All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 13, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:10
December 13, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Uh audio sound bites uh get number 14 standing by and in order from there.
I am Dingy Harry needs to come under our microscope a little bit with some of the things that he's doing out there.
Great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushboard, EIB net.com.
Before you get to Sunbite 14, grab number 22.
Just got this.
We're going back to our archives.
Mitt Romney, who an amazing admission in Politico today.
That everybody knows elections are won with independence.
And I'm not going to sit out here as a Republican and offer up a bunch of bombass and red meat.
That's not who I am, and that's not what wins.
And so if you want Newton, you want that kind of talk, fine and dandy, and that's not me.
Confirming what I've always said about the Republican establishment, that there's that they think conservatism causes people to run over to the Marxists and the Socialists.
2002 in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Worcester, for those of you in Rio Linda.
After a campaign event, gubernatorial candidate, Mitt Romney, spoke to reporters.
Running for Governor Massachusetts, understand that?
But nevertheless.
Mitt Romney speaking to reporters about his views.
I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate and that my views are progressive.
And so they're going to vote for me regardless of the party label.
Running for Governor Massachusetts.
Rush, why are you doing this?
Why are that that that's that's like nine years ago?
I'll uh just said what he's got to do to win the Republican primary and win be elected presidents be a moderate, basically.
And you've been asking me why I say some of you that he's not as conservative as I would like.
Now this National Transportation Safety Board thing.
States should ban all driver use of cell phones and other portable electronic devices except in emergencies.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board.
Recommendation unanimously agreed to by the five-member board, applies to both hands-free and handheld phones, and significantly exceeds any existing state laws restricting texting and cell phone use behind the wheel.
The board made the recommendation of connection with a deadly highway pileup in Missouri last year.
The board said the initial collision in the accident near Gray Summit, Missouri was caused by the inattention of a 19-year-old pickup driver who sent or received eleven text messages in 11 minutes immediately before the crash.
The pickup truck traveling at 55 collided in the back of a tractor truck that had slowed for highway construction.
The pickup was rear-ended by a screw bus that overrode the smaller vehicle.
You know, why not suggest heavier cars?
Why not heavier cars?
Well, you can't ban 19-year-olds from driving.
You can't do that.
You know, I think there's an easy solution to this.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Am I serious?
Yeah.
I mean uh um one thing here.
Well, no, it doesn't.
Heavier cars save people.
But no, that's not the solution.
I mean, I I wouldn't oppose that.
Heavier cars.
Of course, it's not where we're headed here, but you know, I never did text while driving.
Just didn't do it.
It's too distracting.
There's just no way.
But I do now because I can dictate it.
Don't have to type a character.
Don't have to type, just can dictate it and be done with it.
All you gotta do is hit the send button.
And even you don't even do that if you don't want to.
You can do it all with voice with the new IPA.
This is not a commercial.
It sounds like one, but it's not.
But uh there are real world solutions to this.
Technological advancement solutions to this that that are that are out there.
Uh plus, as a techno buff, I'm I'm dazzled by it.
Um, Trump's not going to moderate the debate.
I got I got that impression.
When he didn't want to talk about it Saturday when we were in the process of winning the member member tournament at his club.
Uh he didn't want to talk about it.
He didn't ask me what I thought, so he's not going to moderate the GOP debate because only Santorum and Gingrich said that they were going to show up.
Okay.
New York City.
The top 1% of New York City earners paid 43% of New York City's income tax in 2009.
That's the latest year for which there is data.
To make the 1% cutoff in New York City, you needed an adjusted gross income of $493,000 a year.
So if you AGI of 493 or higher, you're in the top 1%.
In addition, the top 10% of New York City.
And if you're in you're in the top 10% if you earn 105,000 or more.
The top 10% paid 71% of all income taxes in New York City.
One third of the city's filers, 1.18 million people, paid no income tax at all in New York.
And these people have to be lectured by Obama and the Wall Street crowd, the Occupy Wall Street stooges, about paying their fair share.
