All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:42
February 17, 2012, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Kidding me What do you mean time flying by this this show is dragging like I can't remember let's see here what all right One hour to go here folks.
It's Friday.
Let's hit it live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday And if you want to be on the program telephone number is 800-282-2882 the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com I'll try this one more time and one more way.
I'll throw something else up against the wall.
I don't care if it's right or not.
I'll just throw it out there and you can figure it out yourself.
Okay.
If you want to tell me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, have at it because I don't care.
The unemployment rate, look at it as just a poll, P-O-L-L.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys about 60,000 households every month.
It's what they do.
And anybody who says they aren't working is not counted.
It says they're not working is counted as being unemployed.
Wait a minute.
Is it not counted or is counted?
This doesn't make any sense.
Let me use my brain here.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys about 60,000 households every month.
And anybody who says that they aren't working.
Okay, let's try it this way.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys about 60,000 households each month.
Anybody who says they aren't currently looking for work is not counted as being unemployed.
If you're not looking for a job, you don't count.
And they just use the percentage of people who are unemployed versus those who are looking.
The real manipulation comes from how the length of time they have to have been not looking for work for them to be considered.
Wait, never mind.
It doesn't make any sense.
All you need to know is that they are playing games with the whole unemployment reporting number.
They're running a scam.
You know that new jobs are not being created, particularly meaningful, substantial, substantive jobs that are oriented toward career work.
Those jobs are not being created.
The unemployment rate is reported as falling.
The implication is that more people are working, but that's not what's happening.
The unemployment rate is coming down based on fewer people applying for unemployment benefits.
So they're having all kinds of games in addition to reducing the number of jobs available.
But it's true to say that if you're not attuned to the scam aspect of this, if you believe what your government says, then any attempt to explain it is going to be looked at as the trick.
Let's see.
Something totally unrelated to any of this.
This is from the BBC.
They have found that the speed at which you walk can predict whether or not you'll have dementia.
The speed someone walks may predict the likelihood of developing dementia later in life, according to researchers, actually in the U.S.
It's reported in the BBC.
They also told a conference that grip strength in middle age was linked to the chance of stroke.
Experts said the findings raised important questions, but more research was needed.
Suggestions of a link between slow walking speed and poor health have been made before.
A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 said that there was a strong association between slow walking speed and death from heart attacks and other heart.
Now, I walk slow because I hate walking.
I hate it.
I despise it.
Now, you would think I'd walk fast to get it over with.
But I'm never really going anywhere when I walk.
If I'm going anywhere, I'm going to ride, including on the golf course.
So I don't just walk for the sake of walking, but if I am ever caught, sometimes you have to compromise and sometimes you have to walk someplace.
And I'm a naturally slow walker.
So I don't have much time, folks.
According to this research, Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, told a Daily Caller, federal employees should not have to carry an undue burden by paying more into their pensions to fund legislation that would extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for a full year.
Nope, nope, I think we can do better than that.
I support the actions of Mr. Hoyer, who has been a leader on this.
Federal workers carry an undue burden, and she doesn't think that they should.
An undue burden by paying more into their pensions to fund legislation that would extend the payroll tax.
She doesn't think, in other words, it's trying to find ways to pay for the payroll tax cut extension, and she doesn't think federal workers ought to be made to do that.
They're already carrying a large enough burden as it is.
The rate of unemployment in the U.S. has exceeded 8% since February of 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression.
Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the unemployment rate will remain above 8% until 2014.
You want to bet?
Anybody want to take a bet that that unemployment rate gets below 8% this year?
Now, here comes the unchallengeable CBO.
The CBO is the gospel.
They are nonpartisan.
They don't have any bias whatsoever at the CBO.
They can only deal with whatever data they are given.
Therefore, they can't possibly be biased.
That's how they could report that Obamacare was going to cost less than a trillion dollars.
Because according to what the Democrats gave them to calculate, that's what it turned out to be.
So the CBO says no way unemployment will come below or get below 8% until 2014.
The official unemployment rate excludes those who would like to work but have not looked for a job in the past four weeks, as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work.
They also say, by the way, the CBO, that the real unemployment rate will hit 15%.
That's the U6 number.
