All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
October 14, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6% at a time.
It is Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And a golden opportunity for those of you who get through.
Dialing 800-282-2882.
It's a giant career risk.
I willingly take each Friday, turning over the content portion of the most listened to radio talk show in America to rank amateurs.
Lovable.
Meaning you can talk about whatever you want.
Doesn't have to be anything I care about.
Which is the rule Monday through Thursday.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
The um New York City Police Department has had to pay three, actually more than over 3.2 million dollars in overtime because of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
I'd feed a lot of hungry children.
3.2 million dollars in overtime.
And this is this from the hotline on call.
Political insiders say the Democrats should keep their distance from this movement.
As the Occupy Wall Street protests continue to spread and gain attention, some Democrat leaders and groups in Washington have begun cautiously exploring a closer relationship with the movement.
But according to the latest National Journal Political Insiders poll, most strategists are not yet convinced that Occupy Wall Street represents more than a fringe phenomenon from which Democrats should keep their distance.
Fringe is right.
Phenomenon it is not.
This is standard daily procedure.
This is who the Democrats have created.
These people are the result of Democrat Party policy, liberalism.
This is what you get.
Blatant, smug, arrogant stupidity.
It really is a shame.
It's a human waste.
These people's lives have lost all their potential.
Because they have been inoculated with the notion that government is the answer, and that being an American means you want it, you get it.
This lunatic fringe is the Democrat base.
Why do you think the Democrats are embracing them?
And why not as Hotline running a poll sending out warning signals to the hey, you know, I know you love these people, but don't publicly tie yourself to them.
It's death.
These is the Democrat voting constitution this is the Democrat base, folks.
This is who it is.
This is who Pelosi's talking to every day.
This is who Dingy Harry's talking to every day.
This is who Obama's talking to every day.
Remember in Detroit.
We have the sound.
Don't go get the soundbite.
I don't need to get the soundbite.
This is the uh applications for $15 million in uh in rent subsidies or something.
All those poor people in Detroit showed up.
And uh our man at WJR went down and talked to him, and no different than what we're hearing for the Wall Street protesters, plain stupidity.
Obama's giving it to us.
Where's he getting it?
I don't know, his stash.
He's gonna take care of us.
And I made the made the comment at the time.
If I were president and I had American citizens, uh looking at me that way, I'd be profoundly embarrassed.
Obama said, Radio.
Right on.
This is what we want.
Abject ignorance, and it's very important for these people to think they're the smartest people in the world at the same time.
That arrogant smugness is part of the recipe.
So they are.
So it is a Democrat base, and here's the hotline saying the Democrats do not get too close to these people.
The strategist not yet convinced that Occupy Wall Street represents more than a fringe phenomenon.
It is the base.
Democratic insiders evenly divided over whether allying themselves with Occupy Wall Street would be a smart political move.
Some in favor argued that the passion of the movement could help shore up the enthusiasm gap.
Absolutely, yes, that one Democrat responded.
We need our passion back.
And as long as the movement stays positive and away from violence and soon includes jobs.
These people don't want jobs.
Maybe some do.
Maybe some do want jobs, but they wouldn't know what to do with one if they got it.
Because they may want jobs, but they don't want work.
They want benefits, sick days, vacation, and health care, but they don't want to work.
And the Democrat Party has made it very plain to it.
They don't have to.
If they vote Democrat, you won't have to work.
We're going to make sure we get those Wall Street guys.
And we've ever wondered why Wall Street's being targeted now.
Because blaming Bush has had its day.
No longer works.
Blaming the oil companies doesn't work right now.
Blaming the drug companies doesn't work right now.
It's just calculation, Wall Street's where we're that that's that's what we're gonna do.
That's who we're gonna blame in order to incite all this uh this protest activity.
The Democrat enemies list is uh is long.
Here's something that these um you know, every every one of these students down there is probably in debt at least 30 to 40,000.
