All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:47
October 24, 2011, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha.
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Wonderful to have you with us.
As the fastest week in media rolls on, the fastest three hours in media.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address, Lrushbaugh at EIB net.com.
I want to I want to take you back to the archives of this program, February 4th of 2008.
February 4th of 2008.
From my home, my website, Rush Limbaugh.com.
Excuse me.
One candidate now stands for all three legs of conservatism.
February 4th, 2008.
You people have forgotten.
I supported Romney in 2008.
I was defending Romney against the fact that Huckabee and McCain were ganging up on him in the West Virginia primaries.
I did everything but endorse Romney in 2008.
And we got into Florida and it was came after West Virginia, Charlie Christ endorsed McCain, and that was it.
And Giuliani dropped out.
And Romney knew that was it when that had happened.
So Romney immediately began planning for this presidential race.
But from this program, February 4, 2008, I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that's Romney.
The three stools, the three legs of the stool, our national security foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.
The social conservatives are the cultural people, fiscal conservatives, the economic crowd, low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way, so forth and so on.
In 2008, Romney was the guy.
There weren't too many alternative conservative.
Remember now also that McCain was the anointed one from the Republican point of view.
I remember getting into it of Huckabee was mad at me because I was disputing the thoroughness of his conservative credentials.
So this idea that I dislike Romney, that I don't like Romney, that I've got something out for Romney is simply not true.
I've tried to explain this, I don't know how many times.
We have, folks, a really, really wonderful opportunity here, and I am of the belief, and I said this in my CPAC speech, that this is not an election for policy arguments.
You know, contrasting our policy with Obama's policy.
That should happen.
The voters are doing that.
They already did it in November of 2010.
The voters know they don't want this.
It's solution time.
Conservatism is the solution.
Proud, unabashed, cheerful conservatism.
I believe that a campaign ought to be run on ideology.
I know there are a lot of people, no, no, we can't go ideology.
Russia's too limiting.
It uh it thwarts uh scares off the independence.
I think ideology is what sells conservatism.
Ideology is what attracted immigrants of all stripes to this country.
There was a distinct American culture.
One of the things wrong with immigration today is that there isn't.
There is no assimilation.
People are coming to the country not to be Americans anymore.
They're coming here for different reasons.
Some are, but don't misunderstand.
But compared to the influx of immigration, the 20s and 30s, this is a different kind.
And that distinct and unique American culture that everybody wanted to be part of has been under assault and under attack for 50 years.
And so what we have now are immigrants who want to come to America and establish their own Balkanized areas of the country, their own outposts, enclaves, if you will, where they want to speak their own language first.
And the great distinctive American culture, which was rooted in all of the things freedom, liberty, uh, American exceptionalism, the opportunity to be the best you can be for everybody, or the worst that you can be, whatever you wanted to do.
What's changed, many things have changed, but among the things at the top of the list that have changed is that those who practiced, lived and breathed that great American culture are now our suspects.
They are considered the enemy within our own borders.
They are the ones who have to be taken from.
They're the ones who have to be gotten even with.
The people who do not wish to assimilate do not wish to engage in that distinct American culture.
The receivers, if you will, the people who are moving here want to accept whatever can be taken from the successful and those who have achieved.
It's a profound difference.
And I believe to fight it requires ideology.
Somebody's not afraid to be conservative.
I know the effort is intense to force conservative ideologues to tamp it down.
I fully understand that, and I see the evidence of it each and every day.
But who is it?
Name and name.
When you get excited about a candidate or a an elected official public figure who says something that really rallies you, why has that happened?
That persons engaged in ideology.
And what I mean by that is principles.
A person has supported, can explain, optimistically advanced principles.
Maybe it's conservative principles, I believe, are the principles that founded this country.
Look at Bobby J. They worked.
Look at Bobby Gendal's election.
Conservatism works every time it's tried.
Bobby Gendal re-elected in Louisiana as a conservative in Louisiana.
He won big the first time.
He wins re-election again yesterday, as a conservative.
A gigantic landslide in Democrat Louisiana.
He ran as a tax-cutting social conservative.
Bobby Gindle is a great example about old-style immigration.
And there hasn't been any press about Gendal's re-election.
Because there's abject fear over Bobby Gendal's re-election.
Not that Bobby Gendal is going to run for president, not that he's going to be elected or get the Republican nomination.
They're ignoring it because it works.