To the New York Post, they've been demonized and denounced for not doing their fair share, but a new analysis released yesterday shows the top 1% of New York City's moneymakers paid 43% of the city's income tax.
And again, you uh top 1% you're in there at 493,000 a year.
Top 10% paid 71%.
Uh Heritage Foundation today, the morning bell blog.
Why would Obama veto job creation?
Today the House of Representatives set to vote on a bill that would, among other things, open the door for the creation of thousands of new jobs, prevent a tax increase on American workers, and help reduce the deficit.
However, President Obama has promised that he would bring the legislation to a halt with a veto, all because of his opposition to the single measure in the bill that would create jobs, and this, of course, is the Keystone Pipeline.
What's so offensive that would cause the president to level a veto threat?
A provision in the bill.
By the way, the title of bill is the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011.
It would provide for the approval of Keystone XL Pipeline Project to bring all from Canada.
Heritage Foundation thinker Nicholas Lawrence explains it would mean access to easy imports from our northern neighbor, the creation of thousands of jobs, the generation of revenue for the states where the pipeline passes.
Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue if the pipeline's built.
The Keystone XL measure, just one piece of the bill introduced by Dave Camp, Republican Michigan, along with several co-sponsors.
It includes some positive measures that could bring comfort to the millions of Americans struggling under the Obama regime, looking for hope this holiday season.
Dave Camp said of his bill with its passage.
Americans can be confident that these programs and provisions will be available next year, that they will not result in decades of debt to be paid for with fiscally responsible.
Obama's vetoing it.
Notice Obama is threatening to veto a bill that would both lower taxes and create jobs.
Aren't those two of the things that he claims to want?
That he claims to be focused like a laser on.
Cutting taxes and creating jobs, and he's going to veto it.
I know why.
Very simple why.
There are two reasons.
I don't know which one is more of a priority with him than the other.
It's a toss-up.
He does not want an improved economy.
He does not want tax cuts.
He wants tax increases.
He does not want new jobs unless they're union jobs or government jobs.
He doesn't want that.
Secondly, by holding out the possibility for as long as he can that he will or maybe not okay the pipeline, he gets campaign contributions from both interests.
Right now, the environmentalist wackos are donating heavily to try to influence him to not approve the pipeline.
On the other side of it, big all and other energy companies are also donating to Obama Democrats, hoping to influence a decision to legalize the pipeline.
By making a decision, he cuts off half of his campaign contribution flow.
Half that revenue stream.
Damn straight on being serious.
It's not cynical at all.
That's exactly who the guy is.
The Heritage guys are asking here, why would Obama veto job creation?
The only part of the bill that would significantly create jobs is the only part he's threatening to veto.
The president of the United States running for re-election, vetoing lower taxes and more jobs.
It's just that simple.
Now here's Dingy Harry yesterday afternoon in Washington.
He was on the Senate floor talking about the payroll tax.
Now, the payroll tax, Dingy Harry, um, is holding the budget and Congress hostage over the payroll tax cut extension, which is also part of this.
According to the National Journal, Harry Reid, this is what they say, Reed in conjunction with Obama, is insisting that he will not permit a final vote on the spending package containing nine annual spending bills that were due on October 1st until the payroll tax cut and the unemployment insurance are extended, both set to perspire at the end of the year.
So it sounds to me like Dingy Harry is threatening to shut down the government if he doesn't get his way in the payroll tax cut.
And just to be clear, just so you know the payroll tax cut has nothing to do with saving the middle class any money.
It's it all that is is the Democrats' latest attempt to raise taxes on the rich, because the way they're going to pay for the payroll tax cut is with the tax on the rich.
That's why they won't accept any other plans.
That's what they want is a tax increase on the rich.
They're out there trumpeting this fact that they want a big payroll tax cut extension.
It's the only funding mechanism for Social Security, by the way.
But the real reason they're so excited or orgasmic about it is because it gives them a tax increase on the rich.
Reed may tie the fate of a separate massive $900 billion plus spending plan to finance most government operations in 2012 to the successful passage of the extender bill.