And they're upset about it, and they don't want to have to pay it, and they think all debt should be forgiven.
The same time, every institution in our culture that is attacked for financially raping its customers.
Big oil, Wall Street, you name it.
Big education always escapes that.
The Democrats, nobody ever attacks big education, and their tuition does nothing but go up.
And of course, there are reasons for this.
The uh education institutions are very important Democrats.
That's where their friends work.
The New York Post is reporting that Columbia University raked in a whopping 24% return on its endowment last year.
Columbia's endowment grew to 7.8 billion dollars last year.
At 24% return on their investments was the highest among Ivy League universities last year.
Yale's endowment only earned 22%.
Harvard only earned 21%.
Now somebody ought to go down to Wall Street and tell these people, you know, while you're crying and wailing and moaning here about Wall Street, you realize the place you're in debt to, 50 grand, has an endowment.
7.8 billion, $5 billion.
Do you think maybe these colleges ought to give you free education?
They never attack, they attack everybody who sets up the student loan business, but they never go after the group that's charging all of this money and increasing the amount every year.
None of these colleges, by the way, or universities are paying a dime in taxes.
You think the protesters out of Wall Street know that?
Yeah.
Most of them are college kids who are paying somewhere around whatever the tuition is, $30 to $60,000 to go to an Ivy League school.
Why aren't they calling on these colleges and universities to pay their fair share?
It's always amazed me that the universities are exempt from all of this.
Big education.
They can raise Prices with impunity.
Nobody ever does anything about it.
And the reason why is that's where the brainwashing takes place.
We're not going to shortchange those people.
We're not going to raise their taxes.
We're not going to make it tough because that's where the Democrat Party brainwashes people.
Otherwise intelligent adult, the Wall Street Journal has an editorial today.
The protesters have a point, if not the right target.
This surprises me for the Wall Street Journal to the extent that the mainly young demonstrators have a valid complaint.
It's that they are trying to bust their way into an economy where there is one job for every five job seekers and where youth unemployment runs north of 18%.
This cause for frustration, if not outrage.
But these protesters are demanding more government, more regulation, higher taxes.
And they wonder why they're unemployed.
Now the Wall Street Journalist is they've got a point.
Yeah, they want jobs.
They're just, they're just protesting the wrong thing.
So the question is that they'd have outrage at whom on Wednesday Occupy Wall Street marched on J.P. Morgan Chase headquarters after having protested outside CEO Jamie Diamond's home the previous day.
That's odd, seeing that JP Morgan didn't take on excessive mortgage risk and didn't need, although it was forced to take TARP money.
Now, for the record, JP Morgan employs more than 250,000 people.
They're a major employer in New York City.
Why try to punish them?
But this editorial from the Wall Street Journal is very curious.
I think these protesters do not have a point.
They are demanding more government, more regulations, and higher taxes, and they wonder why they're unemployed.
It's a waste of time to try to treat these demonstrations as if they're based on anything legitimate.
There's not a rational, legitimate aspect of these people's agenda.
This is not an intellectual movement.
It's a temper tantrum by a bunch of spoiled rotten kids who don't know anything.
The main point of the Wall Street Journal editorial is that the protesters should be complaining about Washington, not Wall Street.
But why would these people protest Washington?
Their list of demands has been dictated by the Washington establishment.
Every thought in these protesters' heads has been put there by the Democrat Party and the news media.
They're being used as campaign fodder by Obama the Democrats.
These are the genuine real mind-numbed robots.
This is like asking a six-year-old a protest Santa Claus.
It isn't going to happen.
The groups who organized and are running these protests are not interested in jobs or helping the economy.
They're not interested in work.
They simply want to shift the blame for Obama's failures.
That's what this is all about, trying to take the heat off Obama.
Everybody that has a singular ability to think knows full well that it's the Obama policies that have destroyed this nation's private sector.
And it they they continue to do that.
Actually, we should refer to his successes because he has succeeded in doing this.
