All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:21
November 16, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Rushlin bought the fastest three hours in media.
Telephone number you want to be on the program 800 282-2882.
The email address L Rushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Okay, the White House shooting suspect had been arrested, Oscar Hernandez.
His name.
He's homeless.
He's from Idaho.
He was arrested in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
He has a very distinctive tattoo that says Israel.
Now what if the rifle he used to take that pot shot at the White House was from Fast and Furious?
Well, this guy has a history of drug problems.
He's got an Hispanic name, Oscar Ortega Hernandez.
Obviously a Democrat.
That's what the media would tell us at all Hispanics or Democrats.
Police reportedly recovered an AK-47 rifle from his car, which he had abandoned in DC.
So yeah, what if that gun?
That's AK-47, folks.
What if it's from Fast and Furious?
Just asking out there.
A new video.
New video of an occupy Wall Street protester.
New York City shows them talking about plans to use Molotov cocktails against Macy's in the video.
Which we have the audio coming up here in mere moments.
Protesters rallying a group of protesters says, no more talking.
They've got guns, we got bottles, they got bricks, we got rocks.
In a few days, you're gonna see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy's.
I thought Obama was gonna wait till next summer for this.
But it may be more desperate than even we knew.
It's number five, audio soundbite number five, and here it is.
We're gonna burn New York burn New York City!
They've got guns, we've got bodies.
They got bricks, we got rocks.
Let's see what they got.
In a few days, you want to see what a Molotov cop killed a massive.
And uh there are reports that a big protest day is planned for tomorrow in New York City with the violence on the menu.
New York Post today has a story, inside story of why Mike Doomberg finally had to act.
Mayor Doomberg finally decided to wipe Zuccati Park clean after learning about a rancid outbreak of scabies, lice and lung ailments among the protesters, and most importantly, because his reputation was taking a beating.
Insiders told the Post.
Yeah, he knew he was being perceived as very weak.
So he had to do something about it.
His honor hit his breaking point after he was contrasted to the liberal mayors of Oakland and Denver, who quickly cracked down on their protesters.
Critics compared his inaction to the failings of former mayor, General David Dinkins.
Now that is a pretty low blow, I gotta have to admit.
And it was about to get worse.
Doomberg would have looked even weaker if he didn't thwart an occupy Wall Street threat to storm the New York Stock Exchange, a massive action that was planned for tomorrow.
His Wall Street friends wouldn't stand for it.
Why did he think the protesters were down there in the first place for crying out?
This has always been part of the plan.
But you know things have got to be bad when they start comparing you to Mayor Dinkins.
Oh, that has to hurt.
But I find it curious here that the New York Post suggests it was the threat of closing down Wall Street that finally prompted him to act.
I think what finally got him was that it's just too much smoking.
I I uh that's probably what he couldn't tolerate that anymore.
All the other stuff, well, the all the other stuff.
They looked the other way with the smoking.
I know.
Well, f I I've got look at.
Here's another this is the this is the New York Post.
This is sickening.
Conditions just awful.
OFFAL.
You know what awful is.
You know, that's what...
City sanitation workers yesterday were forced to pick through a filthy pile of property seized from Zucati Park, including dirty hypodermic needles, moldy food, and glass littered broken gadgets.
I pick up garbage for a living.
These were some of the worst smells I have ever experienced, said one garbage man to the New York Post.
These were some of the worst smells I've ever experienced.
About 150 trashmen stuffed the massive pile of soiled tents, old bikes, and spoiling food into dump trucks, 26 loads and all, hauled it to a West 57th Street sanitation facility so that workers there could begin sorting the personal goods from the garbage.
Occupy Wall Street protesters with proper ID can go to the facility this morning to get back their property.
Oh, geez.
Homeland Security, uh Homeland Security coordinated 18 city police crackdown on Occupy protest.
This is from a blog.
National coordination goes against protection of local accountability.
According to Oakland Mayor Gene, what's her name is the 18 cities coordinated police crackdowns on Occupy protests.
A number of other blogs that are reporting this.
So it's apparent, I know what happened to polling turned negative, and the protests are taken down everywhere.
Quite a coincidence.
When the polling data turns down.
And then from the Hill.com, Democrats criticize eviction of Occupy protesters.
New York City Mayor Michael Doomberg's decision to evict Occupy Wall Street protesters from a lower Manhattan Park as a blow to free speech, said several House Democrats.
You know, I don't like this usage of the word eviction.
It troubles me.
