All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:32
November 22, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings, my friends, and welcome, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, all the rest of just conversation.
We are what matters here, and we are happy.
Thrilled and delighted to have you with us.
As we always are.
This is such an honor.
And it has been for now over 23 big years.
I always always start getting sentimental as we uh get to the holiday season.
Always it always makes me turn into Mr. Softy.
And it's a great feeling.
It really is.
And I uh we got a lot of things that we're fighting and uh trying to preserve and hold on to, and then and the uh the onset of the holiday season is just an added reminder wise.
So we're happy to have you here, happy to be with you.
Telephone number.
If you want to be on the program is 800-282-288-2, the email address.com.
Folks, I have to tell you something.
Uh we got another Republican debate tonight.
It's uh sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.
It's gonna be moderated by Wolf Blitzer.
CNN.
It's gonna be broadcast by CNN.
It's a Heritage Foundation debate on Ford and Polity.
And from what I'm told, old Wolf is out there preparing a response to Newt Gingrich if Newt chides him for the way he's conducting things as the moderator.
You know, Newt's been going after the media in these debates, and uh media's been sort of flat footed at the time of the attack, and they wait a later that night or the next day, formulate their response.
Wolf is prepping.
Wolf is rehearsing from what I'm being told.
Wolf Blitzer is rehearsing various retorts to Newt Gingrich, and uh he and his staff are trying to think of various things that Newt might say to insult them so as to be prepared, sort of like preparing for hecklers uh if uh if you do that.
That's what Wolf is doing uh to get ready for the No, I I don't I don't know why they can't find some conservative to moderate one of these debates.
I mean, that's that's one of these rhetorical questions that doesn't have an answer.
But if you're gonna have CNN broadcasted, why do you expect to have a conservative moderating it?
Seems to be a misplaced expectation.
Anyways, I'm watching all this.
I I keep asking, I'm not rhetorical questions here, but I still I still want to ask them.
When will the media do an anal exam of Obama?
Every second and third tier, Republican candidate gets an anal exam, a media anal exam.
We know about their marriages.
We know about their friends.
We know about their enemies.
We learn about their barmaids and their floosies.
We know everything about their kids.
We know about their grades, you name it.
We're told everything that we want to know or don't want to know and more about every Republican.
And as a Republican matriculates to the top of the heap, the anal probe gets even deeper.
But yet, we know nothing.
We're coming up on three years of the Obama regime, and we know nothing about Obama beyond what has had to be pulled from the tightest of closed circles.
We don't know what his grades were in college and law school, and we're told not to worry about it.
He's smart, he's intelligent, he's smarter than all the rest of us anyway, so it doesn't matter what his grades are.
We don't know who his girlfriends were.
We don't have people from his past popping up and telling everybody how inspired Obama was.
Uh what a difference he made in their I mean he taught law.
He taught constitu well, he taught he taught uh Winsky Law at the University of Chicago, but we still we don't have any students that had popped up and talked about how inspiring Obama was, or what Obama taught them about life, or how Obama prepared them for the rigors of life.
Well, many of this.
As far as we know, nobody knew the guy at any stage of his life.
And in fact, what we do know that he was introduced to politics in the living room of Bill Ayers' house is downplayed.
No, that was just a guy in the neighborhood.
We know actually very little about his father and mother.
We know that he has a brother who to this day still lives at a six by nine foot hut.
In Kenya, even after three years of Obama's presidency.
But we know this because of our own efforts.
There has not been any vetting.
There is not, and there won't be any vetting.
We know very little about his associates and friends when he was a community organizer beyond uh Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
Bernadine Dorn, that's it.
Based on what we've been told, based upon all the efforts the media have made to vet this guy, he basically has lived the life of a hermit.
He didn't know anybody.
Nobody knew him, never had any girlfriends, never had any boyfriends, never had any guys he went to the ballgame with.
We don't know who he had a beer with now and then.
We don't even know if he drank beer.
We don't know where he got Michelle's wedding ring.
We do know that he had a shady land deal involved in getting him his house with uh with Tony Rezco.
How come?