It wins elections.
It's what won the November 2010 elections.
That's not right, Mr. Lambois, and you yourself have even said that the Republicans were not campaigning to attract both vote that the independent.
Yeah, what are the independents run away from, Mr. Newcastra?
Independence ran away from socialism, liberalism, Marxism, whatever it was, however they described it, they didn't like it.
They ran away from Obamaism.
Now, here's another thing.
Continuing to check the email.
And, predictably, a lot of people agreeing with Pamela and a lot of people telling me to tell Pamela to take a hike.
But the people who agree with Pamela, who are ripping me, telling me they're never going to listen anymore, and neither are their friends and neither are their dog, are telling me that Romney's the only guy that can win.
And that I'm full of it, that the White House would love to have Herman Cain or Perry, because that's who they know they can beat.
They know they can't beat Romney.
They're scared to death.
That's why they're trying to discredit Romney because they don't think they think Romney can beat Obama.
I think any of our candidates could beat Obama.
Especially if the election were tomorrow.
Any of our candidates could beat Obama.
Well, maybe two exceptions.
I'm not sure Huntsman could, and I'm not sure that Ron Paul could.
But the rest of them up there, up there.
Santorum could.
On the basis of policy, the basis of ideology, on the basis of principle.
Bobby Gindle, among other things.
Bobby Gindle proves that conservatives are not xenophobes or bigots.
Still frosts me that that has to be proved.
Ticks me off to no end that it has to be proved.
Makes me mad when we have somebody on our side running around trying to prove it.
Let me give you an example.
It didn't take me a while to find this because these uh I've got them all out of order, but there's somebody did an Al Gore.
Uh or a Jack Kemp.
Let me uh let me find it.
Yep, yep, yep.
This is Grab Audio Soundbite number uh twelve.
And we'll follow it by Soundbite 13.
No, we'll do Sound by 13 first.
This is October 9th of 1996.
It was in Tampa.
University of South Florida.
Vice presidential debate, Jack Kemp and Al Gore.
And Al Gore said throughout most of his career, Jack Kemp has been a powerful and needed voice against the kind of coarseness and incivility that you refer to in your questions uh audience member question.
And I think it's extremely valuable to have a voice within the Republican Party who says we ought to be one nation.
I compliment Mr. Kemp for the leadership he has shown in moving us away from that kind of attitude.
This it was a question about racism in the Republican Party.
And what Gore basically said was, oh, Jack Kemp ain't one of those guys.
I'm having Jack Kemp's a great concern.
Jack Kemp is not a racist Republican.
What did Kemp say?
Well I thank you, Al.
I mean that very, very sincerely.
And a lot of people, wait a minute, you just okay, so everybody in the Republican Party is a bunch of racist sexist pigs, but you're not, so you thank Al Gore for singling you out as being one of the conservatives who's not.
Thereby illustrating the defensive nature that a lot of people on our side have.
They say we're racist, sexist, big and homophobes.
Somebody comes along from their side and says, except you're not.
You know you're a good guy.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I know it's bad memories.
I know, but the proper answer to something like this is, excuse me, Mr. Vice President, but you are as wrong as you can be in your characterization of the Republican Party or of America's conservatives.
Friday night on Hardball on PMSNBC, Chris Matthews is talking to former Utah Governor John Huntsman.
And Matthew said, You know what I want to say to you?
Thank you for your service.
Thank you for your service for being the same man in the Republican Party.
It reminds us there's actually someone who has their feet on the ground in that party.
Thank you, Chris.
The only sane man in the Republican Party.
Now my point is the pressure is always on to get ideologues to shut up.
The pressure's always on to get conservatives to shut up and go moderate to go centrist, and to even be critical of conservatives in their own party.
I'm telling you it wins every time it's tried.
I got to take a break.
We'll do that.
Sit tight, my friends.
Be patient.
Back with much more on the EIB Network right after this.
We'll see you next time.
Thank you.
Sitting here looking for a story, and I can't find it, and I know it's somewhere here in the stack.
New York Times reporter is part of Occupy Wall Street now.
You that was in your stack, right?
See if you can find it, see if you can find it.
I got everything in disarray down here by this time of the program each day, but I know it's I know I've got it.
There's a New York Times reporter that's part of Occupy Wall Street now.
Here's Paul in Houston.
Paul, welcome.
I'm glad you waited.
You're on the EIB network.