That counts everybody.
That's another thing when we talk about unemployment.
The U3, the letter U, number three, is what's reported every month.
And that leaves people out who have stopped looking.
Why would they leave that group of people out when calculating unemployment?
It's not just this regime.
This has been going on for decades.
Why would they do it?
Why you've got people who were looking for work over three or four years, they didn't find any, so they've given up.
They're still not working.
But all because they say they're not looking anymore.
Well, they're not unemployed.
They're not even looking for work.
They certainly are unemployed.
They're not working.
Why leave the number out in what's reported?
Why hide it in some other category?
The answer is obvious.
To provide less pressure on whoever happens to be running the government at the time.
Whichever political party is in charge of things.
Something unprecedented happened this week.
Apple Incorporated announced a software upgrade from their current lion to what they're calling Mountain Lion.
It caught everybody by surprise.
Nobody knew, there was not one leak.
This is unprecedented.
Apple did something else that they have not done for a long time.
Normally what Apple does when they have a big announcement like this is they schedule a presentation at a large auditorium of anywhere from 500 to 2,000 people and they invite developers and journalists and all kinds of people in and they get a keynote address with slideshow presentation videos and actual live demos of whatever it is.
This time they gave journalists, a select few print journalists, access to their new software for a full week before announcing it, and not one of them leaked it.
Not one of them leaked it.
That's unprecedented.
There are always leaks about what's next in terms of big things for Apple.
What's interesting about this, and I mean, what's this got to do with it?
What this has to do, they did not give the IT guy at the New York Times a copy of the new software to play with.
They gave it to everybody else, but they did not give it to the New York Times.
And I, of course, L. Rushbox, am not surprised.
Here's what happened.
If you recall, some of you don't know you don't use Apple stuff, but the moment the iPhone hit, back in 2007, virtually every website screenshot depicting a screenshot of the iPhone and then the iPad or even a computer used the New York Times.
Steve Jobs, in his biography done by Walter Isaacson, expressed an affinity for the New York Times.
He said they don't quite know what they're doing here with their digital launch, and I want to help them.
Jobs that he wanted.
I hope the New York Times get it right because it's the New York Times.
It's important.
There was a very friendly, almost symbiotic relationship between Apple and the New York Times.
Then within the last two months, the New York Times started doing hit pieces on Apple's manufacturing process in China.
Big hit pieces.
Steve Jobs had passed away.
Whatever link there was between the Times and Jobs, therefore gone.
And they started doing hit pieces, and Apple was ripped for unfair labor practices, slave labor, child labor.
It was vicious.
And I, at the time, recognized it for what it was.
It was an attack on capitalism.
It was to benefit Obama.
How does it benefit Obama?
Well, because here you have the most successful American company.
Their market cap now is larger than ExxonMobil.
Their stock price is alternately north and south of $500 a share.
They just can't right now do anything wrong.
And so they become the subject of a giant hit piece, the nation's largest and most successful capitalist enterprise, while Obama's on a warpath to blame capitalism for everything it's wrong.
So guess what the New York Times did?
Big hit pieces on Apple and what's wrong with the way Apple does things.
And look at these poor people in China who are being taken advantage of and ripped off and working and committing suicide and all of this.
And I said at the time, I said, I wonder how Apple now feels about their buddies at the New York Times.
Well, now we know.
They just said to the New York Times, left them out of their brand new way of doing things.
The guy at the Wall Street Journal got the new software.
Bloggers got the new software, but nobody, and the New York Times guy is David Pogue, P-O-G-U-E.
And he's been pretty much favorable to Apple stuff when he's reviewed it.
So Apple, they realized what was going on.
The biggest Apple scoop, the biggest Apple, in fact, the two latest Apple scoops have gone to the Wall Street Journal, the dreaded Rupert Murdoch, who, Steve Jobs, is quoted as I hate Fox News in that Isaacson book.
And he told Murdoch, this country is no longer divided between liberal and conservative.
You're missing it, Rupert.
I forget what he said the divisions are, but they're not liberal or conservative.
And he made a joke that he had to hide the knives when he invited Murdoch to his house because his wife really hated Murdoch and really hated Fox.
But now Apple, their last two big scoops, have gone to the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch.