I know these are rhetorical questions, but it's it's it's still to me something that needs to be raised.
How come we know that Newt Gingrich spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his wife's jewelry, paid for it with his own money, by the way, which apparently is a crime at Tiffany.
We do not know what Obama spends on Michelle's designer clothes, her designer purses, her lavish jewelry.
We are left to assume we do know that Michelle spends taxpayer dollars like no first lady ever has before.
You want to talk about Nancy Reagan in China for the White House, at least it stayed there when she left.
Here's Mrs. Obama heading off to Martha's Vineyard four hours before her husband as she dies, decides to grab her friends and family and kids and so forth on her own government paid for Boeing 757 and flies off to the vacation hideaway four hours before her husband gets on his 747 with his entourage.
We know that hasn't happened before, but we know that people that can do that without shame, without any conscience, without any remorse, basically have no respect for the people who are paying for this.
Seriously, you're gonna go four hours before your husband, so you don't just call up the Air Force.
I need my 757.
I'm not waiting for Barack.
And the kids were not waiting for Barack.
And my mother, we're not waiting for Barack.
We're getting out of here now.
Have the 757 ready.
Okay, fine.
Four hours later, the 740s both 747s, as they both fly when the president goes somewhere.
One's a backup, one's a decoy, but they're both there.
So three airplanes to get whatever number of people.
So we know that spending money is not a problem.
Spending other people's money isn't a problem.
But we have to figure this out on our own.
There's no scrutiny of this.
And there certainly isn't any disapproval of it in the drive-by media.
You have to ask yourself Laura Bush had tried this?
If Barbara Bush had tried this, or grab the family and head off to Spain for 15 days.
Taking your Boeing 757 again.
It'd be editorials asking about who's going to pay for this.
What are the what does it look like on their tax returns?
You know, all of those kinds of questions.
Well, we know every dime Newt Gingrich spends on his wife.
And we're also told to be suspicious of that, that somehow there's something that we should distrust about a guy who Spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on jewelry for his wife.
That something smells there, Mr. Limbaugh, as the media would have us believe when they report it.
What's the crime there?
I don't know how they got the records, but but they did.
They found out about it.
The media, they looked.
They're doing the anal exam.
That's why they found out about it.
Who cares how?
They did it.
But the point is they're not doing any of this with Obama.
None of it.
This is my whole point.
Now we've got endless talk about Newt Gingrich, his company being paid by either Fanny or Freddie for contract work.
It was a consultant.
It is a historian, gave him advice, whatever it was.
Yet Obama protects Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack from financial oversight by exempting them from Dodd Frank.
Which is more important?
Which is more important to understand.
So Newt's like everybody else in Washington gets paid a little bit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, or one of the two, I don't know which.
And yet the president of the United States exempts them from any financial regulatory reform when they are the epicenter of the scandal, and they're exempted by the president of the United States, and we know that the nightly news or the meet the press anchor's wife is a lawyer at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
We know all of this incestuous stuff goes on with the liberal Democrats and the media and all these inside the beltway establishments and traditions, but nobody does any work on this.
Nobody does any vetting.
This is all stuff we find out on our own.
Why did Obama exempt them?
Why did Obama exempt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack?
And expose the taxpayers to tens of billions more in subsidies to keep them going.
Which is the cause of greater concern here?
And now Herman Cain.
Herman Cain said to be too dumb to be president because of his foreign policy statements, or because of a pause in answering a question about Libya.
Or he's too dumb because of his lack of experience.
All right, fine.
Can somebody tell me in one or two sentences what Obama's foreign policy doctrine is?
I'm serious.
Can anybody call this program at 800-282-2882 and tell me what Obama's foreign policy is?
What is the guiding principle of Obama's foreign policy?
What are our nation's objectives in Obama's foreign policy?
Does anybody have the slightest clue?
Why then is there this broad assumption Obama is Mr. Mensah?
Is Mr. Brilliant when it comes to foreign policy?
We're losing the Middle East under his watch.
The Middle East is being transformed, being led by the Muslim Brotherhood, or a military combination of the two.
And the target of the reforms in the Middle East is our one ally, Israel.