Hi.
God bless your rush.
I just had to call and say thank you.
I was riding with my wife in the car the other day while drinking my Raspberry 2 FIT, listening to you demonstrate the new iPhone S on the uh uh the speech to text and speech.
Uh and I'm totally blind, and my wife, after hearing that, decided she had to buy me one.
So not only are you pointing out the corruption in this administration, but your uh public service announcements for the blind community.
I appreciate it.
Well, you're more than welcome, sir.
And I hope if you've got an iPhone 4S, you'll love it.
Yeah, yeah.
I've got to hold her feet to the fire, but I appreciate that.
She enjoyed hearing that and uh highlighting the features of that band.
Oh, it's amazing.
I you know, I am still learning voice commands with the uh with with Siri, that's the artificial intelligence in it.
For example, for example, what you can do, you can say, you can you can activate Siri and you can say, Google Pittsburgh Steelers score, and it'll take you to a web page with the score and the running details of the game.
Well, Apple's had voiceover.
I bought her an iPad for her birthday, but I haven't been able to try it from her hands to use it.
But they are they're real well are good at keeping up with accessibility features for the blind.
They do.
They have marvelous accessibility features for uh blind hearing impaired as well.
Great company.
Okay, the New York Times reporterette's name Natasha Leonard.
Natasha Leonard, and she's down there and she's part of Occupy Wall Street now, which means she smells like urine.
But uh anyway, well, I'm I'm trying still trying to find the story.
What was it up there that uh that uh Paul that you wanted to mention?
Oh, I was just telling you, thank you for doing that.
When I was riding with her, she decided she had to buy me a new one, a new iPhone.
So that's what I was telling you.
You're doing a public service for the black community.
I got a free phone out of the deal.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
How is it free if your wife bought it?
Well, well, well, it in a roundabout way.
It comes from the same pool, and I haven't got it yet.
I gotta hold her feet to the fire.
But without you going over the features, she would have never realized what was out there.
So that's that's what I was saying.
Thank you.
Well, I'll tell you what you need to do.
And I'm not I'm not trying to be a shill here.
I just I happen to love this stuff and I believe it, so I'm an evangelist.
What you need to tell her to do is uh go to Apple.com, go to the website, click on the iPhone tab, and just have her read and watch, and you can listen to some of the videos where they explain the features in the phone, and particularly Siri and how it and how it works.
Yeah, I'll do that.
I use stocking software on my computer right now, so I'll do that.
Access it.
Oh, well, then you've got to leg up if you have an idea how it works.
But I'll send her the link.
This will still stun you.
There's there's there's no other computer platform with this extensive uh voice detectability.
Uh it's just it's it's it's hard to describe this uh to people.
It's easier to show it.
It's not it's not hard to describe.
That's the wrong way to say it.
It's just so easy to demonstrate this.
But I just am in amazement of it as I play with it, try to figure out what more it can do.
Because there's there's not a whole lot of documentation manual-wise with very many Apple products.
That's one of the things that amazing is so many things.
They're computers.
The phones, the iPads do.
That well, the well, well, they go for one thing, they're gonna continue to be update upgrading what Ciri can Siri cannot make flight reservations right now.
What it can do, it can tell you, it can show you all the flights from your city to where you want to go.
But it can't make a reservation yet.
Well, they'll build that in.
That's eventually gonna come once they make deals with the airlines and so forth.
Um but they're gonna probably have a bigger screen, faster processor on a new phone.
They'll have 4G LTE, the the new real fast data speeds on cell networks.
Uh there's a lot before this phone, everybody say, what can they possibly do to upgrade the four?
So there's all kinds of new stuff still waiting and lurking in the pipeline, and we will be back.
Yeah, we got uh an audio clip of uh Natasha.
Natasha Leonard, who is a stringer, she's a freelancer for the New York Times, but she is an active and proud member of Occupy Wall Street now.
This is at BigGovernment.com, Andrew Breitbart's series of very effective websites.
Newly discovered video filmed by Occupy Wall Street supporters themselves reveals that New York Times reporterette Natasha Leonard is not merely covering the protests, she's also apparently taking part in planning and executing them.
In the video, she is seen participating as a featured speaker in a discussion among anarchists, communists, and other radicals as they examine the theory, strategy, and tactics of the Occupy protests.
Leonard has also written for Politico and Salon.