That, even though the uh House Republicans say a handshake deal with congressional Democrats was secured.
So here Dingy Harry along the same lines in the House floor yesterday.
They call our plan time after time, tax on job creators.
And I say so-called job creators.
Because I say that, Mr. President, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring.
Meaning our job creators are like unicorns.
They're impossible to find.
And don't exist.
That's because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent are actually small business owners.
And only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.
Well, how fascinating.
There aren't any millionaire job creators.
Small business owners create jobs, they're non-millionaires.
They don't pay taxes, and they don't, they don't uh create jobs.
It's a red herring.
You're like unicorns.
There are any job creators out there.
Which reminded me of Steve Wynne.
Steve Wynne back on April 19th was on the Cavuto's Fox Business Network show, and they had a discussion about the effect of uh Obama policies on the average worker.
And Neil Cavuto said to Steve Wynn, is it the fiscal policy of the government?
I mean, this freeze in financial activity prior to the pickup in the last year's uh predates this administration.
A lot of folks are saying, well, you know, it's been sort of like a double may care times of uh uh corporate America partying, having their annual meetings and the like.
Uh that's just cooled, period.
You don't you don't buy any of this?
You guys on television use the term disingenuous when the president or someone talks about says something that's not true.
That's a fancy word for lying, President said.
Millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share.
That completely ignores the truth.
And the truth is that in this country, the vast majority of small and medium-sized businesses pay taxes for their business as individuals and chapters corporations, partnerships, and individual proprietorships.
If you want to lie, if you want to misrepresent, you'll call them millionaires and billionaires.
But it's the job engine of America, and that's one of those are our customers because they work hard and they come and they have disposable income, and they're the people that are creating all the jobs in America.
So now who do you believe here, Steve Wynne or Dingy Harry?
So Dingy Harry, is there any job creator?
I know a millionaire job creator.
Steve Wynne says hell's bells, the country depends on them.
Earlier this year.
Um actually after April, this is October of this year, just a couple of months ago, Wynne was back with Cavuto.
And Cavuto said, So is Obamacare the biggest factor for you, Steve, as far as making decisions down the road and helping out uh business to expand.
You you just you wouldn't do it or you couldn't do it because you didn't see the light here.
I can't see the light.
I'm frightened to death about the future of business.
My friend Harry Reed hung up on me the other day for the first time in 40 years.
That's what it's come to.
I supported a Democratic Congresswoman named Shelley Berkeley.
I called her during Obamacare.
I said, Shelly, what are you doing?
How do you do this?
This is killing the unions and all of us that are supplying health care to our employees.
And she said to me, quote, quote, now this is not hearsay.
Shelley said to me, and she's running for the Senate.
Steve, I know it's terrible.
My husband's a doctor, he hates it too.
But if I don't vote for it, she will punish me, she being Nancy Pelosi.
If any businessman or any working person doesn't understand that this is a turning point in American history that I'm afraid we're going to get what we deserve.
Well, most people do.
The latest Rasmussen's out, 5535.
The American people support repeal of Obamacare.
This Steve Wynn twice with Cavuto.
Countering and making sense is some of the gibberish coming out of the mouth of Harry Reid.
Okay, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here's Mark in Cleveland.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Uh Ditto's from a uh lifelong student.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, a couple things.
Uh, real quickly, as I told Sturdley, uh, I am furious about us uh hanging our laundry out to uh the world to see why did we not go in and get this drone?
If if John Bolton uh or someone of his caliber was uh Secretary of State, uh Secretary of Defense, you think he would have announced it to the world that that thing was uh was in Iranian hands, and would you have not thought that we would have gone in regardless of uh uh of the implications and gotten that thing out of there.
Well uh that's my gosh, that's hard to say.
I I would have to think that a responsible President, Secretary of State Defense, whatever, would have shot the thing down the moment it became disabled.
They would have found a way to self-destruct it, to destroy it, to have it shot down or something.
Now, I don't know if you know this or not, but Obama asked for it back.