But yet we got a smart guy in the White House.
Sharp crease in his pants, very smart guy.
Nobody's got the guts to debate this guy.
He's just too smart.
How do we know this?
Everything about Obama is an assumption.
Our economy, our domestic economy is suffering in part because of the unpredictability of the Obama regime, both domestically and in the area of foreign policy.
Our foreign policy suffers from the unpredictability of the Obama regime.
There's a pattern here.
Nobody knows what the Obama doctrine is.
Nobody knows.
Nobody knows what the rules are going to be, but everybody has a suspicion, which is why they're sitting on all their assets.
Everybody has this sensation that they, if they have anything, are targets.
But there's no vetting.
There's no expose.
There's no curiosity.
There's no digging.
Literally no curiosity whatsoever about what might it be that animates Obama domestic policy.
Foreign policy.
I'm serious.
What is the Obama doctrine in foreign policy?
Even our so-called commentators on our side will go out and happily and with ease declare that Herman Cain is stupid and unfit.
But denounce Obama and his actual record?
Nope, nope, not going to go there.
Obama's a smart guy.
Obama's one of us.
He's got the same brain, got the same pedigree that we have.
I say Michelle Obama, Michelle Bachman.
Michelle Bachman is said not to be a serious candidate for president.
Why?
I think she's ripe for a rebirth.
Think Michelle Bachman is somebody.
Do you have any doubt that if Michelle Bachman were elected president, she'd be fighting for this country each and every day?
Do you have any doubt that Michelle Bachman would be doing everything in her power to return this country to a path of greatness?
Does anybody have any doubt?
I don't.
I have no doubt whatsoever where Michelle Bachman's heart is.
She is consistent as a conservative.
She is strong as a conservative.
She has shown herself to have courage and leadership qualities.
She is one of anybody on that Republican dais.
You compare Michelle Bachman's life experiences to Obama, and how can it be said that she is not up to the job after the job he has done wrecking this country?
How can it be said that she or Herman Cain or any one of our candidates is not up to the job when the alternative is a one-man wrecking crew named Barack Obama?
How can it be said?
She's smart.
She's not seeking fundamental transformation of our country.
She wants to uphold the country and the Constitution.
She's dismissed, though.
She's made by the liberal media to look foolish, not ready for the job.
And of course, our so-called commentators join in with this nonsense.
Nah, she's not ready, Michelle Bachmann not ready.
Santorum, he's more fit to be president than Obama ever could have dreamed to be.
His knowledge of foreign policy is second to none, so they attack him on social issues.
He's too extreme.
His uh positions are mainstream Catholic positions.
Nancy Pelosi says Catholics have a conscience problem.
And she is not the problem.
How can that be?
Welcome back, Rush Lindbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
So the inside the Beltway crowd still wringing its hands today over the fact that there was no budget deal.
The supercommittee failed to come to an agreement.
And I'm blue in the face telling you that it behaved exactly as it was supposed to behave.
It ended up doing exactly what it was supposed to do, and you're blue in the face hearing it.
They were not supposed to come to an agreement.
There was not supposed to be any kind of a deal.
And lo and behold, Obama held a five-minute press availability today.
What did he do?
He went on to blame the Republicans.
Mission accomplished.
That was the whole point of this.
Do nothing Congress, a super committee, couldn't even come up with budget cuts and tax increases that won't be implemented even till 2013.
Couldn't even do that.
And right on cue, there's Obama in front of the microphones and the cameras this morning.
It's uh blaming the Republicans for it.
According to Politico, Harry Reid's big contribution to the process was this.
In the thick of the negotiations, Harry Reed visited Ted Kennedy's grave in Arlington National Cemetery with former Senator Chris Dodd.
Snerdley, I want you to listen to this.
Tap him on the shoulder and listen to this.
During the thick of negotiations, Snerdley's screening calls right now, and he doesn't listen to the show when that one you to hear this people call about it.
During the thick of the negotiations, Dingy Harry decided to have a Hillary Clinton Eleanor Roosevelt moment.
He took Chris Dodd, they went to Arlington National Cemetery.