The term is normally used when somebody has an ownership interest in private property and is forced to leave due to a violation of the contract.
These parasites are being banned until they clean up their act.
They don't own anything, not being evicted from any place they own.
But all that being said, there is strong evidence here that the regime is behind this nationwide crackdown.
And it seems that the Democrats didn't get the memo.
Because a lot of Democrats staked their political careers this election cycle to this bunch.
Obama did.
A lot of Democrats that identified Pelosi Reed, they all went out and made great points of identifying with these people.
The unions identified with these people.
Gave them money.
And all of that is Obama.
All of that when the unions are involved, that means the regime is involved.
By the way, what is proper ID?
When you go down to the dump at 57th Street to pick up your property from the garbage, what's the proper ID that you have to show?
If you're an Occupy Wall Street protester, what's the proper ID?
It's not specified in the story.
I'm just wondering what in the world is proper ID.
Got to have lice.
Gotta have scabies.
Match the smell of your clothing to whatever it is you're picking up.
Your voter registration card.
Your American Express Gold card.
A wheezing cough.
What is it?
How do you prove it?
Robert Kennedy Jr. netted a 1.4 billion dollar bailout for his company, Bright Source, through a loan guarantee issued by a former employee turned Department of Energy official.
Robert Kennedy Jr.
It's just another in a string of revelations by investigative journalist Peter Schweitzer in his explosive new book, Throw Em All Out.
This is an amazing book.
Throw them all out.
This is the book that details how Members of Congress legally are allowed to trade stocks and securities with insider information.
It is one of the ways they all get so wealthy so rapidly.
They are legally allowed to use insider information they garner in the daily course of doing their jobs.
They are allowed to use that information in investing.
Things that they do, you and I would be put in jail for if caught.
They have written laws making it legal for themselves.
The details of how Robert Kennedy Jr.'s green company managed to land a 1.4 billion dollar taxpayer bailout have yet to emerge.
However, one clue might be found in the person of San J. Wiggle.
Wiggle was one of the principals in Kennedy's firm who raised money for Obama in 2008.
When Obama won the White House, Wagel was installed in the Department of Energy, advising on energy grants, and he advised the Department of Energy to give himself one.
And thus to Robert Kennedy Jr. from an objective vantage point.
Investing taxpayer money in Bright Source was a risky proposition at the time in 2010.
Bright source, whose largest shareholder is Kennedy's vantage point partners, was up to its eyes in 1.8 billion dollars of debt obligations.
It had lost 71.6 million dollars on its paltry 13.5 million dollars of revenue.
And so they were bailed out.
Obama's Department of Energy bailed out a Kennedy.
To the tune of 1.4 billion dollars.
From Cybercast News Service, over a year ago, Mark Calabria here, Cybercast News Service.
Over a year ago, I asked a very simple question why can't we fire failed regulators?
After all, lots of seemingly smart people had oversight of our financial markets, and regardless of whatever spin you might hear, our financial markets are and have been highly regulated.
Sadly, highly is not the same as well.
Perhaps no failure was as avoidable as that of the Bernie Madoff scheme.
After all, outside parties basically put the case together, brought it to the SEC, yet the SEC did nothing until it was far too late.
The SEC looked at Madoff and found nothing wrong.
Eventually, the Securities and Exchange Commission's human resources department said they're an outside law firm advised the agency on how to handle these regulatory failures.
Anyway, the upshot of this story is firing incompetent employees, no, that would harm our work, said the chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mary Shapiro, no, no, no.
Firing uh firing these people would harm the agency's work.
Now you would think that having incompetent employees would harm the agency's work.
And in a normal, sane non-government world, having incompetent people would harm the agency's work.
But no, at the SEC, we're told, no, no, firing incompetent employees would harm the agency's work.
So obvious incompetence is tolerated, promoted, rewarded at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I told you that I was getting all kinds of emails from people.
Who do your friends think they are?
What makes your friends the arbiters as smart?
Could they run a pizza company like Herman Cain did?
Could they run a state like Rick Perry did?
What makes your friends think they're so smart?
As I was sharing with people, the idea that I can't find an exception.
I can't think of one.
And I assume that it's probably the case with you.
How many of you people run into people you know who just you're scared to death of these upcoming debates, and all you care about is having a nominee that you think can beat Obama that at least come across as as smart as Obama.
What bothers me about it is the presumption Obama's smart.
But Obama has somehow dazzling intelligence.
Take him off a teleprompter, and it's a potential train wreck.
