All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
November 2, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Finally, I found some sound bites here that are not about me.
Okay.
We're going to start at number 15.
Folks, I'm sorry to do this, but I just got the soundbite roster.
And I'm going through it here, and it's all about me.
It's got Sharpton talking about me, Broco talking about me, everybody talking about me.
And I don't want to play those.
So 15 through 19 is uh where we'll start.
And after that, you know, I got to play it by ear.
How are you doing, folks?
Great to have you.
Oh, I'll play the ones about me, but I'm not going to lead off the program with the ones about this program, not about me.
You know how uncomfortable I am talking about myself.
I don't want to make this about me.
If other people want to make it about me, that's fine and dandy.
But I'm not going to sit here.
You will, you'll hear it eventually.
I'm just not going to lead off the show with it.
It's just, it's just that simple.
What do you think I am?
An ego freak?
I think I'm an ego maniac.
You know, if you think I'm doing the show the wrong way, why don't you go out there and call yourself and put yourself on the air and then on the air tell me what you think I'm doing wrong.
I like all these other callers you've been putting up lately.
Hi, folks, how are you?
Rush Limbaugh, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The longer I do it, the more people think I don't know what I'm doing.
The longer we are at number one, the less confidence people have that I have a slightest clue what I'm doing here.
But I shall persevere.
Uh basically, but I mean officially number one, probably since 1989.
Uh 1990 at the latest.
No, never gave it up.
No.
Wouldn't give it up.
Uh nobody else has toppled it.
But that's look what you people are doing.
I don't want to talk about me, and you got me talking about me.
And I'm trying to talk about peanut butter here.
I'm going to relate it to the banks.
You know, all these people, I've been watching the news.
People are ecstatic that Bank of America and Citibank, whatever the banks are, they're not going to charge $5 a month for the debit cards.
And people are applauding, and I pointed out yesterday, you know, don't get so happy about this.
It's five bucks that you don't think you're going to be charged.
You are going to be charged.
You're just not going to see it now.
With the debit card charge, you would have seen it.
You would have known.
Now you have no idea where that $5 is going to be taken from, nor will it just be $5 or more.
For example, craft foods will raise the prices for its planter's brand peanut butter by 40% starting Monday.
40%.
This is a staple of the poor.
This is a staple of the homeless.
This is a staple of America's children.
Peanut butter up 40%.
And I am waiting for somebody to tell me that the banks have not conspired with Kraft as a way of getting their $5 debit card charge back.
40%.
And that's just craft.
Conagra, which uh which has Peter Pan peanut butter, uh going to raise their price at 20%.
And Smuckers, which makes GIF, which happens to be my favorite, uh will introduce price increases of around 30% starting Tuesday.
So the peanut butter market has been cornered by somebody here.
Uh and prices are skyrocketing here on an American staple of the poor.
Well, you see you might want to investigate the peanut industry because it's going to take you to Jimmy Carter.
Uh, Jimmy Carter had a peanut farm, and he might still have a peanut farm in Plains, Georgia, and Jimmy, Jimmy Carter's peanuts, and I don't mean this as a put down, but Jimmy Carter's peanuts were not grade A peanuts.
These are the kind of peanuts that ended up in peanut butter.
There are different grades of peanuts, just like they're different grades of all commodities, fruits, vegetables, and so forth.
People as well.
And this could be benefiting Jimmy Carter for all we know if he still owns the peanut plantation.
But I just throw that out there.
Not a good day for the left, and you're not gonna hear much about this.
Media not going to talk too much about this.
Colorado voters have rejected an attempt to raise state income and sales taxes to fund education.
With 61% of the precincts reporting last night when I that's when I printed this out.
Prop 103 was going down in flames across the state.
35% in favor of raising taxes.
What's the final number here?
That's about that.
6535 is about what it ended up.
Also true in Denver.
That was the vote breakout in Denver, 86,978 ballots counted through 830 last night.
The measure was failing 45 to 54%.
Even in Boulder County, very, very liberal.
And that's the home of the of the person who supported this boondoggle.