They can't blame Bush forever.
That's run its course.
So now they want to blame the evil rich and Wall Street.
And when that burns out, they'll move on to somewhere else.
But the evil rich and Wall Street are the targets to shift the blame away from Obama for his re-election.
That's what all this is about.
And these very obedient, compliant, smug, stupid idiots are being used for this express purpose.
To help shift the blame.
They show up and protest, media shows up to cover it.
Media gives their cause legitimacy by showing up.
Voila.
Success.
Also fits in with their expectation.
A rich guy from Wall Street's going to be their opponent in 2012.
That's another reason they want Romney?
They're targeting Wall Street, Romney's a Wall Street guy.
In their mind.
So it's all shaping up the way they want it.
And meanwhile, these people think that they're trailblazers, they're being used and abused.
Like they always are.
By the Democrat Party.
Quick timeout, folks.
More phone calls coming right up.
I mentioned uh earlier that John King of CNN committed a random act of journalism.
Uh regarding uh fast and furious, and he did, and it's it's funny, and I will get to it after the next uh time out after the next break in the next segment.
The meantime back to the phones, Harry in uh Grant.
Oh, by the way, I am getting some some emails from people.
Rush, rush, rush.
I'm surprised you're so stupid about Apple.
You say you can't activate your phone or you go home.
Um, ladies and gentlemen.
You get a new iPhone 4S and you can turn it on and activate it right out of the box.
You do not need your computer to do it.
This is very, very true.
However, if you want to put everything, if you have an iPhone 4 or a 3G, as what if whatever you have a f an iPhone and you want to migrate current data over to the new one, you are going to have to be in contact with your computer.
Where you have your iPhone backed up.
Because nobody yet has their iPhone backed up to iCloud, or very few people do.
So, yeah, you can activate the thing right out of the box, but it won't have any of your data on it until you mate the two.
And all I'm saying was, I can't do that here at the studio.
I have to wait till I get home to do it.
I can do it wirelessly, but I'm not gonna there's no point in me turning the phone on if it doesn't have anything on it, other than the ability to make a call.
Harry and uh it in Grant, New York, New Mexico, sorry.
Welcome to the program.
Open line Friday.
Great to have you here.
God bless Rush, how are you?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
Um the Apple thing is gonna stop me from getting this in, but let me do my best.
Two days before you left for Hawaii, Mr. Boehner called you.
Yep.
I'll never know why he did that.
I think all he succeeded in was getting himself primaried.
You asked him three simple questions, and you and he answered every question I had about what's wrong with the Republicans.
Question one, Mr. Speaker, are you telling me we're gonna spend all this money now in the hopes of getting these cuts later on?
Answer.
Rush, that's the way these things have always been done in Washington.
Translation, Rush, you don't know how things work in Washington.
Right, I remember.
My comment.
Oh, contraire, Mr. Speaker.
Rush knows exactly how things work in Washington, and so do we.
And we want no more of it because it's criminal.
Now, what Boehner's called here a number of times.
Which call are you referring to?
And which just before you went to Hawaii, he was a big deal.
Well, I do that twice a year.
He was trying to well, August 28th or 9th.
Okay, August, okay.
He was trying to convince you that he just made himself a great deal.
Right, this is about the continual resolution of that city.
No, no, after the resolution, he was gonna make that final deal, which they made.
They gave Obama 2.4 trillion.
Right.
Question number two.
Well, Mr. Speaker, why don't you just stay with cut cap and balance?
Oh, Rush, I do, I do.
I really believe in it, but but this is the best deal I can get.
Translation, you can't blame me.
I'm doing my best.
My comment, we hired you to do a job, Mr. Boehner, not whatever your best is, whatever the heck that means.
You are loaded for bear today.
What's the third one?
Question number three.
Well, Mr. Boehner, how about just doing the right thing?
Rush, I will not be responsible for our seniors and veterans losing their benefits.