I've had people say when I say that to them, yeah, but he just sounds smart.
What do he does?
He just Russia just sounds smart, and the media is going to make him sound even smarter.
I know David Brooks thought the crease in his pants was smart.
All these guys think he's I just don't see it.
That's why I think we need redefined smart, and I've been saying this for years.
But it's all it's all rooted in fear.
So many people on our side think that we've got nobody that can hold their own in a debate with Obama, and furthermore, that that alone is going to determine the presidential outcome, the race.
And I don't know that there's evidence to support the debates have that much to do with who wins and who loses a presidential race.
In other words, how many minds are changed by a debate?
You might have intensity.
You got somebody who's lukewarm for a Republican candidate debate comes along and the Republican kind of doesn't do well, okay.
I don't care.
Intensity's lost.
But does it actually cause that person to go vote for Obama?
No.
And if say one of our guys skunks Obama in a debate's are going to go make some rabid Obama supporter vote for our guy.
No.
Now we're talking about the great unwash, the moderates, the independents.
See, that's where this all resides.
Yeah, and the un that's where the elections are won and lost, Rush.
And the moderates, those are the ones that pay attention to base.
They're the voters who can be moved one way or the other by virtue debate.
That's why it matters, Rush, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Thereby perpetuating this notion that all elections hinge on what the undecided do or what the moderates do.
And you know how I feel about that.
I think we just need somebody who can articulate conservatism in a proud, happy, confident way, and that'll take care of everything else.
That's awfully simplific, Mr. Limbo.
I sound simplistic to you.
It's actually not simple, obviously.
If we're that easy, more people could do it.
Brief timeout.
Lurking on the other side here.
Here's David Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Hey, good afternoon from the Sunastate, right?
Thank you very much, sir.
Yeah, uh, I really don't think, well, you may realize how much you and uh President Reagan have a hand in the uh perception that the Republican candidates are not doing so well with the debates.
Uh the thing is both of you communicate your conservative values so well, you do it with intelligence and and in a coherent manner.
Uh and when I speak of President Reagan, I'm speaking into uh speaking about him in the present tense.
I mean, you both uh you know don't waver on your convictions, you stand by your principles, but and more importantly, though, you both were able to communicate your ideas, you know, and you do it every day in a way that people can understand.
And the Republican candidates are having to compete with that rush, and you're making it really hard for him, a man, because they want to be able to communicate as well as you do.
And I think you don't I think you underestimate how many people actually listen to you every day.
I think I bet the demographics are a lot bigger.
David, you know what?
You uh this is very nice of you to say, but you're you're on to something that you may not be able to thank you for the call.
I'll expand on this.
Okay.
The guy from Tulsa, what was his first name?
You don't make a record, like if the New York State taxing authorities needed to know the name of the guy from Tulsa so that I can prove I'm here and not a New York, we'd we'd be screwed.
Okay, the guy said, and he had as far as it went a good point.
He said, look, Rush, you may not realize it.
But having these guys sound conservative next to you is next to impossible.
You've set the bar, he said you and Reagan.
You've set the bar so high for so many years that there's no way these candidates can do it.
Now I appreciate what he's trying to say.
But it only goes so far.
What he's really saying is that we don't have a genuine real conservative, such as I am a real conservative in our roster of nominees.
Because if we did, they could articulate it.
After all, conservatism is what it is.
You either feel it, know it, understand it, and can articulate it, or you can't because you're not one.
Doesn't that stand a reason?
If you are conservative at this level, I'm not talking about somebody new to the whole field of politics or even even media.
And that takes us to a very, very important point here.
The purpose of the Republican primary process for us, that is, we conservatives and Republicans is to sort through these candidates to not make excuses for them, not pretend their issues won't be raised by the Democrats and liberals if we keep them to ourselves and so forth.
There seemed to be some confusion about this.
If we act like they're all alike...
If they are all without substantive issues that concern us, then what's the point?
That's not to be confused with our intention to oppose Obama every way we can.
And to support the eventual nominee, but we can't close our minds to issues and records.
We got to look at these people, regardless of what the liberals and the liberal media say or do.
And if they can't articulate conservatism as well as I can, it doesn't mean...
I mean, I understand the bar is raised high and it's next to me.
I know what he was saying.
True.
But I know plenty of conservatives who can articulate it as well as I do.
Talk to them a lot.
But I know a lot of people that can't.
It's not because they're not articulate, it's because they're not fully conservative.
It's no more complicated than that.