One scoop was the meeting coming up, their next big presentation on March 7th, which is for the iPad 3, which apparently is going to be unbelievable.
It's going to have a higher screen resolution than a 27-inch 1080p flat screen TV.
Huh?
Yeah, OMG.
The iPad 3 is going to have a higher resolution than a 27-inch 1080p flat screen.
And it probably is going to have 4G connectivity in it for ATT and Verizon and whoever else has it.
And they gave that news.
They haven't confirmed 4G LTE.
They just confirmed the March 7th meeting and the new software, Snow Leopard.
There's a rumor they're coming up.
No, they're testing.
The rumor is they're testing an 8-inch iPad, but nothing about coming out with one.
Anyway, this Snow Leopard, the new operating system, is, I've been playing with it.
And Mountain Lion, Mountain Lion, I'm sorry, Mountain Lion.
Snow Leopard was two systems ago.
Mountain Lion.
It basically is the iPad on your computer now.
They've brought over a lot of applications and software and procedures from the iPad to the Mac, including something called mirroring.
You are going to be able, with an Apple TV box at $99, you're going to be able to project on a 14-foot TV or a 27-inch TV, as long as Apple TV is connected to it, your Mac screen.
Whatever's on your Mac screen, audio video will be on your TV.
You can do that now from your iPad, but you're going to be able to do it from your Mac, which hello free TV episodes.
It's going to change presentations in boardrooms.
It's going to be overwhelmingly revolutionary.
I've been playing with it.
It is astounding.
This new operating system, and it's kind of frustrating because it's not going to release it till the summer, late summer.
But the developers have their copy of it.
Anyway, the New York Times was left totally out of this for the first time ever.
And they are upset about it.
New York Times, everybody is making, in fact, the Washington Post did a story on it gleefully.
The Washington Post had one of the happiest stories I've ever seen about how the Apple people left the New York Times out of all of their new big stuff.
Steve Jobs' exact words to Walter Isaacson are from Walter Isaacson to Rupert Murdoch.
Jobs told Rupert Murdoch Fox News was a destructive force in our society.
And today, Apple is giving the Wall Street Journal, i.e. Rupert Murdoch, first dibs on whatever new they are doing.
I just love it.
I just do.
New York Times does these hit pieces.
So what do they think is going to happen?
You know, there's afraid.
They think that, oh, no, we've got to get back into the Times good graces.
They think it doesn't work that way.
So there's this big donor, babe, for Obama to Obama in San Francisco.
I mean major, major dollars.
What is this woman's name?
Her name is Buell.
It's her last name.
And she is not going, Susie Tompkins Buell.
She's a San Francisco philanthropist.
She's one of the Democrat Party's most generous benefactors, but she is keeping her checkbook closed for Obama in California this week as he's out fundraising.
And you know why?
Because he has not lowered the sea levels.
I want to look him in the eye and I want to say thank you so much for your work.
But she is gravely disappointed in the president's leadership on environmental issues, especially climate change.
I would just love to write my big check or have a high dollar dinner here, but I can't.
I just can't.
He has not come through on his environmental promises.
Good Lord, woman, what has he done that you can't be?
He's practically taking the nation into bankruptcy here in wind power alone.
And we had Cylindra and solar energy.
He's thrown every dollar you could imagine and print down a rat hole with all this green energy stuff.
Companies left and right are bankrupt.
What more could he do for you?
And that's why I say she probably ticked off because the sea levels haven't fallen.
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that is a factor.
Okay, Colfax, Wisconsin, back to the phones.
This is Susan.
Thank you for waiting and welcome to the program.
Oh, hi, Rush.
What a wonderful experience to be able to talk to you and Bo Snerdley.
Oh, yes.
Makes your day.
Makes your day.
He is wonderful and so are you.
I'm taking us back to the beginning of the program about this aspirin thing.
And I'm just sick and tired of the humorless liberal women that are out there.
Where's the warmth?
Where's the love?
I've been, you know, I don't mind being barefoot.
I don't mind being pregnant.
I don't mind being in the kitchen.
And what's wrong with it?
You know, there was a lot of love in our house, and my husband couldn't wait to get home to me and our little babies.
