All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 1, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
December 1, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Hiya, folks, how are you?
I am Rush Limbaugh.
And when I say something, it stays said.
Great to have you here.
We never do the same show twice, but we never do the same show once, even.
Great to have you with us as we kick off a free full hours of broadcast excellence here at the EIB network and the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Really great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program is 800.
I don't know why I even give this.
Everybody knows it, and I'm not going to take a call for an hour and a half here, so why am I even bothering to take it?
Well, I might take a call sooner than an hour and a half, but okay, anyway, 800-282-2882 is the number if you want to be on the program and an email address.
We and I I read these.
I don't read all of them.
It's not possible or tens of thousands of them that roll in here, but you know, I do scan the subject line, so if you want to try to grab my attention with an email, the uh address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
On MSNBC this morning, they um they've been wringing their hands.
They're very sad.
And MS. Well, they're trying to figure out who is going to be the next level Oh, speaking, Mike, we're gonna have a uh gay community update today.
Grab grab the grab Klaus Nomi and have it standing by.
Thank you.
It's been a long time since we've had a gay community update on the program.
We're gonna we got one today.
It's coming up.
No, MSNBC they're wringing their hands over there over who is going to be the next lesbian gay bisexual transgendered leader in Congress.
Now that Barney Frank's seat is wide open.
They really they were they were worried about it.
And I all this time thought that Barney represented the fishing industry, and that they took it away from him in redistricting, and so he couldn't run anymore.
Because he's just not going to abandon the fitovit.
And now I learn that he was the leader of the lesbian gay bisexual transgender caucus.
Or it population.
Yeah, that's that's well, you you learn a lot of things.
Watching MSNBC.
The New York Times today, get this now.
The New York Times today, in an article on Barney Frank called him prickly.
And I think they probably meant that as a compliment, given that the New York Times said it.
You imagine what would happen if I described Barney Frank as prickly.
Well, I just did well, no, I'm not gonna be blamed for it.
At any rate, uh weekly jobless claims have jumped back over the 400,000 mark.
Why is anybody surprised?
Claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose last week, climbing past the psychologically important four hundred thousand mark as the jobs market showed signs of more weakness.
Weekly applications for unemployment benefits rose six thousand to a seasonally adjusted four hundred-two thousand, and this is gonna end up being four hundred and ten or twelve thousand by the time they uh revise it next week.
Applications had been below four hundred thousand for three straight weeks.
Can you imagine this is this is uh CNBC is actually AP.
But the psychologically important four hundred thousand.
Stop and think of this now.
If jobless applications are under four hundred thousand, progress, a psychological boost if applications are under four hundred thousand.
Now, if they're back over four hundred thousand now, just wait till the holiday shopping season is over when these seasonal jobs expire.
There's gonna be another unexpected jump in weekly jobless claims.
The Federal Reserve says that it is taking no risk whatsoever in lending six hundred billion dollars to Europe for now a grand total of seven point two trillion.
And you know what they also told me once that real estate values never goes down?
Yep, I've been hearing that.
I've I don't know how many times people, yeah, rush, we gotta invest in real estate, there's never gonna be any more dirt, and everybody knows real estate values never go down.
Fed says, no, there's no risk here in lending dollars to Europe.
You saw the worldwide stock markets just go nuts yesterday.
We were up what over 400 points of the Dow Jones industrial average, and all over the world stock markets were up, and everybody's folks, this happened in 2000.
Look, I'm not trying to throw cold water on anything here, but this exact thing has precedent throughout history.
Before the big crash in 1929, something like yesterday happened.
We've had these big boosts, it happened before 2008.
The thing about this is that it's been tried before, and it hasn't ever held.
And in fact, in the New York Times, banks act, stocks surge, and skeptics see a pattern.
A move announced by central bankers yesterday to contain the European debt crisis resulted in euphoria in global stock markets, but it also prompted skeptics to wonder will this time be different?