The measure was struggling.
It was winning, but just by a thousand eight hundred votes, eighteen hundred votes.
So I've got a story here.
I don't know.
It's in one of the stacks I have.
Experts are saying, don't look for 2010 to repeat itself in 2012.
No, no, no, no, no.
That isn't likely, says the experts.
Don't look for that was an anomaly.
It isn't going to happen again.
Right.
Both parties are in trouble.
Don't think this is just people mad at one place.
This is people really, really can't wait to take it out on all the incumbents out there.
That'd be fine with me as long as the replacements are conservatives, frankly.
If there's a if there's a if there's an incumbent sweep and the replacements are conservative, count me in.
But 103, Prop 103 in Colorado, and look how they tried to sell it for the children.
It works every time it's tried, except in Colorado.
It didn't work.
And it didn't work.
It didn't even get close.
It was a slam dunk defeat for a sales tax and state income tax increase.
So I guess, I guess we could say that Colorado voters said last night that they think they're already paying their fair share.
They're already paying their fair share, and they're not going to pay anymore.
Imagine that.
The education guilt trip didn't work, at least in Colorado for the time being.
So the first linebacker and the first lady and the BAMster now are going to have to go out to Colorado and lecture them for being greedy.
Can you see this?
An entire state will be lectured by uh by the Obamas of being greedy and they'll be threatening to cut off federal funds.
Um other statist payback will be threatened here.
But now try try this proposition out on the voters.
Should the state income tax be eliminated and Colorado become the eighth state to do so?
Try that, I wonder how that would have done on the ballot.
Should the state income tax be eliminated?
Folks, I don't care what you hear in the context of the Herman Cain reporting or uh the experts looking forward to 2012.
We are winning.
Obama is the problem for the left, not Herman Cain, not Rick Perry, not Newt Gingrich, not Michelle Bachman, not Sarah Palin, Obama is the problem.
Barack Hussein Obama.
I'm often asked, you know what, when I'm on the golf course, uh, and I I haven't played, I've played once since uh August, twice.
I've played twice since August.
Well, I've done that on purpose so that I talk about it less so as not to tick off the stick to the issues crowd.
So I've only played twice, and when I do play with a low handicap golfer or a professional, I ask them, does it ever get boring hitting every shot where you intend to hit it?
Does it ever get boring?
Shooting 72, and they look At me.
They smile big and they say never.
Never gets boring being good.
I said, but it you always shoot 72.
You never you never lose a ball.
You're never out of bounds.
Oh, we do, you just don't see it.
We save our best for you, amateurs just to make you feel even worse.
Consequently, people ask me, folks, all the time, does it ever get boring or old being right?
No.
It never does.
And sometimes I'm wrong, but you never see it.
It never happens on the radio.
And here again is another example.
The Hill.com.
Democrats seek to fracture Republican unity in the Senate.
This story proves that I, El Rushbow, have been right again, although this was not a tough one to be right about, but still I'll take it.
Democrat operatives are quick to note that they never expected to pass the jobs bill through the Senate, is the pull quote from the story.
Never expected to pass Obama's jobs bill in the Senate.
Wasn't the point.
They never expected it to pass.
They were trying to fracture the Republicans.
They were trying to get a couple of Republicans to break ranks and vote with them on this.
So they could run around and claim bipartisanship, and so they could go out and campaign against Republicans who wanted to join Obama's tax increase bill.
The story is by Alexander Bolton, Senate Democrats, exasperated by their failure to crack Republican unity, are forging ahead with a new job strategy that'll likely produce an old result.
Democrat leaders have changed the ingredients of, chopped up and sweetened President Obama's jobs package in an effort to lure Republican votes.
It hasn't worked, triggering the question, what will it take for even one or two Senate Republicans to vote for anything in the President's plan?
And that was the game all along.
Not what's in the plan.
What can we do?
What trick can we play?
What sly manipulation can we engineer to get a couple of Republicans to vote against themselves and their own interests and vote for us?
That is what the Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry has been pondering in recent days after repeated efforts to pick off a Republican defector have failed.