And I've been married for 42 years, and I just, I'm just sick and tired of all this humorless stuff that's out there.
You know, that's a great way of describing it.
They are humorless.
They are not happy.
They don't smile.
They're not enjoying life.
This babe in San Francisco, this environmentalist wacko.
Yeah.
I mean, what she's basically doing here is putting an aspirin between the pages of her checkbook.
And she's not going to open it up and write one for Obama.
Oh, well, I'll tell you, I've just been sick of it.
And what's the matter with being a real person?
And just, you know, I miss Johnny Carson and roasts of, what is that, Dean Martin roasts?
I mean, that humor.
What's wrong with that?
And can't we get back to being normal people for crying out loud?
Well, depends on how you define normal.
It's going to be normal is old-fashioned and Victorian, fuddy-duddy.
But look, you really have nailed it here.
They're not happy.
They are totally humorless.
They are constantly angry, upset, agitated about something.
And furthermore, they're looking for reasons to be every day.
They're part of the class I call the offended, the concerned.
They're just constantly offended, looking for reasons to be offended.
And that's what they want to redistribute is their misery.
Did I like the Norman Rockwell America stuff?
Yeah, I did.
I thought my childhood had examples of Norman Rockwell.
I mean, I thought my life was exemplary of that at times.
Yeah, my grandparents, both sets would fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.
Absolutely.
You know, try telling a modern-day liberal that.
Look at how they laugh and chuckle.
And oh, man, how out of touch can you possibly be?
That's not an America that they would look fondly on, and certainly not one that they would want to.
Well, because Snerdley says, why not?
Why wouldn't modern day liberals want that?
Because you've got to realize that what was it that made America Norman Rockwell like sexism?
The dominant men and patriarchs with women barefoot and pregnant, basically slaves, popping out babies and baking cherry pies and all this stuff.
And just it was, it was, they were happily, but they were ignorant.
They didn't realize how they were being exploited.
They didn't realize how they were being subjugated.
That was a phony era.
That was never real.
The Rockwell era, that papered over the real discrimination and disparity and inequality that existed in America.
That promoted a dominant white culture that was discriminatory and way too large.
And it was forcing its way on everybody.
There was no liberty.
There was no freedom.
Everybody had to conform.
It was phony.
That's what they would say about it.
Nothing about it was it was replete with American values.
And the American left today despises American values.
That's really what the culture war, to the extent that you want to describe it that way, it's what it's about.
It's American values.
What would it take for liberals to be proud of this country?
I think really scaled back in size and power and economic output.
But I don't even know if they're capable of being proud of the country.
I really, I don't think liberals have.
And by the way, there's a bunch of different liberals, but I'm talking about the true follower, brain-dead people that lurk on all these websites and write all these idiotic, stupid comments to whatever posts are put up there.
Then you have liberal leaders who are duping all these people.
Liberal leaders make certain they live lives in the lap of luxury.
They make certain of that.
And they are happy as they live their lives of luxury and as they wield their power over people beneath them.
I'm talking about the rank and file, dumb, stupid, uninformed libs who are governed totally by broken hearts.
They're forever miserable.
They are forever unhappy.
They blame the structure of the country for it.
I mean, those are the people that are susceptible to the accusation that the way they and the rest of us have lived is destroying the climate, for example.
But there is redemption possible.
These are the people desperately searching for meaning in their lives.
They don't have any meaning.
Their lives don't mean anything.
And everybody wants their life to have meaning.
Everybody wants to matter.
And so the brilliant liberal leaders say, well, fine, you want to matter?
Then buy some stupid little car here that is going to save the planet.
And by the way, when a tax increase comes along, happily pay it.
This is the price you must pay for the damage that you have wrought.
My gosh, these people are so overwhelmed with guilt.
And they want everybody to feel exactly as they do.
Miserable, unhappy, cantankerous, you name it.
And so that's what their mission is.
So I don't think, snerdly, that America could ever be anything that they would be proud of.
Their existence is based on finding flaws.
That's the essence of liberalism.
You find a flaw, you point it out, and in the process, you say to yourself, I'm compassionate.
Well, look at me.
I care.
Look what I've noticed.
Look what I see.
Let's see that suffering.