They wanted to commune with Senator Kennedy over what was happening.
Chris Dodd poured some whiskey on Kennedy's grave while Dingy Harry recited a prayer.
I kid you not, this is reported in the political.
The only thing missing was a waitress.
Lying down on the grave with Chris Dodd then lying down or laying down on top of the waitress.
Sort of a post-mortem.
Dodd Kennedy waitress sandwich.
So Dodd's pouring whiskey on the grave.
Dingy Harry is reciting a prayer.
Harry Reed told this story to some lobbyists.
There were witnesses.
That's how the politico knows about it.
These are the kind of people that we're dealing with.
These are the leaders, the Foundation.
These are the statesmen.
Seeking guidance, go to the grave, Senator Kennedy at Arlington.
Pour some whiskey on the grave while reciting a poem.
In the thick negotiations.
And we know this again because Harry Reed bragged about doing this to a bunch of lobbyists to show them how committed he was to the process.
Kid you not.
Economic growth, by the way, just as we predicted, was revised downward.
Last quarter's only 2%.
We'll be back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone.
The U.S. economy, and we predicted this, and you probably instinctively knew it as well.
The U.S. economy grew at a slightly slower pace than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending for the iPhone.
Strengthened views output would uh pick up in the second and the current quarter.
That is horribly written.
You know, I I can't tell you the number of typos, grammatical mistakes, just flat out errors that now appear in what are supposedly solid journalistic websites.
This is a CNBC website, and that's the most horribly constructed sentence I have seen in a long time, at least since yesterday.
The bottom line here is that everybody was having an orgasm last month when the GDP was announced at 2.5%.
Remember that?
And we told you to be revised downward once uh further information was discovered.
And lo and behold, it has been revised downward.
Economic growth just 2%, well below the earlier estimate.
Now let me try this lead sentence again.
The U.S. economy grew at a slightly slower pace than previously estimated in the third quarter, but weak inventory accumulation amid sturdy consumer spending, strengthened views.
There should be a that in there or a comma.
Strengthened views that output would pick up in the current quarter.
But they're hoping and praying.
There's no in there's no there's no solid basis for saying that.
Gross domestic product grew at a 2.0% annual rate in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate today, down from the previously estimated two and a half percent.
The revision was below economists' expectations for a 2.5% growth pace.
The composition of the GDP report, especially still firm consumer spending, and the first drop in business inventory since the fourth quarter of 2009 set the platform for a stronger economic performance this quarter.
They hope, they pray, they wish.
But there's no indication of it.
So most of this article tries to make the case that this revision doesn't mean anything.
Good times just around the corner, folks.
I'm not going to waste my time analyzing hope and change when the moral of this story is don't trust the state controlled media or government agencies feeding them misinformation when they're first reported.
Be it unemployment numbers, be it unemployment compensation requests, applications, whatever it's all going to be revised.
What we know is that we were misled.
We were told by the regime that GDP was roaring back at 2.5%, and it wasn't so.
What we have here is a 20% error.
Try going to work 20% late.
Try underpaying your rent or your mortgage by 20%.
Try underpaying your taxes by 20%.
See how far you get.
But anymore, you can't trust anything coming out of the regime.
These government produced numbers don't mean anything.
Unemployment numbers are at least 20% off.
Which seems to be an acceptable margin of error for public servants.
Yeah, maybe we can only pay 80% of our taxes and call it even.
From the weekly standard, a story here by Jeff Anderson, Gallup, perhaps the most competitive, most unpredictable Republican race in 40 years.
Latest Gallup poll of registered Republican and Republican leaning voters.
Shows Newt Gingrich in first place in the race for the GOP nomination, edging Mitt Romney by one point.
It's 22 to 21% in Gallup.
These polls are all over the place.
Some polls show there's a poll out today that shows uh Romney up uh, I forget 20 or 30 in New Hampshire.
I don't know what the poll is.
I don't remember it.
I didn't read it long enough.
It happened at a time of the day, or if I can't grab it in the first sentence, I don't have time for the rest of it.
But I do know it's 20 or 30% that Romney's up in this particular poll.