A senior Senate Democrat aide predicted yesterday that not a single Republican would vote for the latest jobs package of fifty billion in infrastructure spending, combined with a ten billion dollar national infrastructure bank.
Not a single Republican, and they're very regretful about this, the Democrats, not a single Republican will vote for another slush fund for public sector unions who kick back a portion of that money to the Democrat campaign.
Why would a Republican ever vote for that?
That's what the Democrats have wanted.
They want this thing to pass.
It's another giant slush fund, the money laundering trail previously explained by me on this program, and the Republicans aren't voting for it, and Dingy Harry's frustrated.
Like Ben Nelson from Nebraska, and I forget who the other one was, but they they did lose a couple Democrats.
Senate Democrat leaders hope to vote tomorrow on the jobs bill, but they expect the outcome to follow the same lines as the previous two jobs measures that Republicans voted unanimously to block.
Obama will uh will will try to ramp up pressure on Republicans by visiting the Key Bridge in Washington today, one of many bridges around the country eligible for funding if the infrastructure bill passes.
What is he gonna do?
Is he gonna actually try to make it look like the key bridge is in a state of disrepair?
In his own backyard, in his own backyard, there's a bridge that he's going to try to imply that is in terrible need of repair.
Meanwhile, he'll not shut down traffic over the bridge, right?
Bridge of traffic will continue.
Asked if he was frustrated, Dingy Harry said, I'm not frustrated, I'm terribly disappointed.
Democrat operatives are quick to note that they never expected to pass the jobs bill through the Senate.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't doubt me.
I know the temptation is great.
And I know that catching me in an error is something many people would like to be able to brag about.
But don't doubt me.
This thing was never intended to pass.
It has always been nothing more than a weapon and a trick.
Democrat operatives quick to note that they never expected to pass the jobs bill through the Senate, adding that the multiple roll calls will put Republicans on the defensive and force them to explain on the 2012 campaign trail why they voted no on jobs.
That's what this has always been about.
And it was written in such a way that no Republican, I don't care, not even the most liberal rhino would vote for it.
That's how outrageous it is.
They would have taken a couple of Republican votes.
No misunderstand.
I understand, but they were...
This thing was never intended to see the light of day.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
You sit tight.
Lots to do here on the excellence in uh in broadcasting network.
Telephone number again, 800 two eight two two eight eight two, and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
No go away.
Holy cow, look at this, folks.
A random act of journalism from the politico.
Is it my imagination are more of these random acts of journalism by mainstream media firms beginning to happen?
Seems like I've been pointing out more random acts of journalism lately.
Get this.
The Energy Department's Inspector General has launched more than 100 criminal investigations related to the 2009 Porculus Bill.
In written testimony prepared for delivery to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today, Inspector General Gregory Friedman said the investigations have involved various schemes, including the submission of false information, i.e.
lying, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, i.e.
fraud, and other improper uses of Recovery Act funds, as in theft.
I'm not.
So far, the investigations have led to five criminal prosecutions and have brought in over 2.3 million dollars in recovery.
This includes a series of cases involving fictitious claims for travel per diem, resulting in the recovery of one million dollars alone in recovery act funds.
Activity is partially due to the fact that the few shovel-ready jobs existed in 2009, Feldman said.
The concept of shovel ready projects became a recovery act, symbol of expeditiously stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
In fact, few shovel ready projects existed.
The stimulus funding the DOE received, more than 35 billion, was greater than previous annual budgets for the whole agency.
So the uh the bottom line here is that number again, the Department of Energy only received $35 billion of the original $787 billion in Obama's first stimulus.
A federal bureaucracy.
Now this stimulus was sold to us as shovel ready jobs, roads, bridges, all kinds of new private sector jobs, right?
And the DOE got $35 billion of the stimulus.
And that is says here, greater than their previous annual budget for the whole agency.
Anyway, the random act of journalism is that Politico is reporting that the Energy Department's inspector general has launched a hundred criminal investigations.
Now, launching criminal investigations doesn't mean diddly squat.
