where he was wrong?
That's a great, great question.
And in this instance, it was simply my instinct.
We were talking with somebody who was purposely pig ignorant.
We We had somebody on the phone who was not interested in being right or wrong.
We had somebody on the phone who was nothing but a partisan hack.
Not one thing he said was true.
There was this this guy the the things that he was attempting to tell us he believed that was not the point.
He's simply trying to counter what is being effectively stated on this program.
Let me go back to the first hour.
And our affiliate in Chicago, WLS, where they interviewed Dick Durbin.
Dick Durbin admits that they can't find any Democrat votes for Obama's jobs bill because he has no votes in the Senate from people who want to run for re-election supporting tax increases.
He can't find any Democrats who will vote for tax increases right now when they're up for re-election.
So you got one of Obama's lieutenants in the Senate admitting that it's a tax increase bill.
You also have even even the uh uh there's a talking points memo, a blog, which is a essentially a a uh uh Democrat outpost says Obama's jobs bill increases taxes by one and a half trillion dollars to the left.
That's one of its selling points.
To the genuine left, not like this guy that called, but to the genuine left, the fact that they're a billion and a half dollars in or trillion, one and a half trillion dollars in tax increases is why they like it.
It's the class warfare.
They think only the rich are gonna get soaked.
So this guy calls up and he wants to harp on the payroll tax, 250 billion dollars.
We've been there and done that.
On Tuesday, Obama tried to keep pressure on Congress to consider his 450 billion dollar jobs bill.
Dick Durbin, well, the oil-producing state senators don't like eliminating or reducing the subsidy for oil companies.
How do you people on the left like hearing that?
You hate big oil.
You want to get rid of what you think is a tax break, and here's Durban saying Democrat senators won't vote to get rid of that, not when they're up for re-election.
And then Durbin said there are some senators who are up for re-election who uh who say I'm never gonna vote for a tax increase while I'm up for election, even on the wealthiest people.
So I get a guy who's essentially calling me from a blog, trying to simply score some political points.
He's not interested in in what's right or wrong.
This guy's just a partisan hack trying to counter the effective dissemination of information on this program.
And of course, it's always gonna fail.
We rooted in the truth here.
We are engaged in a relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
The left's only hope is to blur the truth.
The left's only hope ever is to pull off a series of lies about what they believe and what their intentions are.
This talking points memo, the Democrat House organ admitting, and they're proudly saying it's like trillion and a half dollars of tax increases in this bill.
So that's why I didn't hang in with the guy.
Folks, because uh it would have been like trying to talk to James Carville.
Not going to change his mind about anything and that's not why he called anyway.
I don't even know that he really believed what he was saying.
He was just you think he's a plant?
You know seminar caller plant.
Yeah well different subject matter the other three that we've had this week have have talked about different things.
But yeah there's no question look the the uh regime supporters out there are in a panic and why are they in a panic?
They're in a panic because they're getting what they wanted.
They got health care.
They're getting a promise to raise taxes on the rich.
They're getting and it's dooming them their leader would face a landslide defeat at the election for today.
So of course they're going to start calling this program and trying to counterbalance what's what's happening here.
It's it's we're just way too effective.
That's why I'm not gonna waste time talking with the guy.
Dick Durbin's a second ranking Democrat in the Senate right behind Dingy Harry and he's admitting he can't get any votes from Democrats because it's a tax increase bill and they're up for reelection.
Who's next?
BJ in Westchester County New York great to have you on the show.
Good afternoon Rush it's a pleasure talking to you very much.
The reason I called was because my concern with uh political correctness is that it's not just uh sort of a dorky thing but in some cases already it's proven deadly for instance in Fort Hood where thirteen military and one unborn child were murdered and I think it a lot of it was because of fear of political incorrectness.
Oh gosh you're right there's no question about it.
So we have what we had here was uh was a guy named Mahmoud Abdul Mahmoud whatever talking to a sheik in Yemen named Al Waqi I'm gonna kill you and we say there's nothing to see here.
And then the guy mows down thirteen people hmm how did this happen?
No you're you're you're uh exactly right and it's a it's this this is this this kind of political correctness has always stunned me because this this started within days of 9-11 that the the the State Department you might remember BJ the State Department convened a a for lack of a better word seminar the subject of which was what did we do to cause this why do they not like us?
What's wrong with us?
In other words there was justification on the part of those nineteen hijackers that we had to figure out what we were doing that made them this angry and mad in order to stop others from doing it again that it would the all the all the fault lay with us and that's when the political correctness began and it's only amplified since then.
Well, I think, actually, if you broaden this whole idea of political correctness, it started much earlier than that, because it has to do with wordsmithing, such as, instead of saying, I'm pro-abortion, meaning pro-choice, to go ahead and destroy your child, that they call it choice, because choice is such a nice word.
Another thing that they're just starting to do now is...
Well, but, see, let me tell you something, BJ.
I tried that once.
I announced on this program, way back in, I mean, there have been several eras of the pro-life, pro-choice debate, mid to late 80s, early 90s, and it cooled off for a while when Clinton was in the White House, and it ramped it back up.
And then during one of these really hot periods, when I was doing caller abortions, make the point, I also claimed that I had had an epiphany the night before.
And I had changed my mind on this whole thing, and I now, too, was pro-choice.
And it caused understandable hubbub in the audience for a while, until a caller said, what do you mean, pro-choice?
And I said, well, I choose life.
And the pro-choicers descended on me like a bunch of condors trying to find some antifreeze.
I mean, they jumped on me.
You, you, you're not pro-choice.
am I choose life.
And what I was trying to illustrate was that pro-choice isn't pro-choice.
That the pro-choice position doesn't tolerate choice.