It simply wouldn't be moral.
My answer, morality, Mr. Boehner.
What's so moral about sacrificing your principles to the expediency of the moment?
Morality, Mr. Boehner.
What's so moral about weeping with gratitude for being re elected and refusing to do one damn thing we hired you to do?
So you're loaded for but You've been carrying this around with you since August.
August 28th.
I've been trying to get you every day since before you went to Hawaii because you showed up everything about this guy.
You got about 30 more seconds?
Yeah, go ahead.
Great football analogy for you.
We, the conservative team had a wonderful draft this November.
We drafted some coming superstars.
We drafted a few guys that are ready to play at the pro level like Marco Rubio.
But the team owners, and that's me and you and the rest of the conservatives paid no attention whatsoever to the coaching staff.
So we got a coaching staff that has never won a game in their life.
All contraire.
There were a lot of us that were talking about if I myself have said on this program that the leadership is currently constituted doesn't represent much of a change, and it didn't reflect the election results.
No, you're not you're not alone in that at all.
A man, a legend away of life.
Rushlinbaugh, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned.
Maha Rushi.
Random acts of journalism.
They are rare.
That's why we point them out when they happen.
It is very rare indeed in this day and age for a journalist to actually commit journalism.
Most of them just do propaganda stenography or what have you.
Here is John King and a random act of journalism.
It's on CNN, and what he did, and we get the sound bites here.
He he plays Eric Holder's testimony to Congress May 3rd, 2011, where Holder said that he had only just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun running program.
I'm not uh I'm not sure the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.
Then, in a random act of journalism.
CNN compares Holder's testimony to what Obama said in March.
For those of you in Rio Linda, March comes before May.
Holder testified in March.
Obama said uh in May, and Obama said in March to CNN, Espanyol.
I heard on the news about this story.
Uh Fast and Furious alleged uh guns were being run to Mexico.
The ATF knew about it, but didn't apprehend those who had sent it.
So that's Obama to CNN Espanyol in March.
Holder says, I'm not sure in in May, I don't know, I don't know.
Which caused John King to commit the random act of journalism that followed.
So here are the three sound bites, and the key one is number three set up by the first two.
I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.
That was uh that was Holder being asked by Daryl Issa, May 3rd, 2011.
When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious?
I'm not sure, but I think uh the last few weeks.
Then March 22, two months earlier, CNN Espanol, correspondent Juan Carlos Lopez, interviewed Obama.
Lopez said there was an agent who was murdered in Mexico.
Some of the weapons came through the programs.
So where is that aid to Mexico?
There have been problems.
Uh, you know, uh I heard on the news about this story that uh Fast and Furious uh where uh allegedly uh uh guns were being run into Mexico, and ATF knew about it, but didn't uh apprehend those who had uh who had sent it.
Eric Holder has the attorney general has been very clear that he knew nothing about this.
We've assigned uh uh a uh IG uh inspector general to investigate it.
Okay, so in March, Eric Holder has said he is knowing about it.
In May, Holder said, eh, probably heard about this for the first time over the last few weeks.
Here's the random act of journalism.
Last night on CNN's John King, USA during an interview on Fast and Furious.
King plays these bites that you just heard and then said.
It begs the question how did the president know about this in March?
And how did the President know the Attorney General knew nothing about this in March?
When the Attorney General says in May he just learned about it a couple weeks ago.
He's still my beating heart.
Now this was Wednesday night.
John King was indeed working yesterday.
So he has survived this random act of journalism.
This folks, this is rare.
Normally what you get from state control media is an attempt to explain the contradiction here, not call attention to it.
And that's the random act of journalism.
John King is calling attention to a huge contradiction.
How did the president know about this in March?
And how did the president know the Attorney General knew nothing about this in March when the Attorney General says in May he just learned about it a couple of weeks ago?
This this we need a new movie.
Not all the President's men, all the President's liars.