That's horrible.
Wow, am I a good person?
No, you don't have to solve it.
In fact, you make fun of the people who want to solve it, and you accuse them of racism, sexism, bigotry, and homophobia, and all that other stuff.
No, no, no.
It's the most gutless choice one can make, be a liberal.
It's just easy.
You don't have to ever do anything.
And beyond that, all you have to do is think of yourself as a victim of some unseen, powerful force that subjugates you into this life of misery.
And that allows you to think you're owed something, that you're entitled to something.
I know these people.
I know them like every square inch of my glory is naked, buddy.
Not just the back of my hand.
I know them.
I know more about what they think and how they think than they do.
And that's why they hate me, because I pointed out.
I nail them.
And they don't like that.
They don't like confronting the truth about their own existence.
Got to take a break, folks.
Sit tight.
We'll be back much more straight ahead.
Not much time, but nobody feels it better than we do.
Now, look, there's Obama.
There's Obama.
He's out in Washington State speaking at a Boeing facility.
This is the guy who had his own National Labor Relations Board deny Boeing just by executive fiat.
They're not empowered in this manner, but they used it because nobody stopped them or tried.
Well, they did try to stop him in this case, South Carolina.
The NLRB told Boeing, you can't build a manufacturing factory in South Carolina.
It's a right-to-work state.
They're not union people there.
You can't do that.
And there's Boeing hosting Obama.
I don't know if they're hosting.
He might have called and said, I want to come.
What are they going to do?
Well, they're not going to say no thank you because they've gotten a taste of what he'll do if you do something he doesn't like.
So it's been over Grab the Ankles time.
Here is Larry in Johns Creek, Georgia.
Hi, Larry.
Great to have you on Open Line Friday, sir.
Hello.
Rush, great to talk to you.
The weekend draws near, so I'll make it quick.
I think you may agree with me that the underlying theme with this birth control debate and Rick Santorum and the left and all this is that the left would have you believe that if the GOP gets into office, or Rick Santorum specifically, we'd see a theocracy in America.
That's exactly what they want people to believe.
But if you go back a year, if you remember the Ground Zero mosque debate, the left was on the side of the theocracy.
And they were screaming about religious freedom.
Wait a minute.
What do you mean the left was on the side of the theocracy?
The Muslim theocracy.
The Muslims have vowed to have a theocracy, a caliphate, if not in America, but globally.
But certainly, you know, that's their push.
They're a theocracy.
You know, Iran is a theocracy.
Okay, look, I'm just going to play the devil's advocate.
It's true that the left was very supportive of the Ground Zero Mosque, but that's not the same as your example of Santorum being elected president.
Well, no, they would scare you into believing that Rick Santorum is the forefront of a new theocracy, a Christian theocracy in America.
But a year ago, they were on the side of the Muslim theocracy crowing about religious freedom.
It's just breathtaking hypocrisy.
Anybody on the right doesn't point it out.
No, they're afraid to.
They're afraid.
It's fear.
Fear is the biggest paralysis thing going on.
I don't know that there is a bigger theocracy than liberalism.
I don't know that there is a more demanding religion than liberalism.
Look at the sacrament.
Abortion.
Look at the sacrament of that religion.
And it demands total fealty.
So we are a theocracy with the left in charge.
In a manner of speaking.
In a manner of speaking.
Yeah, because it is liberalism.
A liberal is a liberal first and whatever else the liberal is second.
Why do they love this religion of not having babies?
I mean, in order to solve this real estate problem, one of the things we have to do is create more people, don't we?
Yeah, that is ironic.
You need more taxpayers.
You need more voters.
You need more welfare recipients.
But on the other side of it, women's rights and the female vote and all these, keep the feminazis happy.
Abortion is a huge thing.
It may be the biggest thing in liberalism.
It is insurance against anything else wrong with you.
Like Reverend Wright, he's perfectly acceptable because he is pro-abortion.
All right, Cove, folks, have a wonderful weekend.
And it is a three-day holiday for some of you.
President's Day is Monday, but I will be here.
And not as a result of trichonology.
The staff told me, gave me the option of taking a day off, but I'll be here on Monday.
And look forward to seeing you then.
▲
Export Selection