Don't know what the poll is.
Gallup poll has nude up 2221 nationally, Herman Cain in third place, 16%, followed by Ron Paul at 9, Rick Perry at 8, Michelle Bachman at 4, Huntsman and Santorum at 1% each.
Also, uh, Gingrich has now moved into first place in the real clear politics average of recent polling.
Uh Real Clear Politics averages a whole bunch of different polls out there for their rolling average, and Newt leads it.
Since early October, Gingrich is up 15 points in Gallup polling, making him the only Republican presidential candidate whose support has increased significantly over that span of time.
Now, based on these latest results, Gallup writes that quote the current contest stands to be the most competitive and perhaps most unpredictable for the Republican nomination since 1972, when the parties shifted to power to choose their nominees away from party leaders at the convention to rank and file voters in state primaries in Cockeye.
Now, why is this?
All of a sudden we get a story from Gallup saying, man, this is the most competitive, most unpredictable Republican race in 40 years, and yet the conventional wisdom is that Romney's the nominee and all the rest of this is academic.
So which is it?
Or could it be both?
Could it be unpredictable and the most competitive with Romney ending up as the slam dunk?
I don't I know those two things seem contradictory.
But if it's so competitive, why is it so competitive, do you think?
And do you get the impression that it is?
When you hear me tell you that Gallup says that the current contest is the most competitive since 1972, does that reflect the way you look at it?
Or are you out there thinking like the conventional wisdom is that it's over, that Romney's the nominee, just a matter of time.
The primaries are academic.
We have to have them.
We gotta do them, but everybody knows it's gonna be Romney.
I can't tell you how widespread that conventional wisdom is, and yet here's Gallup saying, no, no, no, most competitive.
I'll tell you why.
If it's true, If it's true that it is the most competitive and unpredictable Republican race since 1972, it is for one reason, and that reason is that conservatives throughout the country are not rolling over and letting the Republican Party insiders pick another dud candidate.
We might still end up with one, and I'm not naming any names.
We still might end up with one.
But at least for now, conservatives are still in the fight.
And that's why Gallup is calling this unpredictable.
They're calling it unpredictable because of their own poll results.
They're out there polling people and they're hearing people.
Conservatives and Republicans answer their polling questions.
Gallup is concluding, whoa, Nelly, this thing isn't settled by a long shot.
And that's what they're reporting.
And if this is accurate, it's simply because conservatives are not rolling over.
I want to read to you a headline.
This is from the smoking gun.com.
Sturdley, I want you to listen to this.
Cops called to Florida grade school after girl kisses boy in gym.
Whoa.
Let me read that to you again.
Cops called to Florida grade school after girl kisses boy in gym.
Do you realize how abnormal that sounds?
Given the kind of news that's reported lately.
A girl kissed a boy in a gym.
And it's so abnormal a cops were called.
A sheriff's deputy was dispatched last week to a Florida elementary school after a girl kissed a boy during a physical education class.
School brass actually reported the impromptu kiss as a possible sex crime.
According to the Lee County Sheriff's Office, the assistant principal of Orange River Elementary School called in the police after a teacher spotted the kiss.
It happened Wednesday at the Fort Myers School.
In fact, Margaret Ann Harling, 56, the teacher, initially called child welfare officials who directed her to contact the sheriff.
The kiss apparently occurred after two girls debated over whom the boy liked more.
That's when one of the girls went over and kissed the boy.
This makes news.
Girl kisses boy in junior high.
And it stops everything.
As though this is the most abnormal thing that has happened in a long time.
A boy kissing a boy, no big deal.
Girl kissing a girl, no big deal.
Teacher kissing a student, eh, no big deal.
Deal with it in time.
But a girl kissed a boy.
We will not have that.
Stop it.
What?
I'm just telling you here.
Can you believe this?
Something normal happens and we call the cops.
Something abnormal, perverted happens, and it's ho-hum.
Let's not go there.
We don't really know what's going on.
We're not, but a girl kisses a boy and we stop everything.
We call the cops.
The cops come out.
It's a possible sex crime.
A girl kissing a boy.