Meaning it better be, or else a disaster is right around the corner.
Why would it be different?
As the crisis is worsened over the last 18 months, pronouncements of plans to fix the Eurozone debt problems have led to more than a half dozen rallies that just as quickly withered as the proposals fell short of hopes.
Why would anything go wrong here?
Can I put in a nutshell what's being done?
I've been thinking about this.
Let me put it to you this way.
We have the president and his minions and his journalists and the rest of the Democrat Party running around citing class warfare inciting it with this one percent versus 99%.
And of course, the one percent that we're all supposed to hate are the producers.
The one percent that we are all supposed to hate are people who work.
The one percent that we're all supposed to hate are the people who are earning a living and paying taxes.
The 99% are being told they are the virtuous.
They are the decorous.
The one percent.
It seems to me that if we're gonna start hating people, we're looking in the wrong direction.
Would somebody explain to me where is the valor in sitting on your butt taking money from other people?
Where is the honor?
Where is the greatness?
Where is this entitlement that allows people to get up every day and think they are owed something because of some mysterious crime against them that's gone on all of their lives?
In Europe, the problems there exist for one primary reason.
Of course, there are a number of ancillaries, and not trying to make a sweeping generalization here.
But the problem in Europe exists because they have committed to paying people who don't do anything.
You can call it takers versus makers, people pulling the cart versus people in the cart, however you want to visualize it, but you have perpetual 15 to 18% unemployment, lifetime health care free, lifetime pensions, lifetime for doing nothing.
And then, of course, when you can't pay it anymore, and they can't.
And I don't care how much the Fed prints to loan them, at some point we're gonna burn through that.
And as long as there's no production going on anywhere, that money's gonna dry up.
And the takers keep taking.
Now who should we resent?
At whom should there be anger directed?
The producers?
The people playing by the rules?
The people getting up every day and going to work.
They are not all millionaires, much less billionaires.
It's cock eyed.
It's cockyed not just in this country but around the world, who we are supposed to consider the enemy.
I think it's it's it's it's about time here that a little honesty get involved here.
Somehow, getting up and doing nothing, somehow expecting everybody else to take care of you and pay for you is now credible,
becoming a victim of something that nobody can identify qualifies you as a discriminated against, beleaguered, put upon victim.
And you have every right to sit around and do nothing and feed off of everybody else.
I think it's it's it's plain as day.
It's right in front of everybody's face.
And I cannot, I'm not gonna stop talking about this.
In fact, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, he's got a great blog called The Best of the Web Today.
He wrote about this yesterday.
This New York Times story, this column by Thomas Edsel on Monday, where the regime, the Obama campaign, says to white working class families, we're not interested in your votes.
We don't care.
Now Taranto's point yesterday was okay, fine.
If that's an election strategic reform, why advertise it?
Why talk about it?
Why assign one of your minions to go outright and op ed about it?
In the New York Times, why get people like Limbaugh talking about this?
And frankly, it's a great point, and I, El Rushball, I must admit, I hadn't considered that angle.
And I did raise a question.
Imagine if the Republicans had done something similar.
Imagine if whoever the Republican nominee, after securing a nomination, says, you know what?
To hell with a Hispanic vote.
We don't care, we're not interested in it, we're gonna win this election without Can you imagine the hell it would rain down on the Republican Party in that nominee?
Here you've got an assigned editorial, I'm no doubt from the White House or fluff or whoever's running a campaign for Obama.
They put it in the op-ed page of the New York Times, which guarantees it gets out, guarantees it gets discussed, just like remember that picture of Hillary and Bill dancing on the beach down at the Virgin Islands somewhere.
A couple in their swimsuits a couple of weeks before the Monica Lewinsky story hit.
The picture ran in one paper.
It ran in a cover of the LA Times.
At the press briefing, somebody stands up and asks McCurry, Wah, whoa, whoa, what's the story behind that picture?
We said what picture?
That's how they got it out.