Because this Cylindra, all these other things, these are huge potential scandalous corrupt incidents.
It's uh President Tristan, I didn't know anything about it.
I saw it on the news.
You know, I talked to um Christian Adams yesterday, interview for the Limbaugh Letter.
He is the Department of Justice attorney who quit.
He was handling the new Black Panther Party case, voter intimidation in Philadelphia.
When the Attorney General Eric Holder said, we're not, he dropped case.
He dropped all the charges.
We're not going to prosecute black defendants.
He said that.
Mr. Adams has since written uh numerous articles and a book with uh stories and evidence of the radical overhaul of the Department of Justice.
Not just he calls it racialist.
There is a racialist attitude that has pervaded in the appointees in the agenda, in the policies.
I said, What do you mean by racialist?
He said, I want to be clear, I'm not calling them racists.
They're just every everything that they prison that they look through as they judge every case is the erase.
And using my own words, paraphrasing what Christian Adams told me, he says there there is it's not it's not just that the Department of Justice, the civil rights division, the voting rights division, it's not it's not just that um you have a bunch of liberals in there now, that there is this sense of payback that Holder carries around with him a uh uh statement.
Um I want to read this to you word for word, and I don't have it right in front of me, but uh something said by an African American preacher in 1971 about black judges and justice and so forth, and it it makes clear that uh if Halder is indeed guided by this,
that the Department of Justice is now one instrument of government being used to uh redress grievances from the days of slavery, payback.
Okay, we're in power, and now it's time that we exact our revenge, and part of that is not prosecuting black defendants, dropping charges, uh not even pursuing them in some cases.
And I asked him, hey, you've worked at the Department of Justice.
Presidents need plausible deniability.
How often does Obama talk with Holder?
And where does Holder's agenda come from?
He said, not as often as you might think for the exact reason.
There is there is a uh series of uh people liaisons in the White House who would do the communicating to the Department of Justice.
Uh and may maybe talk actually once a week, but the White House would make their wishes and thoughts known via a liaison from the White House to the Department of Justice.
And I was trying to ask him if if it could be established that there is a a personal link to the policy.
And of course, whether you can establish it or not, the intelligent conclusion would be that there has to be.
So in this case, you have Fast and Furious, which was a regime program to discredit the Second Amendment.
What they hoped would happen was that these guns purchased in American gun stores and then purposely walked across the border and put into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The plan was to do that, get American purchase guns in the hands of drug cartels so they would commit crimes in Mexico with them.
Word would leak out that this had happened, and this would provide the regime with the purpose and evidence to attack the Second Amendment to tighten gun laws.
And it all backfired on them because it became known because people started dying, including an American agent.
And it's all come unraveled.
And so the questions now are the typical ones, who knew what when?
Whose policy was this?
And everybody's trying to say, well, some bunch of minions low on the totem pole came up with this Obama.
I didn't even know about this until I saw it on the news and even though it existed.
Holder has now been subpoenaed by Daryl Issa.
And I asked Christian Adams what will likely become of this.
He said, look, don't expect much.
These people think nothing of shading the truth in testimony before these committees.
It's a well-practiced art.
But we now know that the regime bought the guns and gave them to the Mexican cartels, which is even worse than just letting it happen.
We know that they bought the guns and gave them to the cartels.
It had a specific purpose to it, and that is to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine the Constitution of the United States.
Here's John King now, with this random act of journalism, pointing out these contradictions.
This is the kind of thing Cheryl Atkison was doing on this story.
It got her yelled at and screamed at and off the grid for a day and a half.
Thank you.
Quick timeout, we'll take it, we'll be back, and I'll find that quote for you that Holder carries around in his back pocket every day.
Don't go away.
Jay Christian Adams'new book is entitled Injustice, Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.
And I had a fascinating 35-minute chat with him yesterday.
It's the interview for the next upcoming issue of the most widely read political newsletter in the country.
The Limbaugh Letter.
It really was it was uh fascinating interview.
I've never had any, never had any interviewee tell me that is a great question, more than he did.
Right, Don?
Must have said that to 75% of my questions.
Fascinating.
Now, here's from his book.
And this is the book, uh, folks, well worth your investment.
It's uh uh uh uh uh one part shocking, but in the in another sense, it won't surprise you at all, since we know who these people are, we know what makes them mad, we know the rage they carry around, we know that the chip on their shoulder is uh is large, and we know that they intend to use their power here to get even.
So from Christian Adams' book, for much of his life, Attorney General Eric Holder carried around something peculiar, an old clipping of a quote from Harlem preacher Reverend Samuel D. Proctor.
Holder put the clipping in his wallet in 1971 when he was studying history at Columbia University.
He kept it in his wallet after wallet over the ensuing decades.
What were Proctor's words that Holder found so compelling?
These.
Blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America.
No matter how affluent, educated, and mobile a black person becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else.
When asked to explain the passage and what it meant to him, Holder said, it really says that I am not the tall U.S. attorney.
I am not the thin United States attorney.
I am the black United States attorney.
And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there's a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal, or the black doctor with the black homeless person.
And Holder, quote, now Christian Adams says it may seem shocking to hear these racialist views ascribed to America's top law enforcement officer, but to people who have worked inside the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, these attitudes are perfectly familiar.
So he has an affinity with the black criminal.
And he is a black attorney general, not the Attorney General.
Now the Department of Justice, most citizens, in their idealistic view, would look at the Department of Justice, and if any place was supposed to be colorblind and unbiased, it would be the Department of Justice.
Now, reality is that there is no such thing anywhere in the world.
There's no such thing where bias doesn't exist.
But where it's known, it's compensated for.
In this case, the bias is considered justifiable.
And it is therefore justified to act on it and to implement it.
And Ergo, that's how you arrive at, I'm not prosecuting the new black panthers.
I mean, Holder is one of these guys that really is like these idiots on Wall Street.
The stats of the numbers of blacks in jail.
It's not because they've committed crimes.
It's because of racism in the country.
It's because the white power structure wants to get blacks off the street.
Or whatever they ascribe to it.
And they use look at the percentage of blacks in the population compared to the percentage in prison so out of whack.
And they think, look at if you've got 12% of the population of the country's black, then that's what the prison population ought to be.
Regardless.
And that's how I act.
And anything different, if the prison population is to pick a number here is 25% black, and the population is only 11, then there's racism going on in the white power structure.
And now it's kind of like kind of like Marion Barry.
I'll never forget he was speaking at the Democrat National Convention in San Francisco, 1984.
And I was laughing myself silly listening to it, because after he finished David Brinkley looked, and he was the master of deadpan humor.
David Brinkley looked in the camera and just said, that was my mayor.
And it conveyed, I can't believe how embarrassed I was my mayor.
And Marion Barry's theme was tonight, tonight, we on the inside.
It was somewhat similar to General David Dinkins in New York, mayor for life.
When he was finally inaugurated as mayor, there were people running, okay, all right, finally, our turn to control all this money.
Our turn to pass out all the money.
Our turn to do.
Same kind of attitude at the Department of Justice now.
Our turn to hand out the justice.
Our turn to determine who gets prosecuted and who doesn't, based on race.
Because it's completely justified.
And that's what we're getting.
And it's one of the reasons that Christian Adams left.
It was the last straw for him, is when the new Black Panther Party case was his.
And he had all the evidence.
He had evidence, videotapes, he had a slam dunk case, and Holder just said we're not going to prosecute.
Drop the charges.
And that was it.
Simply because of race.
Back after this, folks.
Another exciting busy broadcast hour is in the can.
One big exciting busy broadcast hour remains.
Looks like the park owners and the city backing down have emboldened Obama's army of occupation.
There have been scuffles breaking out all morning.
▲
Export Selection