Convictions is what count, and uh we'll have To wait and see on that.
We might ask, where was Sheriff Joe on this?
And by Sheriff Joe, I mean the vice president Joe Bite me.
Joe was going to be overseeing the stimulus to make sure there wasn't any fraud in there.
Vice President Biden, he's going to make sure that everything was on the up and up.
Rasmussen.
Only 22% support giving the states $35 billion to prevent teacher and first responder layoffs.
I know this is just a poll, but you put this on top of Colorado, rejecting a tax increase, sales tax, and income tax increase for education, and now you do a poll on only 22%.
Support giving states $35 billion to prevent teacher and firemen and cop layoffs.
I mean, that's been that's been the magic way that they've gotten this money appropriated in the past.
Something really happening out there.
Folks, if it's an amazing day out there...
There's so much going on.
We have the Colorado vote.
We have we have Democrat operatives admitting that I have been right all along that Obama's jobs bill was never intended to pass.
We've got a Rasmussen reports poll that shows support for Obama's $35 billion state local government bill of going hire teachers and so forth is only supported by 22% of American voters.
And then there's this.
The mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg, said this morning that if there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial industry, it's not the big banks.
It's Congress.
Thank you.
Bloomberg actually has said something now that makes sense.
This is the first time I can recall in I don't know how long that Bloomberg has said something that makes sense.
He was speaking at a breakfast meeting, a business breakfast in Midtown, featuring himself and two former New York City mayors.
Somebody asked Bloomberg what he thought of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
And he said, I hear their complaints.
Some of them are totally unfounded.
It wasn't the banks that created the mortgage crisis.
It was plain and simple Congress who forced everybody to go out and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.
Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was a terrible policy because a lot of those people who got home still have them, and they wouldn't have gotten them without that.
But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent.
They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody, and now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target.
It's easy to blame them.
Congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves.
At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans.
And he's right about that.
The subprime thing is in the process of being repeated.
So Bloomberg gets it right.
So now more and more, see, everybody knows this.
Everybody knows the banks didn't do it.
Everybody knows it was Congress and Democrat presidents, by the way.
Responsible for the collapse of the home industry.
Very simple.
It's just now that more and more people are starting to acknowledge it.
Perseverance, I always say.
A question.
If Barack Obama can use taxpayer money to invest in risky private sector investments, Like all of these fraudulent, phony there is no business there, green energy loans.
If Obama can do that, if he can use taxpayer money to invest in risky private sector investments that go belly up, shouldn't we be able to put our retirement money in a safer place than Washington?
I personally, I don't mind risking my money on investments I trust.
What I don't like is other people risking my money on investments only a fool would trust.
Privatizing a portion of Social Security is an argument that's always out there.
And any time somebody brings it up seriously within the realm of politics and gets shot down as third rail, can't do that.
And of course, look at how it's demagogued.
How is it demagogued?
The argument for not privatizing even a portion of Social Security is that people might risk their retirement savings on risky investments.
Yes, these stupid idiot people might go out there and invest their money in bad places.
Oh no, and they might lose everything.
And then they cite the most recent market crash they can think of.
Well, excuse me, but isn't Obama risking everybody's retirement savings when he gives our money to green energy boondoggles?
There is no Social Security lockbox, all general funds.
So Obama's taking our retirement money.
He places that money in very risky investments, crony capitalist investments, where the money, some of it comes back to him in the form of campaign contributions.
These shady businesses that he forces us to invest in are run by his campaign contributors and bundlers, and they're going belly up one after another.
Now somebody explained to me why he can do that with our money, and we can't.
It's our money, money that we want for our retirement.
And any time somebody comes along and suggests that we have control of even a portion of it.
To invest ourselves someplace other than the black hole of Washington.
You can't do that.
You don't know what you're doing out there.
And you're going to invest in a stock market.
And those people are a bunch of crooks, even though they're our largest donors.
And they're a bunch of crooks and they're going to lose everything.
And you're going to be coming back to us when you lose it.
We can't allow you to do that.
Fine.
So we're to sit idly by while you throw away our money on schemes nobody with half a brain would invest in.