They wanted that, and they're later discovered that Bill and Hillary were dancing with no music.
The whole thing was staged, just like the rocks on the beach at Normandy.
It was all staged.
So here you have this guy Thomas Edsel.
He used to write for the Washington Post, now writes for the Huffing and Puffington Post and whatever liberal publicational have him is out there.
We're gonna win this election without white working class voters.
Why advertise it?
Why advertise that?
Well, the theory to explain it, the theory in answer to the question is that Obama is in such bad shape with his base that that's how he is going to rally them.
He is in such bad shape, they've got to roll The dice in order to secure the base.
The takers, the people who aren't doing diddly squat, the people who have been made dependent on government for everything.
He has to run against the bitter clingers, keeping his coalition of artists and professors and professor assistants, so forth.
All that intact, plus the 47% that don't pay taxes, and all the people on welfare to one degree or another.
The theory is that it's so bad you advertise that as a way of getting the minorities that make up your base locked in.
It's another example of division, of course, promoting hatred, resentment, envy, all of that.
Now you stop and think of it.
Well, I've always been saying it is.
I've thought it's stupid from the get-go.
I never did understand why I advertise it.
That was part of my incredulity.
I just never expressed it until I said Taranto wrote about it, but I never expressed it.
But that was the one thing about it that had me curious.
Aside from the act itself.
I mean, the idea that they really don't think they can win if they pursue policies that will be supported by white working class.
Imagine that.
Just by itself.
And then they go out and advertise it.
Let me take a break here, folks.
We'll be back and continue as the EIB network rolls on right after this.
Very simple for folks, and just like with the communists in the Soviet Union or the ChICOMs, the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to discourage anyone from getting anything unless it comes from the party.
The party equaling the government.
It is precisely why Barack Obama wants to eliminate all tax deductions for charitable donation.
He wants the government to take that over.
Or the party.
And lo and behold, just as if they knew what was going to be interesting to me today, there is a piece in the Wall Street Journal published by Andy Stern, who used to head up the Service Employees International Union, and has always been one of Obama's big fanboys.
The piece is entitled China's Superior Economic Model.
Mr. Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, and now Senior Fellow at Columbia University's Richmond Center.
Let me sum this up for you.
Andy Stern says capitalism and free markets have been shown not to work.
They are a fraud.
That what we need to do is to become China.
China is communist.
That's what we need to do.
Let me read you sections of it.
Andy Grove, the founder and chairman of Intel, provocatively wrote in Business Week last year that, quote, "...our fundamental economic beliefs, which we've elevated from a conviction based on observation to an unquestioned truism, is that the free market is the best of all economic systems, the freer the better." Our generation has seen the decisive victory of free market principles over planned economies.
So we stick with this belief, largely oblivious to emerging evidence that while free markets beat planned economies, there may be room for a modification that is even better.
Well, the past few weeks have proven Mr. Groves' point as our relations with the ChICOMs and that country's impact on America's future came to the forefront of American politics.
He goes on to talk about the work that he's done with the ChICOMs.
He says the conservative preferred free market fundamentalist shareholder-only model, so successful in the 20th century, is being thrown on to the trash heap of history In the 21st century.
The free market is being thrown on the trash heap in an era when countries need to be economic teams.
Team USA's results are pathetic.
A jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class, and phenomenal gains in wealth, but only for the top 1% are pathetic.
That's his review and assessment.
Mr. Stern ignores the 4.7% unemployment rate for much of the Bush years after coming out of the recession and the 9-11 attacks.
We had an economic boom and unemployment.
In fact, I remember when unemployment rose to about 5%, the media started talking.
Oh, we are in a recession.
At 5% there was panic and the Bush pollationary, oh no, they we had just it was it was a disaster.
For three years the media tried to convince everybody we were in a recession or heading to one.
And now look, the new normal is 9%, 18% real unemployment.
This guy, Daniel Hannon, who is the member of Parliament from Britain, who's on American TV, quite frankly, has written a piece called a memo to the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and he points out to them that everything that's happened in this country since 2008 is not capitalism.