Obama asked the Iranians to give it back.
He really did, folks.
He he really he really asked Mabu Dhmitizad to give it back.
Will you uh give back our drone?
That's our drone.
We won't back.
Of course, the Iranians now running the FedEx, uh disassemble it, put it in boxes, they're gonna ship it back.
Because Obama wants it back.
Put an absolute pure putt.
And we are back.
Great to have you on the EIB network, El Rushbo at uh 800-282-2882.
You know, the Iranians are all bent out of shape.
Over the drone.
Well, because everybody's saying that they're going to have to send it to the Chicons or the Russians to have it reverse engineered to figure it out.
And the Iranian, ah, we don't we were smart enough.
We can figure it out on our own.
We don't have to send a drone in.
They really are.
They're ticked off.
They're ticked off that uh media types are saying that they're not smart enough to figure out the technology inside the uh inside the drone.
Tim in Northwest Ohio.
Hi, welcome to the EIB network.
Hey Rush, how are you doing?
Pretty good, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, I want to thank you for three hours of sanity every day.
I appreciate that, sir.
You're more than welcome.
Been listening to you since 93.
I'm sorry I'm on a cell phone, but uh the last four years I've been building an airplane, and I finished it this past year, and while I was off and I would I would spend noon to three every day in my shop working on it, listening to you.
And it helped me get through it.
Uh your words of encouragement, the way you talk about people being able to do things that you know if they put their mind to it, and I'm basically flying EIB two now is the way I look at it.
What kind of airplane is it?
It's called a Vans R V 8A.
It's an experimental, it's a two-seat, it's uh fully aerobatic, goes 150 knots, and uh it's just a hoot to fly.
What altitude can you get up to?
Oh, it'll get up to 18,000.
So you need oxygen.
Yep, yep, I need oxygen.
Is it a pressurized cabin?
Is it a pressurized cabin?
No, nope, it's not pressurized.
In fact, I'm sitting on a parachute when I fly it because I can go upside down, it's fully aerobatic.
Well, so but it's it's not an ultralight.
I mean it's a real uh Oh no.
No, it's a good you know, got a GPS, got an autopilot, uh, you know, goes 150 knots and uh it's just a blast of fly.
Do you have uh you have a a good flight attendant, direct TV and all that on it?
No, I wish.
I wish.
But uh one other thing I did over the past four years too is I wrote a novel, and I think you would like it.
And it it kind of goes with what's going on in the world today when you look at this drone and you know the fact that uh Obama doesn't make military decisions like he did with uh Osama and those other things.
He makes political decisions.
And the reason he didn't blow up that drone, and they would have, and I'm sure that they were ready to do it, is because it was a political decision, not a military decision.
Well, okay, what's the thing is gonna come back to bite us in five years because of the fact that they're going to get that technology?
Okay, what's the politics?
What's the political decision of letting the Iranians have it?
Because he was afraid that if he attacked them with a uh a cruise missile, I mean, you know, we've got uh weapons capabilities that would be able to take that out, and they would be tracking it.
They know it went down, they know where it went down.
And uh they just decided not to do it.
I'm sure the military was screaming and just blow that thing up.
How is it if if we shoot down our own drone, how's that an attack on Iran?
Well, because it's in their airspace.
Or it's on their soil.
And that's how what they would try and say.
I'm sure that's why he didn't want to do that.
Uh because of that.
But I mean that's just the way this guy operates from people that I've talked to.
I'm retired military.
Yeah.
And uh, you know, just the way this guy thinks about everything.
And it's I mean, you see it now when he talks about getting bin Laden when he talks about getting these people at uh with the drones.
I mean, you know, he uses everything from the Bush administration with waterboarding or or gitmo and all those things to be able to target these individuals.
And obviously doesn't give you know any credit to the past administration.
And then when the time comes, he's going to bring it up and say, hey, I did all these great things.
It's pure politics.
Yeah, he d I'm having I know I know he asked for the drone back, but there was also something else that was weird and then when they explained why they're having I'm I'm drawing a blank uh uh mental block on why they let this thing uh uh pan out as they did, and it's it's silly.