One of the things we strive here is to avoid the creation of a third party.
And avoid the nomination of an establishment candidate.
We don't want that.
But we're not Republican operatives here.
We are conservatives, speaking for myself, and I assume for most of you in the audience.
Now the assumption that all Republicans seeking the presidency are all establishment types is not an assumption I accept.
You, the people, you're going to determine who the nominee is and who the nominee isn't.
But the assumption that all Republicans seeking the presidency are equal is not an assumption that I make here.
They're not.
And you're going to make this determination on who you want the nominee to be by taking their measure.
That includes looking at their records as governor, senator, speaker, congressman, businessman, what have you.
You're going to sift through it all.
Now, we know what the left is looking for.
They're looking for destroying all of them.
But this is our primary, and we're looking for a conservative.
We're looking for a winner.
We're looking for somebody to save the country.
And if we don't find somebody speaking that way, then we know they don't agree with us about the condition of the country.
And I can tell you, as I have told you, that in large pockets of Republicanism around the country.
It is not conventional wisdom that the country is in bad shape, or that we are in peril, or that the country needs to be saved from anything.
You would probably be surprised at the number of Republicans who don't think that at all.
They just want to win because they want to win.
They want the committee chairmanships in the Senate.
They want the White House.
They want to be in charge of the money.
They want the power.
And so the argument within the Republican Party is what it's always been.
There are those of us who are conservative who look at the country and the direction it's going and think that it's precarious, needs to be stopped and reversed.
Future of our kids' grandkid, grandkids, and great-grandkids, and so on.
And others who don't think that at all.
I just think it's a normal ebb and flow of politics.
And yeah, Obama's pretty bad, but not a crisis.
And there are people who think that.
So when you find somebody that uh doesn't satisfy you in articulating conservatism, the odds are it's because they aren't say as conservative as you are.
It's not that they don't know how.
It's that it's not in them.
Really isn't more complicated.
Conservatism is not that hard to explain.
I've done it for 23 years.
I did it at my CPAC speech.
Liberalism is sometimes easier.
It's just because it's all fake and phony.
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
Because all you got to do is see some suffering and cry about it and think, make people think you care and pam.
It's all you have to do.
Conservatism is difficult in one regard because so many people are posed to you, so many people are gunning for you, but it it is something that requires intellectual application.
Even though it's the way most people live their lives, the seductiveness of the opposition is uh is is easy.
Conservatism is a fairly clear-cut concept, and if you can't express it, it's probably because you don't understand it or you don't believe it.
Not that you are intellectually deficient.
I remember I made a speech to the Heritage Foundation earlier this year, down here at the Four Seasons Hotel, and the audience was a mixture of people, and there were some establishment types in that audience.
And I fired both barrels.
Conservative Foundation, Heritage Foundation is very conservative.
And I was, for the most part, among friends.
And I just launched...
And it was at the time when Trump was captivating everybody.
And of course, the establishment types are made very nervous about that because Trump, not a political politician.
He was encroaching on their turf.
And they didn't trust him, they didn't think that he was really saying what he believed, that he was he was just out for uh his own personal gain by fooling people in what he believed, but I said to the Heritage Foundation audience.
So if you want to know why Trump is so popular right now, he is the only Republican taking it to Obama.
He is the only Republican at the moment who is articulating the problems this country faces and a fixing blame in the proper place for it.
And that was the exact truth.
That was Trump's appeal.
And I remember walking off the stage when I this room was laid out the ballroom.
I didn't, you know, I had to walk parallel to the crowd to get to the door to get out of there.
And I looked to my left as I was walking.
I saw some of the establishment types there, and they were just staring daggers at me.
Two or three of them in the crowd, they were just staring daggers at me, a wicked smile on one woman's face.
So forth.
It was clear to me uh that uh there were divisions even in that room.
But the very idea that I had even defended Trump or it that I was extolling his political virtues irritated some people.
And all Trump was doing was giving a little lesson here in how it's done, and there was no mystery to me why Trump was so popular at the time.
Because compared to the rest of the field at that time, he was the only one going after Obama and identifying Obama as the problem.
He was spelling out the problem, he was spelling out the future and the peril we face if something wasn't done to fix it and stop it.
I said to the crowd, you you may have many people in the audience here who want to know why is Trump so popular.
I'll tell you why.
And I launched into what I just told you.
Because at the time I had many people asking me, what is it about Trump?
Why are people so enamored Trump?