She's identified in the video by the panel's moderator as a freelancer for the New York Times, and also as the Times reporter who was arrested, along with several hundred activists on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1st in the video of the panel discussion.
She reveals herself to be a passionate Occupy supporter, appears to have personal knowledge of its planned future activities, including illegal occupations of banks in New York City.
We have just a little blurb here, about 20 seconds.
Back on October 14th.
This was at the Blue Stockings bookstore during the panel discussion about Occupy Wall Street protests.
This is Natasha Leonard, who's the freelancer for the New York Times talking about their strategy.
Being an outright anti-authoritarian or an anarchist is not really something that people like to be live streams across the world with a police pen around.
So there is a silencing that's sort of gone on without much addressing, because to address it would be to out oneself.
And we can't out ourselves because it would do great, great damage.
We we don't want a live stream that we are anarchists or anti-authoritarians.
We want to do this uh under the cover of darkness, so to speak.
Now, the clip goes, it's longer and longer, and she's a ramble, she's incoherent in this thing.
She the lingo is so bizarre.
Uh in some places, it's tough to figure out what she's saying.
But she ought to be removed from the New York Times, even though she's only a freelancer.
Because she's allowed herself to become part of the story, obviously beyond biased.
But that doesn't matter.
I mean, this is what it's come down to now.
She's what do you think of the odds that the New York Times will stop using her stuff?
They m- I can't I can't imagine.
Now, uh Breitbart sent me a note says that the public editor at the New York Times is now looking into this.
So we shall see.
But what's the difference in what this babe does and any other mainstream reporter?
They're all out there advancing the agenda of the regime, one to one degree or another.
This is uh from the New York Post.
Occupy Wall Street's finance committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank.
Donations continue to pour in, but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters, is fraying tempers.
Yes, my friends, they've got a stash.
They got 500 grand, but they're not redistributing the money to all the protesters.
You and you know what they did with it?
That's right.
The top one percent of the protesters have the money, and you know what they did with it?
They put it in a bank.
They put it in a bank.
Banks are what they are protesting.
I in fact, I'll bet it's even collecting interest in the bank.
So with a half million dollars in the bank, isn't Occupy Wall Street part of the one percent now.
Yeah.
Some drummers incensed that they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed the drums on Wednesday, are threatening to split her up.
Are these people playing that Tom Todd Rundrin song?
I don't want to work, I just want to bang on the drums all day.
That used to be a theme song for Green Bay Packers.
The Green Pay Packers score a touchdown two or three years ago, and that's what I don't want to work.
Just want to bang on the drum all day.
So here well, I know.
Probably residents went down there and vandalized the drunks.
Play the drums all 19 people awake.
So one of the Occupy Wall Streeters said uh bleep finance.
I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction, demands to see the movement's books.
We we need to know how much money we really have and where it's going, said a frustrated Brian Smith, 45, who joined Occupy Wall Street in Lower Manhattan nearly three weeks ago from Los Angeles, where he works in TV production.
So it's just it's hilarious.
The thing the things they're protesting are now happening within their own group.
They got 500 grand, and it's not being distributed.
It's not being divvied up equally among all the protesters.
The organizers have put it in the bank.
This is the most fun and most telling article from over the weekend on this children's crusade known as Occupy Wall Street.
They're putting their money in an evil bank, probably collecting interest.
And with more than a half million dollars in the bank, aren't they now part of the evil one percent?
Yeah, wait till they have to pay taxes on this.
I'd like to see them open their books too.
You know, along with their protesters who are unhappy.
Like, who is going to pay the IRS the taxes on these $500,000 donations?
And note uh, ladies and gentlemen, how these people can afford to buy their own underwear.
Yeah, they would uh they'd rather beg on the street for new underwear than get a job, but they've got $500,000.
They can go out and buy their own sleeping bags now.
They wouldn't have to make them.
I don't know how they no, you wouldn't necessarily have to file as a corporation.
You could file as a nonprofit, you could file just as an individual.
It might have been one guy went down there and opened up an account.
Or they they could have a tax ID as a uh uh they could go sub-S, they can go a C Corp, they could go nonprofit.
We don't know how they've organized themselves.
But I'll lay you 10 to 1.
They've organized themselves in such a way as to have to pay as little in taxes as possible.
You want to bet on that?
You want to bet these people are not lining up and signing up for the 35% bracket.