You along the lines of your political thinking and decisions.
Anyway, I really, Tim, I appreciate the call.
Thanks very much.
Made my day.
That's that's uh uh rewarding for me to hear.
I just had uh some headlines sent to me.
Uh this is hysteria.
Here are I have not clicked, these are links, these are headline links.
I've not clicked on them, I just have this sent to me.
Will Gingrich disown himself?
Commentary magazine, Peter Wayner.
Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, Gingrich and the Massa or the uh a Manchester Union leader, partners in fooling the voters.
Washington Examiner Con Carroll, George Will was wrong, Newt Gingrich is a Marxist.
Washington Examiner Charlie Spearing, Britt Hume, Gingrich lashes out when upstaged.
These are all ostensibly conservative publications.
All out for Newt.
It's incredible.
And what there's uh let's see uh another one, uh real clear politics.
Charles Crowdhammer, Newt's attack on Romney is what you'd expect from a socialist.
Let's in fact uh grab, let's see, what is it?
Oh, sound bites uh five and six.
Does that these two bites are what this is all about?
Newt did go all socialist on Romney here in a way.
Yesterday morning on Fox and Friends, Brian Kilmead talked to Romney, had a question.
Newt made clear uh that he had a consulting business.
He was in the private sector after he left the speakership.
He is one of the people that consulted Fanny and Freddie.
Number one, do you believe he's a lobbyist, really, Newt?
And do you believe uh that since Newt took money at Fannie and Freddie, you believe he should give that money back?
I sure do.
He was at a debate uh saying that politicians who took money from Freddie and Fanny should go to jail, which is outrageous uh in itself.
But look, he says he's it wasn't a consulting business.
That's very different than the consulting business uh other people have been in.
He was in the business of connecting folks with government.
This was a a connection with government kind of business.
It's very different than the private sector.
Okay.
So that's that.
And then yesterday in Londonderry, New Hampshire, after a campaign event, Gingrich said the following to reporters about Romney's suggestion that Gingrich returned the money he made, having worked as a consultant for Freddie Mack.
Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain.
That I would be glad to then listen to him.
And I'll bet you $10, not 10,000, that he won't take the offer.
Now a lot of people upset about that because that's the way the left talks about capitalists and free market entrepreneurs, that they bankrupt companies and that they lay off employee.
You know, the left loves to go out and say that free market entrepreneurs, yeah, they take over these companies, and they start they consolidate them, and then they fire everybody, they downsize them and they just let everybody go.
They lay everybody off.
And Newt offered criticism of Romney, that is exactly as it would be said by the left.
Sort of when George W. Bush in the 2000 campaign said we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
Everybody said, whoa, wait a minute.
That's not what conservatism does.
So now these things are flying back and forth, and we've got Romney, go back and grab somebody number 22.
Let's throw it in a mix.
It's 2002 in Worcester, Massachusetts.
This is Romney running for governor of Massachusetts.
I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate and that my views are progressive.
And so they're going to vote for me regardless of the party label.
So it's all there are meanwhile, folks, while all this is going on.
Bachman.
Perry.
While all this internecine stuff is happening.
I know a lot of people are upset with Newt about the way he characterized Romney's business.
That's exactly the way liberals talk.
Exactly the way liberals talk.
And of course, then Romney getting all over Newt for going to work at Fanny and Freddy, while meantime, Romney's out there saying, wait a second now.
I everybody knows elections are one in the middle.
Uh I'm not going to be full of bomb ass like Newt.
I'm not going to give Republican primary voters a bunch of red meat.
But the Romney quote sounds like red meat.
The Romney quote on Mitt sounds like red meat.
And Newt's channeling the New York Times.
And meanwhile, I got all these headlines I just shared with you.
Now Crownhammer says that Newt's attack on Romney is what you'd expect from a socialist.
That's how the Libs talk.
George Will was wrong.
Newt Gingrich is a Marxist.