Who knew such things happened?
Cops called to Florida grade school after girl kisses boy in gym.
I I that is as normal as things ever used to be, and they call the cops for that.
The cops were not called at Penn State.
Remember, that's what that's all about at Penn State.
The cops were not called at Penn State.
This has been my point all along, thank you, about the elephant in the room that nobody's got the guts to talk about.
Nobody called the cops at Penn State.
After witnessing Numerous rapes of young boys by this assistant coach.
Girl kisses boy in a middle school in Florida, and they drop everything call a cops, and a fifty-six year old teacher calls it a sex crime.
From the Los Angeles Times.
A teenager who fatally shot a gay classmate in the back of the head during an Oxnard Middle School computer lab will spend twenty-one years in prison under a plea deal reached yesterday, closing the books on a case that drew international headlines and ignited debate on how scruels should handle sexual identity issues.
Brandon McInerney, who was fourteen when he pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot Larry King two times at point blank range, will be kept behind bars until he's 38 under terms of the deal struck by Ventura County prosecutors.
In an unusual arrangement, the 17 year old pleaded guilty to second degree and voluntary manslaughter.
In return, prosecutors agreed not to go forward with a second trial, which would have resulted in a life sentence.
Okay.
So what happened here?
Well, the family of the victim, Larry King, broke their silence on the case outside court Monday, saying that they supported the sentence, but they believed scruel officials hold deep responsibility for what happened.
The victim's mother, Dawn King, revealed for the first time Monday she had contacted Scruwel officials four days before the shooting of her son in an effort to solicit their cooperation in toning down her son's behavior.
Her son, Larry King, who was shot to death at point blank range, had been taken from the king's home two months earlier by authorities because of problems at home.
She said she was told that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.
What was he doing?
He was showing up in school dressed as a woman, was wearing dresses.
He was bothering the other boys.
His mother called the school.
She was worried about her son's behavior.
She asked the school to keep a sharp eye out for him.
That she was worried that his behavior was going to cause something unfortunate to happen to him.
We're talking fourteen and fifteen, sixteen-year-olds here.
Her son dresses up as a woman, goes to school and starts lavishing attention on other boys.
When she told Scruel officials about this, she says again that Scrual officials told her that there was nothing they could do.
That her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.
Meaning he had a right to come to school dressed as a girl.
He had a right to come to school dressed in female attires, wearing dresses.
He had a right to explore whether or not he was a woman in a boy's buddy.
He had the right to explore whether at some point he was going to need a choppadick off of me operation.
The boy's mother said, I knew gut instincts something serious was going to happen.
They should have consta they should have contained him.
They should have contained his behavior.
They should have done meaning school officials.
I'm reading to you from an account, this story in yesterday's Los Angeles Times.
In case you're wondering about the source.
Prosecutors said the first trial showed that the case was too emotional to take to trial a second time.
First jury unable to keep their emotions out of it, said Ventura County chief deputy district attorney Mike Frawley.
This really tugged powerfully at people's hearts.
During the first trial, prosecutors portrayed the shooter, this McInerney kid, as a budding white supremacist who hated homosexuals and was enraged by Larry King's sexuality and aggressive flirtations while wearing dresses.
This is exactly the kind of behavior the the dead kid's mother asked the school officials to keep a sharp eye on and then try to constrain.
She apparently had lost control of her son.
Son had been taken away from her for whatever reason.
So she said, Look, I've I really am worried something's gonna happen here.
We're dealing with kids, and uh would you would you please keep a sharp eye?
And the school said, No, sorry, madam.
Uh your son has a civil right to explore his sexual identity.
If he wants to come to school wearing dresses and proposition uh boy students, nothing we can do.
But returning to Florida, you let a girl kiss a boy.
And we are damn well gonna call a copse.
Barney Frank, uh ladies and gentlemen, says that some members of Congress are vegetables.
Barney Frank slammed Republican members of Congress for including a measure that blocks stringent school meal standards in classifying tomato paste on pizza as a vegetable.
I think the answer is that there are some members of Congress who are vegetables, and they were easily influenced to vote for it.
▲
Export Selection