No, they're not these people are gonna be part of the same crowd, not paying their pair for their fair share.
But what they did, they had the 500 grand, they have splurged.
The story in the New York Post points out that they splurged, they bought a flat screen TV and popcorn for their pajama party movie nights.
They didn't knit their own flat screen TV.
They bought it from a corporation.
They bought it from a store which sells the TV.
Store bought it from the corporation and makes the TV.
And now they're gonna show movies from corporations.
On the flat scheme screen TV that was made by a corporation and sold by another corporation.
Maybe they're just gonna play Michael Moore anti-capitalism documentaries or something.
But the funny thing is here, they're squabbling now.
They're squabbling over money that was given to them.
There's vandalism taking place.
Their drums have been destroyed.
And of course, they're whining and crying, and they want everybody else to do something for them.
They're squabbling over money that was given to them.
Imagine how angry they would be if they had worked for this money.
Gotta take a break, folks.
Back before you know it.
Don't go away.
This is the two.
We don't have the vocal by Todd Rundgren, but this is it.
I just want to, I don't want to work, I just want to bang the drum all day.
Want to ask them a I want to ask my phone a question here.
Okay, let's let's See um uh how this works.
Okay.
Siri, do I dislike Mitt Romney?
Rush.
I don't understand.
Siri, do I dislike Mick Romney?
Okay.
Uh okay, should I vote for Mitt Romney?
I don't think you have any meetings with Mitt Romney.
Well.
I don't have any meetings with Mitt Romney, so I guess that means I shouldn't vote for Romney.
They don't have any meetings with Romney.
It could have ratted me out if I had a meeting with Romney on the counter and said, Well, you're meeting with Romney.
Anyway, what do you have?
Oh, um, there are there's a there's a website, folks.
I ran across here, and I did double documentation on this.
It's a website called the uh End of the American Dream.com.
Ten mind blowing facts which show how members of Congress and federal employees are living the high life at our expense.
End of the American Dream.com.
And it's uh it's interesting, and every one of these ten has a link taking you to the documentation for the claim.
For example, number one, when you total up all compensation, including health care and benefits, the average income for a federal worker in Washington last year was $126,000.
In 2005, 7,420 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year.
In 2010, 82,000 federal workers were making more than $150,000 a year.
That's ten-fold increase in five years.
In 2005, U.S. Department of Justice, I'm sorry, Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning 170,000 or more.
When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning 170,000 or more.
In June of 2010, the Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning 170,000 or more.
Last year, this is number four, federal employees earned approximately 447 billion dollars in total compensation.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, federal workers earn 30 to 40% more money on average than counterparts in the private sector.
Number six.
Today, one of every 12 people living in Washington, D.C. is a lawyer in New York City.
Only one out of every 123 residents is a lawyer.
Number seven, more than 50% of the members of Congress are millionaires.
Number eight, the median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million.
Number nine, did you know this insider trading is perfectly legal for members of Congress?
And they refused to pass a law that would change it.
Did you know that, Brian?
Insider trading is legal for members of the U.S. Congress.
Number 10, the percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.
And yet, who do they wail at?
Who do they target?
Meanwhile, most of the rest of America has been going through economic hell.
The standard of living in the U.S. has fallen farther over the past three years than at any other time recorded in U.S. history.
The standard of living in America has fallen over the past three years farther than at any time in American history.
And according to the Federal Reserve, the combined net worth of American families has fallen by five and a half trillion dollars since 2007.
Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.
According to Paul Osterman, a professor of economics at MIT, approximately 20% of all employed Americans are making $10 an hour or less.
This is the kind of stuff the American people ought to be protesting.
These protests ought to be in Washington, where that's where the wealth of this country is being concentrated, Washington and the suburbs.
That's where the wealth is being concentrated.
And the very people who are out there pointing fingers at blame and worrying and woaning about the income gap and the wealth gap are themselves the primary beneficiaries of that gap.
People who live and work in Washington, both elected and unelected.
And that's why the answer to almost every question related to policy in Washington will be answered by Follow the Money.
The president of Afghanistan, who I have met, Hamid Karzai, said...
Says that if the United States and Pakistan ever went to war, his country would back Pakistan.
Now, Afghanistan was our good war, according to the left, according to the Democrats.
That's where we should have been all along.
I remember the good old days when our so called allies at least pretended to like us.
Now with Obama, they openly hate us and side against us.
▲
Export Selection