What do you mean, Mr. Lumbaugh?
Nobody would have a brain would invest.
If it weren't for all these government loans, none of these green energy firms would ever get started.
The very fact that they need guaranteed government loans is proof positive they can't compete.
And yet they are invested in, and Obama, his investment skill, intuition, nobody ever questions it.
They all question our own ability to handle our own money, and they all in Washington concluded we don't know what we're doing.
And we're going to put it in a stock market.
Obama's biggest donors, by the way, and then we're going to lose it.
And then what?
Well, the way I see it, the government has lost $16 trillion since it was founded.
That is the national debt.
They've lost $16 trillion, and they tell us that we can't be trusted with our money.
It's patently absurd.
I was thinking about this a couple of nights ago.
I really am sick of everybody sending Obama their money so he can spend it lavishly on his donors.
Social security is broke.
And it's not because any of you misspent your savings.
Social security is broke because the people you are forced to send it to can't manage it properly.
There's not a moral argument for Obama to give or lend everybody else's money to his friends or to anybody with a business that couldn't get a bank loan, and that's what's happening.
And how come nobody questions his smarts?
Why does nobody question his legal right to do that?
You got to look at it this way, folks.
They tell you you're not competent enough to handle your own retirement money that they take from you in the first place in the form of your FICA deduction on your paycheck.
They take it from you.
Then they tell you you don't have the smarts to deal with it.
Only they do.
They have lost 16 trillion dollars of that money, and who knows where else it came from.
Just another reason why Social Security and medical accounts all need to be privatized.
Socialism has failed.
It's been tried with the smartest people, the most compassionate people, the people who are smarter and have so many good friends and they studied it.
People who say, yes, it's failed in the past, but because the wrong people tried it and we never ever really had it properly funded.
Well, now, right people are in charge got it properly funded, and it's a bigger boondoggle than ever.
Tried socialism, it fails.
Only an idiot would continue to give good money to bad people.
But the thing here is we're not giving it.
It's being taken.
And a series of rank amateur hucksters led by Obama are taking our money and throwing it down a rat hole called Green Energy for the express purpose of a portion of it coming back to them in the form of campaign contributions.
And we have more success as Obamaville expands its reach.
I hold in my formerly nicotine stained fingers uh recent dispatch from the Wall Street Journal, nearly 15% of the American population relied on food stamps in August.
The number of recipients hit forty-five point eight million people.
All in all, food stamp rolls have risen 8.1% the past year.
Though the pace of growth has slowed from the depths of the recession.
More success for Obamunism.
Forty-five, almost 46 million people on food stamps.
And the FBI rounded up a network of deep cover Russian spies last year after the group came close to placing an agent near a cabinet official in the Obama regime.
This from a senior FBI counter spy yesterday, or actually Monday, as the FBI released once secret documents in the case.
Frank Figluzi, assistant FBI director for counterintelligence did not identify the cabinet official.
But other U.S. officials said it was Hillary Clinton that the communists tried to get a spy in there working with her.
Now, why?
She's already a communist.
Why in the world would the Russians?
I mean, I can understand this is the Bush White House, but this is the Obama White House.
Why would the Russians want to be putting spies in the Obama White House?
Most of his czars are already communists.
And how much why would a spy, a communist spy, need to get close to Hillary?
I mean, after all, who's going to teach who?
Okay, moving on now to the Herman Cain saga.
Last night I got a note from a friend.
Rush.
The political website's gone nuts.
They've just unleashed attack after attack after attack.
So I went to the political website.
I looked at the political website, and I started laughing.
Because my friend was right.
I just had a different interpretation.
I looked at them as going over the edge.
I looked up.
There must have been five or six different links to Herman Cain stories about the women, about lawyers for the women, about how Cain has blown up the security or the confidentiality agreement.
About how the women want to come forward.
They can't wait to come forward.
But there's this confidentiality agreement.
And they're doing everything.
I couldn't stop laughing.
Looking at the political website.
And then I found this.
This is from a website called Northern Virginia Lawyer.