The pro-choice position is pro-abortion.
But they can't survive being known as pro-abortion.
Because it's never been the case that the majority of people in this country are for abortion on demand as a means of birth control.
And as a result of that show, we now have choose life license plates.
So I was saying earlier this week and last week.
There's a debate raging inside the Republican leadership.
They don't like being called the GOP or Republican establishment.
They don't like that.
They're trying to say that they are the conservative establishment.
And I've whoever controls the language is always going to win the debate.
So the left, climate change when snow starts falling in June.
Not global warming.
When that doesn't work, all of a sudden it becomes climate change.
Or what have you in this case pro-choice was exposed as actually meaning pro-abortion, and they couldn't handle that, so it dumped on me.
So political correctness has been around for the longest time, and all it is is the left's censorship of speech.
It is the vehicle by which the left shuts up people who say things the left doesn't want to hear or doesn't want to have to deal with.
Pure and simple.
A brief obscene profit timeout.
We'll be right back.
From Judicial Watch in its quests to promote taxpayer-funded entitlement programs.
The Obama regime is actually rewarded a state with a $5 million bonus for its efficiency in adding food stamp recipients to already bulging food stamp roles.
It's part of the regime's campaign to eradicate food insecure households, quote unquote, by improving access and increasing participation in the government's supplemental nutrition assistance program, or food stamps.
This week, Oregon officials bragged that the regime has given them five million dollars in performance bonuses for ensuring that people eligible for food benefits get them, and for its swift processing of applications.
It's the fifth consecutive year that Oregon has been recognized with the federal government for exceptional administration of the food stamp program.
This according to the announcement posted on the state's Department of Human Services website.
State official who runs SNAP food stamp program assures that her staff will continue working very hard to exceed expectations and to sign up even more people to the food stamp program.
Growing government, growing dependency.
It's a snap.
It's easy.
And of course, the goal is to ultimately have more takers than producers.
So that the Democrat Party's power will never again be in doubt.
And folks, we're already at the tipping point.
Also notice that Oregon has won this award five years in a row.
And by the way, I'm sure it's just a coincidence here, but Oregon has had a 60, 60% increase in food stamp users since 2008, and they're being given awards by the regime.
And yet they promise to work even harder.
To have an even greater impact on the 2012 elections.
By the way, the government uh trying out a new pilot program to make it even easier to get food stamps.
They're gonna they're gonna stop even bothering to interview applicants.
You know why they figure?
Who would lie about needing free food?
They're not gonna interview applicants anymore, sturdily, because they figure nobody would ever lie about needing food.
See, in a sane world, honestly enough, in a sane world, states would be rewarded for lowering the food stamp rolls.
Here, Oregon, a 60% increase in food stamp usage in uh in four years, and they're promised to work even harder to keep getting the wards.
Meanwhile, uh, yeah, let's go to audio soundbite number one.
Back in time, a few weeks.
Nine days actually, September 21st, at a uh a lay Episcopal Church gathering, a senior White House advisor Valerie Jarrett.
He has a vision for our country, and I think his appropriate jobs access a positive signal about what we could do instantly to create some jobs, because we know that's the backbone of our community.
We have to give people a livelihood so that they can provide for those families.
And it's a vision, I think his is a moral vision.
It's a vision based based very deeply in value and taking care of the least of these and making sure that we are creating a country that's a country for everybody, not just for the very, very wealthy people who are working hard to lift people up out of poverty and give them a better life and a footing, and that that's what government is supposed to do.
That's what government's supposed to do.
This is one of Obama's chief advisors, Valerie Jarrett.
Purpose of government is to give people a livelihood so they can provide for their families.
That's the role of government.
To give people a livelihood.
You want to get, I don't know.
This this is gonna make you're gonna run it, have a gamut of emotions here.
You're gonna get mad as heck and you're gonna feel sick.
This morning on Good Morning America, during the Bringing America Back segment.
They actually have a segment of Good Morning America called Bringing America Back.
Chris Cuomo went back to his grade school, Immaculate Conception School Jamaica Queen, spoke with second, third, and fourth graders about how the economy is affecting them.
And there was a QA, and a student named Canine and Cuomo have this conversation.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
I want to be a president.
So you want to be president of the United States?
Mm-hmm.
You think he's smart enough?
Yes.
Why should I vote for you?
I'll like ask the rich people to give some of the money to the government and ask the government to get the people who really need the money.
Oh, yeah?
Okay, I represent the rich people now.
I don't want to give any more money.
Well, then you're greedy.
That was on Good Morning America today.
Chris Cuomo talking to um second, third, fourth grader.
I don't know what grade she's in.
I will like ask the rich people to give some of the money to government and axe the government to give the people who really need the money.
So Chris Cuomo, yeah, well, I represent the rich people.
I don't want to give any more money.
Well, then you're greedy.
This is what passes for education.
This brainwashing it.
This is exactly what Herman Cain was talking about.
Kid, kid, kid, what?
Kid probably gets an A, and you know something else?
The kids' parents probably wouldn't be bothered by this at all.
Not at this school, it's Jamaica Queens.
You think the kids' parents would be bothered by this?
Hmm?
Northeast liberal New York City.
The parents probably think this is exactly right.
They probably think their kids are smart as hell.
Kids learning exactly what the kid needs to learn.
The rich are the problem.
We need government to take money from the rich and give it to the poor people.
And rich people are poor.
Are greedy.
Everybody's learning their lesson just exactly as the left intends it.
Another exciting busy broadcast hour is in the can and on the way over to the warehouse.
Housing artifacts for the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, the virtual version of up of which is up and running.
And it's really amazing to see.
Fascinating.com.
One big exciting hour left.
And we're coming right back.
▲
Export Selection