Because there's a disconnect between uh most everybody in Washington and people outside it over the current condition and status of the country and the future and where it's headed.
Most people do not think the answer to our problems is more legislation.
Most people don't think the answer to our problems is more government, bigger government, more government involvement, more government compassion, more.
Most people abhor more of that.
Most of the people live in Washington, suburban Virginia.
Government's their business, it's their life.
The bigger the better, the more involved, the better.
More job opportunities the better.
The more money to be made, the better.
Anyway, I'm up against it here on time.
Must take a brief timeout, will continue when we get back right after this.
And we're back.
El Rush Bose serving humanity here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I meant to get to this yesterday, and it just it wasn't a priority.
It got shifted.
It's not a priority today.
Some way the last thing in the show today do it.
Uh, because I I I still want to get it done before it becomes irrelevant.
But the media in Memphis still upset with me over my giving them a little grief on the way they handle the school supper story.
And we last left it with uh with me chiding the local Memphis media for only reporting one side of the story and uh yada yada yada.
So uh I guess it's Monday night, after I had referred to him again on uh Monday show, they went into action at WMC TV Action IBO News 5, a montage of a report about me, my criticism of Memphis City School Student Supper Program, and uh you'll hear me in this and uh some some of the anchors and info babes and so forth.
Today Limbaugh called the program to feed supper to poor students a front to funnel money to the Democratic Party through union workers hired by the program, and he accused local media of hiding the true agenda.
Rent number two aired today after Rush Limbaugh's radio rant about the article last week.
Action News Five followed up with a story about Limbaugh's comments.
By Monday, Action News Five was on Limbaugh's radar when he played a montage from this report on his show.
The anchor that you hear here is uh Ursula Madden, and then there's a correspondent Anna Marie Hartman.
Limbaugh then criticizes the female correspondence.
Of course, I'm the bad guy here.
These people, now that makes three female reporters have no idea what the story is really all about.
He said no one tried to get both sides of the story.
Where are the parents?
So this is two stories now where they have not gone, as is a principle of journalism and then found an opposing point of view.
Perhaps Limbaugh failed to understand that the focus of Friday's story was him and his comments on the program.
Monday he joked about Action News Five's efforts to reach him.
We're sort of clued into who's calling when that number rings, and occasionally we do pick it up For the fun of it, and the person who does answer it is under orders just to say no.
I too made several attempts to reach Limbaugh.
Once again, that media line for the EIB network that carries his show is either busy or no one answers.
By design.
So even uh even uh yeah, Broka's able to find uh the head Chicom guy, but these people can't find me.
Anyway.
So they said, well, the story was about me, but they still didn't go out and get a second side of the story on me.
What ever?
So we decided to have a little bit more fun with this.
Now message from the Memphis City Schools.
My fellow Memphis.
Be sure to sign up your kids for the Free Supper and Midnight Snack Program at the Memphis City Schools this fall, and pick them up next May if you still recognize them.
Uh Memphis is America's fifth most obese city in the world.
But we don't have to be.
Let's go to the top of the charts with a bounce Memphis diet of barbecue pork ribs, pull pork, pork chops, banana pudding, and butter.
Yeah.
Wait, what's this?
Uh apple slices.
What the hell can we do with that?
Yeah, I know.
Uh five minutes in the microwave, uh, have a stick of butter, cinnamon sugar, and ice cream.
Yeah, sounds good.
Oh, so if you're all shook up about fixing your kid one meal a day, drop them off here at the Memphis City Schools and spin in food stamps on yourself.
Celebrity voice impression performed by celebrity voice impressionists.
President Obama is not the Messiah and did not raise Elvis from the dead.
This message brought to you by the SEIU.
Fixing breakfast, lunch, dinner, and assorted snacks for your children 24 7.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
It's uh white comedian Paul Shanklin.
Ladies and gentlemen.
It will take a brief time out.
We'll come back and close it out when we get back.
According to the General Accounting Office, ladies and gentlemen, 2008, and you know it's going to be even bigger now.
In 2008, the federal government had 18 separate food programs that spent 62 and a half billion dollars every year to feed not just the poor, but a lot of people.
So why do the scruels need to serve dinner?
Doesn't the SEIU have enough to do now?
And that's all I'm asking.
Okay, so there's gonna be a new suit, a school service, school dinner is gonna be served.
Where is anybody in the media in Memphis saying, wait a minute, is this needed?
The story was oh, how wonderful is this?
More government for our kids.
Where are the parents at home?
Anyway, more tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection