All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:28
March 7, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
You are listening to the most listened to radio talk show in America, hosted by me, the most feared and dangerous man in America.
This is the Rush Limbaugh program.
The sound of one man thinking.
It's a thrill and a delight to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to be on a program, 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
I am still fuming over this 2% of the world's population business using 20% of the world's oil.
And I know I debunked the statistic.
We have far more than 2% of the world's reserves, but here's the real thing.
We are 2% of the world's population, and look at the good that we have done.
We were good people, sharing, compassionate, generous.
We won World War I.
We fought a civil war to end slavery that cost us 500,000 of our citizens.
We won World War II.
We rebuilt Europe, and we didn't destroy it.
We've invented most of the medicines in the world.
We feed a huge portion of the world.
And we have a president who has no appreciation for the people of this country that he's supposed to represent.
Our achievements, our history, our traditions, sneered at.
All corrupt.
All unjust.
All of our accomplishments illegitimate.
I think that's how he was educated.
I think that's how he was raised.
I think that's what he was taught to believe.
He was taught in the inherent flaws of this country.
But if we only have 2% of the world's oil, shouldn't we be importing 98% of what we use?
Maybe it makes sense to you, Brian.
If we have 2% of the world's oil, shouldn't we be importing 98% of what we use?
But we import right around 50%.
How's that happen?
See, that's how he's framing the issue.
I mean, go and look for this.
Prior to March 3rd of 1938, Saudi Arabia had 0% of the world's oil.
That Obama's county.
You know why?
There weren't any known reserves there until it was discovered.
A guy named Rockefeller and then a guy named Getty.
March 3rd, 1938, oil discovered in Saudi Arabia.
So before that, there wasn't any.
But there was.
It just hadn't been discovered and brought out of the ground.
Such purposeful misrepresentations to make this country look greedy and selfish and bad.
We deserve better than this.
We deserve a president better than this.
We deserve leadership better than this.
Much better.
And I'll tell you, this guy, he's over there.
He's in North Carolina today.
And people have talked about Obama, what a cool customer he is.
And I've always thought he's not cool.
He's cold.
Ruthless and cold.
You remember, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago, the ongoing debate over the payroll tax cut extension.
And remember Obama talking about how important that we extend that payroll tax cut.
Yeah, because that was going to put 40 bucks in people's pockets.
He had a bunch of victims lined up to testify to what that $40 meant.
How many birth control pills they could buy.
How many flat screen TVs they could buy?
How many Big Macs, whatever.
That 40 bucks, it was crucial, if you recall.
And of course, the Republicans wanted to take it away from people.
40 bucks.
Now, the price of gasoline's going up, easily eclipsing whatever 40 bucks people get back from the payroll tax cut.
And what does Obama do?
You know, there's MJ here.
Nothing I can do about it.
Price of gas, Skyrockets this time of year.
And all these politicians, they start talking and complaining about it.
They can do something about it.
I can't do anything about it.
Nobody can.
No big deal.
All that means to me is we can't drill.
Right.
All that means is we can't drill.
If this is not indicative of our times and the entitlement mentality that has taken over some in our country, I don't know what is.
This is a story from I don't know where.
I am getting really tired of people.
Never mind.
24-year-old lottery.
I know the story is legit.
24-year-old lottery winner buys new house and car, but still gets food stamps.
I feel that it's okay because I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay.
I have two houses.
No, no, no, I'm not making it up.
24-year-old Amanda Clayton struck it big when she won a million dollars playing the Michigan lottery.
That's life-changing.
In many ways, it was.
She bought a new house and a new car.
But in at least one way, it wasn't different.
Hidden cameras found.
She's still using food stamps to pay for her meals.
A TV station got a tip from a viewer saying that Detroit resident Amanda Clayton, who works, sorry, took a $500,000 lump sum payment rather than a million dollars paid out over years, was using the taxpayers' food stamps to pay her food bill.
So the station followed her, and sure enough, she was.
And the reporter confronted her about it.
Well, you know, I mean, he goes, I feel that it's okay because, you know, I mean, I have no income, you know, and I have bills to pay.
I have two houses.
I thought they'd cut me off, but since they didn't, I thought maybe it was okay because I'm not working.
Clayton, who gets $200 a month from the state, not part of the lottery winnings, said that when asked if she thought it was right, well, yeah, because you know, I'm not really working.
When asked if she thinks she has a right to food stamp money, she said, yes.
I mean, yeah, I kind of do.
I mean, I feel it's okay because, you know, I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay.
I have two houses.
She feels entitled to food stamp.
We owe her food.
Forget winning a lottery.
Even we owe her food.
Yeah, I mean, yeah, I do kind of, I have a right to food stamps.
There's a political party that's made this possible or called Democrats.
Democrat Party's done this.
This is music to the ears of Baracka Obama.
Music to his ears.
This is a voter.
This is a voter from the NBC affiliate in Detroit, WDIV-TV.
If that doesn't, it doesn't say it all, but I mean, it's a great illustration of the entitlement mentality that it's taken.
What are you laughing at in there?
You think it's funny?
Yeah.
Are you laughing at me?
You know, they're all in there saying, I can't believe.
They expect me to be a little timid here for a while.
Staff is expecting me to maybe go use food stamps myself for a while.
Let's go back to the phones.
No.
Yeah.
Everything that I thought was going to happen in a new iPad is going to happen.
It's got, it's, yeah, it's double, quadruple the pixels.
So it's all, yeah, it's HD.
They're not calling it anything.
It's an iPad, third generation iPad.
But it is a retina display.
It's got four times the pixels.
It's got greater resolution than a 27-inch flat screen.
It's got more pixels than a 27-inch flat screen.
That's indisputable.
4G LTE speeds.
Fast processor.
They have released slew of software.
iPhoto updates to the iWork suite, which is pages, keynote, and numbers.
They've updated GarageBand.
They have a bunch of new games.
Doing all this off the top of my head.
I'm not sure that they're through.
New software today.
New Apple TV 1080p.
Not a TV set, but the little black, the box unit.
1080p movies now on the iTunes store.
Let's see what else.
It'll be March 16th.
Pre-orders start today.
New iOS software 5.1 available today.
The new iPad will also have voice dictation.
It won't have Siri, but it'll have voice dictation.
It'll be a keypad with a microphone button, just like the iPhone.
Same battery life, even though this thing is going to churn battery like crazy.
That 4G chip is big.
Powering that display is big.
So this thing is practically all battery in there to give it the same price.
Same configuration, 163264.
They're going to keep the iPad 2 at a $299 or $399 price point.
Yeah, they're going to keep the current iPad with a smaller storage capacity inside.
Yeah, yeah.
But they're not through.
I don't think the thing is still going on.
They're claiming nine-hour battery life if you run 4G, 10-hour battery life if you use Wi-Fi.
It's got built-in dictation.
Anyway, it's pretty much everything people guessed about it.
There's just one thing.
There was a late rumor today that it was going to have new haptic technology where you would feel the keyboard, Feel the screen.
You would have interactivity as you navigated the screen.
You'd get feedback from it.
So you wouldn't have to look at it for iPad is not a really good TV remote control because you have to look at it, not the screen, because you can't feel the buttons.
Touchpad that touches back, but so far they haven't announced that.
And that was the late rumor this morning.
Anyway, Doug in Warsaw, New York, it's great to having you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, thank you.
Thanks for keeping the pressure on this insane energy policy that the administration pushes.
Both the craziness that there's some magic new energy source waiting in the wings to replace the oil that makes the country functions on.
There's no such thing.
There is no replacement or substitute for all.
No, thank you.
The only motive power land-based there's ever been is a horse, the steam engine, and the diesel engine that produce the run the economy of this nation and the world.
The insanity of believing that we're going to just allow it to dry up and stop is just unbelievable.
If the American people had any idea that when they go into Walmart, that that food on those shelves, that comes from the diesel engine, that doesn't magically appear.
And you don't just quantitatively ease yourself a new supply of it when the oil isn't there to produce it.
I mean, you're out.
Isn't it somewhat disconcerting that you have to explain that to people?
It's amazing.
Isn't that something that people ought to just intrinsically understand?
2% of the population are in agriculture, and the rest go to Walmart, and they don't understand it any longer than what it takes to make it run.
I mean, you have your EPA, they're so busy trying to regulate the diesel engine into the moth-bald and out of existence, I don't think they understand what it takes to make it run.
I mean, awful lot of trucking fleets are trying to run older engines so they don't get bankrupt trying to run the latest technologies.
I mean, it's insane.
I mean, that's what makes the country run.
You stop those engines, people will not eat.
It's a simple equation.
If they stop, you don't eat.
Well, you know, you're reminding me of something here, too, Doug.
We're not running out of oil.
This whole craze to somehow find the new oil, we're not running out of oil.
The estimates of the world's total endowment of oil have increased faster than oil's been taken from the ground.
There's more oil than anybody knew.
It may be finite.
Some people still argue it's being made.
Others say it's purely fossils and there's going to be an end to it someday, but it's not imminent.
It isn't imminent.
This push away from oil, folks, you've got to be suspicious of this.
It makes no sense.
There is no reason to abandon oil.
Gosh, the benefits economically, in terms of liberty, the things that we've been able to do and accomplish because of the discovery of oil and the technology of refining it, and this totally unnecessary commitment to get rid of it.
There's nothing good about it.
There is nothing cleaner that can accomplish the smallest percentage of what you can accomplish with oil.
And by the way, we're getting better at cleaning up our messes.
They've equated oil now with pollution and global warming, climate destruction.
All of it is lies.
All of it is just another spoke coming out of the wheel of liberalism that seeks to take everybody's liberty away, transfer it to the government.
Oil's not even toxic.
It's natural.
Oil is organic.
It's as organic as anything is.
It's amazing how this substance has been demonized.
But the fact that it has is all you need to know.
Look at everything the American left of the Democrat Party demonizes.
Practically everything in the private sector, every business, every industry, they demonize it.
It's striking to see this.
Regardless of the financial condition of their state, voters in Tuesday's Republican primaries considered the economy the top issue, influencing their choice.
And even though the debate in the past few weeks has often involved other issues like contraception or women in combat, how silly.
There was very little evidence of a gender gap among the leading candidates in several of the major states in play on Tuesday.
Very few voters mentioned abortion as a deciding factor or contraception.
It's not an issue.
It's totally manufactured.
In exit polls in seven of 10 states voting yesterday, 75% said economic issues are their top concern.
75% of the people in 70% of the states, the economy is the top concern for them.
And Obama knows it.
And that's why this mythical war on women has been invented.
It's not even real.
To distract everybody from his utter failure to grow this economy.
Back to the phone, Scottsdale, Arizona.
This is Dave.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, Transplanted Pittsburgh Dittos.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, you know, I think a lot of folks are calling up and they're talking about who had the better performance and who can debate Obama and who's going to be, you know, who's going to put him in his place in the debate area.
And I think what we're really saying, or what they're really saying, because I don't believe this, I'm ABO, is I think they're worried about the mesmerization factor.
You know, four years ago, we watched this guy say absolutely nothing.
Anybody with an ounce of critical thinking abilities thought through that, and yet he still managed to win the election.
And now we find ourselves four years later, he's gone absolutely down the wrong road.
He's still saying nothing.
And I have friends who are intelligent, articulate, and they're still mesmerized.
And I think that's what everybody's concerned about.
You know, I don't know anybody who is.
Well, take it back.
No, I don't know anybody who's still mesmerized.
I know people that still, you know, Democrats are going to still support Obama, but I don't know anybody who thinks of Obama the way they did in 2008.
Messianic, new, fresh, unlike anything we've ever seen before, able to unify, fresh start, none of that.
Then why the emphasis on trying to compete with him from an articulation standpoint and standing up in front of the group?
The facts should stand up, and we can see the facts every day.
That's right.
Well, what you're saying is that there's a record now.
Obama has a record.
He didn't have a record.
He didn't have anything.
He voted present.
That's what he was known for.
So, well, wait, are you telling me you're still concerned?
Well, I hear other people being concerned.
I will vote for my Labrador Retriever if she wins the nomination for the Republican Party.
You know, this guy's got to go.
But I hear other people worried about the performance aspect and the debate aspect.
And it just amazes me.
It's style over substance.
Well, hello.
It's television.
I mean, can't take that out of it.
It's part and parcel of the whole process now.
Well, then our candidate has to be courageous enough, unlike our previous candidate, my current senator, to stand up and articulate the facts.
Well, you've got to be telegenic.
It has to look good.
I understand all that is what it is.
But I have to think, I have to believe, otherwise I go nuts, that issues matter now.
Folks, I think there are more people angry and frustrated over what's been done to this economy on purpose than anybody dares to understand or even hope for.
I think there are so many.
I know the fear that people are mesmerized and either they've given up and they don't think there's any way to beat Obama or any of that.
Part of that is because the Republican primary has been fairly uninspiring.
And I don't think that changes anything about people's perception of Obama on our side.
I know the media is going to gin up his charisma.
The media is whether it's there or not.
And I'll tell you this about the debates, folks.
Obama could get skunked in these debates, and the media is going to say he won them, hands down.
And that's just going to tick you off, too.
You're not going to get honest reporting about any of this stuff.
Really aren't.
Anyway, Dave, appreciate the call.
Let me get to the soundbites.
We're going to start here with number 12.
This is a series of soundbites of media, left and right, during and after the vote counting for Super Tuesday last night.
First, on Charlie Rose.
He had Time magazine columnist Mike Murphy and Bloomberg TV political analysis Matthew Dowd.
Both these guys, I think, are political consultants now working in other areas.
If it's the same Mike Murphy, I know Matthew Dowd worked for Bush, Bloomberg TV political.
Anyway, Charlie Rose said, project way ahead, Mike.
Suppose, or project way ahead.
Suppose that Romney is the nominee.
Suppose he loses to Obama.
What is the question the Republican Party will be asking after November?
Get this.
The hilarious irony is that Rush Limbaugh and some of our AM radio mandarins are going to be on the air saying, this is what happens when we nominate a moderate.
Did you hear that?
It's Mike Murphy.
I'm sure it's the same Murphy that's a Republican consultant.
So if Romney is a nominee, and if Romney loses to Obama, Murphy says the hilarious irony is that Limbaugh, some of the A.M. radio Mandarins are going to be saying this is what happens when we nominate a moderate.
What's the hilarious irony there?
What am I missing?
What's the irony?
Really?
No, I'm serious.
What is the irony of saying that if a moderate loses, you say, okay, we lost when we nominated a moderate?
What's ironic about it?
Well, maybe.
Well, here, let's see what Matthew Dowd said to the question.
This is going to be a bloodletting.
There'll be a huge if Romney goes in this, loses this election when all these Republicans from the last four years have thought Barack Obama's ripe for the picking.
Mitt Romney gets nominated.
He loses in the general election.
It is going to be a bloodletting.
Oh, man, these guys.
But Romney's their guy.
That's what I don't get about this.
Why are they even talking about Romney losing?
Romney's their guy.
And if he's a nominee, Romney's going to be all of our guy.
Well, there are going to be some defectors.
But Romney's these guys' candidate.
They're already looking forward down the road.
He loses, and there's going to be a bloodletting.
Somebody has to help me understand this.
See, here again, I probably want to 10 people that live in Rielville.
This is their guy.
They want this guy to get the nomination all along.
Why?
Well, you would think, because they think he's the only one of these Republicans that can beat Obama, correct?
Isn't that what we've been told, the electability factor?
But if he loses, there's going to be a bloodletting.
And this is what happens when you're nominated a moderate?
Well, then, why is he your guy?
If it's going to be so disastrous if he loses.
I'm, uh, now what?
No, that's not about me.
These guys, you didn't hear anywhere in there that if I would get behind him, he would.
You think those guys are not going to say that, Snerdley?
No, the first bite doesn't imply anything.
The first bite, the hilarious irony, is that Limbaugh and some of the AM radio mandarins are going to be on the air saying this is what happens when we nominate a moderate.
They are not saying it.
No, no, no, no.
These guys.
Snerdley, I can't believe you.
Snerdley is actually shouting in my ear that what these guys are really saying is if I would get behind Romney, then we wouldn't be talking about him losing.
No.
These guys think the exact opposite.
If I get, they're going to get palpably panicked if I get behind Romney.
Especially right now.
I don't think that's what they're saying.
I don't think they're asking me to come out for Romney.
I just, I find it strange that it's going to be horrible.
They're a guy.
I mean, I don't remember 2000.
Oh, boy, if George W. Bush is our nominee loses, oh, God, they're going to be a block.
Well, then why nominate him if it's going to be so bad?
Moving on.
MSNBC's special Super Tuesday primary coverage.
Rachel Maddow speaking with NBC special correspondent Tom Brokaw about Romney's campaign.
And she said, he hasn't contributed any of his own fortune to the race, Tom, meaning he hadn't spent any of his own money.
Does that make a difference when he's trying to appeal for other people's money?
It's not so much that he's become a wealthy man.
That's part of the American dream.
It's kind of how you wear your money.
And he seems to wear his money as a very wealthy man.
He has kind of a country club patina about him, wherever he goes and whatever he does.
I don't know him well enough personally to know what he's like when he's off stage.
But when he's on stage, he always does look like he's a very wealthy guy who's kind of separated from the rank and file.
It's just the opposite.
In fact, Katie and I were sitting there watching this last.
They were watching Romney's victory speech, and I looked at it.
I said, he looks embarrassed of his wealth.
To me, he looks like he's guilty of it.
Feels guilty about it.
And we were talking about what his wife said yesterday that played that soundbite, where she didn't think, I don't consider myself wealthy, she said, because it's here today, gone tomorrow.
My riches are counted in my relationships with people I love.
This guy does.
Romney does not wear his.
Am I wrong about this?
Brian, never mind.
I never, the one thing I never hear about, Romney does not come across as an aloof rich guy.
He comes maybe somebody who doesn't connect well, but not because of his wealth.
Honestly, Phil, he strikes me as somebody who's a little embarrassed by it, if you ask me.
And don't doubt me on this.
I mean, really, don't doubt me on anything.
But especially this.
Josh in Omaha, thank you for calling, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Rush, honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I have a problem.
I'm going to ask for your help.
I'm caught in the middle.
On the one side, we have a president who is destroying the nation.
And people talk about, well, another term, maybe it can weather the storm.
I do not believe that this country can weather one more term with Obama.
I believe stick the fork in it and we're done.
Obamacare alone would destroy us, let alone everything else that's happening, including turning our back on Israel.
On the other side, I have two people of principle that I would gladly support, either Newt or Rick Santorum.
And these men go out there and beat their brains in and work their heart out for us with speaking principle.
And just like Rick did last night there in Ohio, come so close.
And every time that they go out and try to speak to the people, we have a man who I believe is a one-man wreckin' ball that comes out there with two to four to five times more money than they have with his negative attack ads, I believe laced with lies and things out of context.
And so the machine says he's leading, and the great, you know, Republican machine says he's our man.
And my problem, Rush, is that as a Tea Party conservative, there's one big guiding principle that guides me and I think guides all conservatives.
It's truth.
Okay, well, what is your dilemma here?
And I'm asked to give up truth.
When I look at the liberals, Rush, here's my problem: the means justifies the ends, Chicago politics.
It doesn't matter if you have more money, if you can throw out enough money with the negative attack ads and the people follow.
I'm down to a minute, and I don't know what you're.
You don't like Romney.
I got that.
Are you telling me you're not going to be able to vote for him if he's a nominee?
Well, if he's the nominee, yes.
But the problem is they're expecting us Tea Party conservatives to give up our principles right now when we're supposed to fall in line.
That's my problem.
Oh.
Why?
How do we give up principles?
Who's asking you to do that?
You mean just I mean, nobody's making you support Romney.
So you don't have to.
They're saying the most electable Rush is the most electable, the person who is not conservative.
Well, that's my point.
They're telling us that it's the most electable, and they're sitting around talking about the bloodletting that's coming.
Look, Josh, The simplest way to understand this is that even within the Republican Party establishment, conservatives are not preferred being charitable.
Conservatives are not.
The support for Romney is as much about that as it is about Romney.
It's just the way it is.
It's not new either.
It's been that way in the Republican Party for a long time.
If you are in Great Britain and if the government says that you are too fat for surgery, you will be refused treatment unless you change your lifestyle.
Not kidding.
They say you're too fat.
Can you say Michelle Obama in Obamacare?
Yep, National Health Service.
▲
Export Selection