Bailouts, government buying car companies, investing in phony, fraudulent green energy things.
This is not capitalism that's happened in this country in the last three years.
We haven't had any capitalism.
And the truth of the matter is that's why we're in this the situation that we're in.
We have already abandoned it with this regime.
I'm kidding you not, folks.
These people will tell us who they are and what they are on occasion, like the New York Times piece on Monday and the Obama campaign having no interest in white working class families.
Here's Andy Stern in the Wall Street Journal telling us the free market system is an abject failure.
It's had its run.
We need to be like China.
I don't know if Andy Stern is just ignorant or venal or if he's just a flat out communist.
Probably all three.
You know, John Edwards ran around and talking about the two Americas.
China is at least two countries.
You have the rich city rats and the poor country mice.
I remember my birthday in 2009.
I was a guest at the White House.
Uh lunch with the president, George Bush.
Oh, wait, it was a different occasion.
It was the previous August.
And I was invited to the White House.
And we had dinner President First Lady and I, but prior to that, he and Ed Gillespie and I went to the treaty room, which is up in the residence quarters for about an hour and a half.
And the president took me around the world, told me what was going on, the flashpoints.
When he got to China, he told me a little story.
I was talking to Hu Xin Tao.
And I said, Who?
When you get up every day, what's the biggest challenge you've got?
And the president of China said, I have to keep my peasants in the country.
If my peasants flood the cities, I lose control of them.
I don't have the jobs in the cities for them.
I have got to keep them where they are.
Plus, I have to create 25 million jobs a year.
But I can't let the peasants over this what the president of the United States told me.
That the Chicoms would not survive if every peasant tried to get into a city for a job because they just weren't there.
So now, as it turns out, you have to have a green card to move from the country to the city, and they are almost impossible to get.
The Chinese peasants are almost as poor as they ever have been.
The rich in China, for the most part, the really rich that that would be rich in the sense that you and I think of rich are trying to leave because they are targets.
No wonder Andy Stern loves this system.
But the rich in China, for the most part, live lives that the worst of our poor would reject.
And I am not exaggerating.
China is not a dreamland.
China is a command and control economy.
Now, Andy Stern has a BA in education and urban planning, 1971.
One of the fields of study that China that he looked into is that China is probably going to ban in their colleges this kind of thing, urban planning.
They don't want anybody to know how to do it.
One example of Andy Stern's success.
In fact, it's it's what made him famous and got him into the leadership of the SEIU.
The SEIU started out in New York City at the turn of the century, the last century, representing doormen and superintendents, janitors and so forth in New York City buildings.
In the 1980s and early 90s, he started a program called Justice for Janitors.
He radicalized those kinds of workers in New York City and Los Angeles who went on strike and stormed meetings and used all kinds of a Linsky-like radical tactics.
Now there are almost no supers in New York City buildings.
They're gone.
They used to get an apartment and nice salary.
Now the building just hire illegals to do their work in many cases.
But you want to go back to China.
China has probably the highest income disparity in the entire world.
Poverty in China is defined as somebody earning less than a dollar and a quarter a day.
You know how poverty in this country is defined.
29,500 for a family of four.
Now, this piece, China's superior economic model, is one that we know Obama shares.
Obama references China all the time during the Olympics.
Obama would constantly talk about you see all that urban renewal they did, you see all that infrastructure they were able to do.
He has said on more than one occasion, gosh, I can for the president of China I could just wave my right hand and get anything done, but I'd have to go through a Congress here.
He's only half joking.
He's only half joking.
You remember the story of uh Lincoln Stephens?
Lincoln Stephens said in 1919 he had just returned to America from a tour of Russia during the revolution.
He said, I have seen the future.
And it works.
Lincoln Stephens was a journalist.
Lincoln Stephens was a liberal journalist.
He was independently wealthy.
He was educated.
He was a journalist in the early 1900s, and he loved communism.
And he comes back to America from seeing the Russian Revolution and says, I have seen the future and it works.
The irony, of course, is beyond the fact that it didn't work, was that Lincoln Stephens repeated the quote often during his campaign throughout the United States for food aid to Russia.
This guy goes to Russia, a journalist, an independently wealthy, educated journalist, goes to Russia during the revolution, comes home and says, I have seen the future and it works.
By the way, we need food aid for Russia.
Americans must band together and donate food for Russians.
Wait a minute.
I thought the system worked.
Thought you'd seen the future.
And it works.
So he had come to the presumably non working past, the United States.
He goes to Russia, comes back to the United States, which is the past, not the future.
And of course, that's not working.
China, that's the future.
That's why Russia, that's the future, that's what's working.
So he comes back to beg for food produced by a country he considers to be in the past and failing to be sent to the future, Russia, that he said he had seen and it was working.
The only problem was he said they couldn't figure out yet how to feed their citizens.
But I've seen the future and it works.
I've seen communism, and that's the way to go.
I've seen it, but they just they can't figure out how to feed their people.
And right there you, and there are countless other examples of this.
Neville Chamberlain in his own way.
And then, of course, well, I'm drawing a mental blank on the uh New York Times reporter who buried the details of Stalin's famine.
Yeah, you got a Pulitzer for it.
It's uh Walter something or other.
I can't remember his name or but this guy went back, he he saw the Soviet Durante was his name, and he went, he saw the Soviet Union, he saw it, and he lied about it.
He got a Pulitzer Prize for lying about what was I can't believe how history repeats it was just 1989 and 90, the Berlin Wall comes down.
It was not that long ago that we thought we had defeated state communism with Soviet state communism, and now look where we are.
I don't mean to sound hysterical here, but this has been an incredible week, folks, for what the regime is willing to admit to here.
Andy Stern is Obama.
I think Andy Stern for the longest time held the record for most oval office visits, and he still might.
Occupy Wall Street.
I had no doubt in my mind.
Occupy Wall Street, one of the reasons it's falling apart is because of the Republican nomination campaign.
Obama was in New York yesterday to have fundraiser.
By the way, I'm a little jealous.
A hundred Occupy people showed up at Obama's fundraiser.
They think he's sold out now.
Because Obama's raising money with the one percent.
They feel betrayed.
I only got 15 of these rag of muffins on Tuesday night at Town Hall.
Obama gets hundred of them.
Well, that's true it was raining in mine.
And these people are afraid of water.
They love urine, but they're afraid of what.
At any rate.
They're out there wearing Guy Fawkes masks.
I mean, they really they feel betrayed, Obama start, because he's raising money from the one percent.
Uh so they're they're wandering aimlessly through the uh through the bowels of Manhattan, trying to figure out what happened to their movement.
I am convinced, I'm convinced that the Occupy Wall Street movement's Obama creation to destroy Romney.
I think they like everybody else, in assuming Romney's gonna be the nominee.
Romney is Wall Street, they can make the connection with Bain Capitol.
Romney loves to talk around, talk about how he was a big private sector expert, that he's not been a big government guy.
And I think that uh now that the nomination is not apparently Romney's sewn up, then there's a little confusion here.
It's not, it's not falling out the way the regime intended.
Nothing is.
But folks, this is these two stories, and I'm I'm sorry to if you think I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm really not.
They are instructive as they can be.
They are they're informative, educational as they can be.
The op-ed in the New York Times on Monday.
Obama abandoned, we don't want the votes of white working class families.
And now a guy who visited the White House by by October of 2000, figure this now.
By October of 2009, not even a full year.
This number can't be right.
481 times.
There's not even 365 days in a year.
This guy couldn't have been it.
Um whatever, he has set the record.
He's been to the White House, Andy Stern has hundreds of times.
He's no doubt involved in strategic.
And I write a piece.
And it's this is a sentiment that every leftist worth his salt has said from Walter Durante to all these other romantics who go and find communist countries that There's the future.
We've seen it.
It works, except it never has.
And like I said, Daniel Hannon in a memo to the Occupy Wall Street crowd points out.
Hey, you know, you idiots.
He doesn't say those are my words.
You idiots running around Occupy Wall Street protesting all this stuff, have no idea what you are talking about.
You are not protesting capitalism, or you are, but capitalism is not what's happened in the last three years in the United States.
What's happened in the United States is not capitalism.
Bailing out banks, bailing out automobile companies, all of the things that you have seen is not capital.
And he's exactly right.
Capitalism is not what's happening in this country.
And here come these Occupy Wall Street people, and who knows how many others in dire economic circumstances who think the problem is free markets.
Because that's what they believe this country is engaged in now.
When of course the word free and Obama simply can't peacefully coexist in the same sentence.
What Andy Stern calls an economic model is actually a political philosophy that makes the individual subservient to the state.
Now here we finally reached a point here, ladies and gentlemen.
And this is something I have been warning you people about for two plus decades.
Liberals are comfortable citing communism as the end game.
He proudly, he's singing the tune.
He's singing the hymn.
It's in the Wall Street Journal.
We need to become communist.
They have been doing it and saying it for two plus decades.
This is progress to people like Barack Obama and Andy Stern, and this is why Obama does want a second term.
I don't buy this notion that he's not interested.
So the progressives, because of the panic that they're in, finally being honest here, movement towards an all-powerful, centralized state government unencumbered by a constitution, unencumbered by a bill of rights, unencumbered by separation of powers.
This is what Andy Stern's saying.
Screw a constitution.
Screw limits on the grand Puba leader.
We need us, the smart people, able to move mountains with a wave of our wand.
So what we are we're in the process here of defining, folks, the larger purpose of the 2012 elections.
It isn't just Barack Obama versus a generic Republican.
This election is about remaining a free people.
This election is about the individual versus the state.
This upcoming election is about the public sector versus the private sector.
This upcoming election is about state control of property versus individuals controlling their own private property.
This is an election of the makers versus the takers.
And what hangs in the balance really is the American way of life.
These people, Andy Stern, Barack Obama, their cronies, are on the verge of rendering the American revolution null and void.
And the regime's minions know it.
They're one election away from remaking America.
Obama's even said it.
We've got the soundbite coming up here somewhere.
Telling these people of the Occupy crowd, hey, it's worse than I thought.
I need four more years.
You've got to give me four more years to make sure that my health care plan is fully implemented.
Four more years to finish the job.
Four more years to finish them off.
Well, Snerdley's in there laughing.
But I'm telling you, this is how I see it.
Four more years to finish the job, four more years to fully implement Obamacare.
What's so important about that?
Because that's ballgame.
Look at this Daniel Hammond piece.
It ran...
At the telegraph, UK telegraph.com.
What happened since 2008 is not capitalism.
In a capitalist system, bad banks would have been allowed to fail.
Their profitable operations bought by more efficient competitors.
Shareholders, bondholders, and some depositors would have lost money, but the taxpayers would not have contributed a penny.
Those of us who believe in small government are not motivated by the desire to make the rich richer.
We're really not.
We're nowhere near having to pay top rate taxes ourselves.
Most of us, our most eloquent champions over the years, have been modestly paid academics.
We believe that economic freedom will enrich the country as a whole.
This is in Hannon's memo to the Occupy people.
He's just talking, you know, deaf ears.
Trying to explain conservatism to them.
They're not listening.
They don't care to know.
That would require work.
Ladies and gentlemen, sad news out of Chicago.
What's this?
Sharon Bialik has been evicted from her apartment, from her house.
Sheriff's deputies served the papers on Sharon Bayalick's 13 year old son.
She wasn't at home.
What about all these boyfriends and husbands and fiancees and so forth?
▲
Export Selection