Britt Hume, Gingrich lashes out when upstaged.
Jennifer Rubin, Gingrich and the Manchester Union leader, partners in fooling the voters.
And there's over there, there's Michelle Bachman, there's Rick Santorman, and there's Rick Perry.
This isn't over.
Just to put things in perspective here, by the way, folks, and I tell you, this stuff with Newt and Romney going back and not necessarily all bad because we're getting educated here.
No, Snerdley, don't.
It's not all bad.
We got Bachman Santorum Perry out there.
We've got some genuine legitimate conservatives out there.
This look at the hypocrisy that's being exposed here.
I mean, I am not a partisan Republican.
I'm a moderate.
2002 and yesterday, Romney.
Newt.
He's got his own problems.
Well, era of Reagan's over.
That's right wing social engineering.
Oh, you've got Axelrod out there saying, yeah, Newt's like a monkey climbing a pole, the higher he gets, the more of his butt you can see.
You know, you let one of our guys say that about Obama.
He said that to Tyson, that Axelrod quotes in Time Magazine.
There won't be anybody up in arms about oh no, that's funny as I'll be laughing themselves silly about it.
Who thinks that way?
Who who in the world have you ever?
I ask any of you, have you ever in your mind conjured a monkey climbing a pole?
Who thinks this way?
And here you have the chief strategist for Barack Hussein Obama thinking about monkeys climbing poles, and when he thinks about it, he sees Gingrich's butt.
And then tells Time magazine that's what he sees.
Meanwhile, Romney's running around saying I'm not gonna get involved in bombast, that kind of stuff sends people running to Democrats.
Oh, yeah, like Axlrod.
Bachman Perry Santorum.
Last week on this program, and this happens frequently, and people at Rush, what is it like to be you?
It's indescribable.
Oh, by the way, folks, don't go to two if by tea.com and buy any tea today.
Well, because we've got a big special starting tomorrow.
How many times have you ordered a magazine subscription and next day you learn they're giving away a free something with a new subscription?
You say, wait a minute.
See, we are not that way at 2 if by tea.
We're gonna start a big promotion, a three-day deal tomorrow.
Don't buy any tea today because there's a special coming tomorrow.
That exactly right.
I have violated standard operating procedure in business.
Well, we're doing it honestly, and I'm being up to being up front about it.
That's why there isn't a two of my tea commercial.
We've got a big deal starting over, so don't buy anything today.
Oh, if you want to, feel free, but understand special stuff starts tomorrow.
Isn't that good?
Isn't that cool?
That's honesty.
Richard Benita Springs, Florida.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
Yes.
Um, I had a question which is which I find rather baffling.
It's why is it that none of the um the people on the Republican side don't seem to listen to this particular station, you and Hannity, etc.?
Because the advice is all there.
What more do they need?
Um why well, because if you're asking about candidates, who are you asking?
Why don't they listen?
Who is they?
Well, I'm referring to Mr. Romney to to Mr. Gingrich and well, the rest are just seem to be conservative, but they don't seem to listen.
Here's the answer.
If I were running for office, I wouldn't listen to Newt.
Or Romney.
I'd listen to me, or I'd listen to people I hire.
I mean, I think that's just no- I I don't take it personally, they don't listen to me or take my advice.
Um I am well aware, folks, that most professional politicians have uh they they they look at me as a dual-edged sword.
On the one hand, yeah, they're happy that I'm out there and my colleagues and so forth.
On the other hand, there are days I'm sure they wish that we weren't here.
Uh but I don't expect them to take my advice or to listen to me.
I don't.
It's like I I wouldn't expect Steve Wynne to listen to me and figure out how to run his casino as a result of it.
No, no, it's all about expectations.
I think that's ego, folks.
Ego.
Never forget eco.
What other company would tell you to wait to buy stuff to get a better deal?
No other company but mine.
To if by tea.com.
I mean, you can buy today, feel free, but there's a better deal coming tomorrow.
That one that you can't pass up.
And we will see you then.
▲
Export Selection