Based on a suggestion from a local blogger to look into political donors on the board of directors at the National Restaurant Association for potential ties to presidential campaigns.
I have attempted to identify anyone privy to inside information about the National Restaurant Association who also has recent ties to any presidential campaign.
Because everybody's trying, I'm reading from the website, everybody's trying to figure out who leaked this to the politico.
Was it Obama?
Was it another Republican?
Who's responsible for this?
So that's why somebody here is trying to find out if there's a connection From the National Restaurant Association to a current Republican presidential campaign.
And they found something.
They found something, ladies and gentlemen, according to the October 2011 FEC Federal Election Commission report for Romney.
For President Inc., a gentleman named Stephen Anderson gave a thousand dollars on July 14th.
Stephen Anderson is the same gentleman who took over as the CEO of the National Restaurant Association upon Herman Cain's departure in 1999.
As CEO, it is highly likely, I'm reading now from Northern Virginia lawyer, the website, as CEO, it is highly likely he would have been privy to details of litigation and threats about litigation from the immediately previous tenure of Herman Cain.
Now, there is little more than a coincidence between the support for Romney and the likelihood that Mr. Anderson knows the background of the sexual harassment threats, nonetheless, watchers of this scandal endlessly pontificate about whether Obama or a rival campaign is the driving force behind the bombshell story that showed up on Politico on Sunday night.
Reporters should follow up with Mr. Anderson, Steven Anderson, to discern his knowledge.
At the least, he likely knows the short list of people with inside knowledge about the sexual harassment allegations.
And then there was an update posted at 1115 last night, apparently.
As this post has taken on a life of its own, I need to clarify a few things.
One, this truly is the exact same Stephen C. Anderson at the same address that gave donations while at the NRA, the National Restaurant Association in the early 2000s.
So they have found, this is all it is.
They have found a former executive of the National Restaurant Association who has given money to Romney.
That's all.
No more, no less.
But everybody's trying to figure out where Politico got this.
Nobody's talking.
But everybody is trying to figure out who leaked it.
And so this connection has been unearthed.
And it is just another layer on top of all this.
And now that has started speculation, obviously, as these things do.
And I forget where I saw this.
It was this morning as I was eagerly prepping.
This guy's, by the way, Anderson's also given money to Herman Cain.
So you gotta, you gotta take this, according to FEC records.
But he's not giving money to any other candidate.
Just Romney and Cain.
And now the speculation has really started.
Again, as I say, I forget what I was reading this morning, but somebody was analyzing Romney who wants to be president so bad he'll do anything.
Wants to be president so bad, just like his dad wanted to be president.
He will do anything.
Of course, that doesn't prove anything.
None of this proves anything.
This story exists almost in a in a vacuum.
There are more questions than there are answers.
Every time something is learned or somebody says something, more questions pop up instead of answers.
Meanwhile, Herman Cain's raking in the campaign contributions.
Herman Cain on television appears unflappable about any of this.
He's answering questions from anybody who asks him.
Sometimes he contradicts himself, sometimes he doesn't.
But he's always got that patented Herman Cain smile on his face as he answers all these things.
And he just continues to rake in the big bucks.
Then there's this in the Washington Post, a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment of the 1990s, is ready for her story to come out, says her attorney, even as the Republican presidential hopeful spent a second day trying to quell this controversy and explain his conflicting recollections of the matter.
Now you read a few paragraphs down in this piece, and you see that this same woman is consulting with her family about whether she should go public or not.
She's consulting with her family about whether to go public, yet her lawyer is out there saying she's chomping at the bit to go public.
She can't wait to go public.
But the story says, eh, not necessarily.
She's discussing it with her family, whether she should or not.
Yeah, Herman Cain has violated this woman's privacy.
That's the lawyer's point.
He's violated it by talking about this, which was supposedly not to be discussed because the confidentiality agreement of now, and now this lawyer says his client can't wait.
Just can't wait to go public.
But she's not going public yet.
But she really can't wait.
The Washington Post says she's discussing going public with her family.
▲
Export Selection