All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:47
March 21, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'll tell you, sometimes it's amazing I can stay focused here.
But we do.
Broadcast excellence, all yours, Rush Limboy, your guiding light.
Times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, lies, distortions, misleading statements, economic destruction, and yes, even the good times.
You want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Folks, as you may know, our little small business, Catherine's and my small business, 2IFBT.com.
Best iced tea in America.
With a new flavor coming soon, by the way.
But a popular demand.
Popular, literally.
We've been demanded to produce this, so we are going to be announcing it shortly.
Anyway, we announced the creation of 2IF by Tea last summer.
We launched last June with the plan of becoming America's patriotic bottled iced tea of choice.
Now, Two If by Tea is a modern day twist on the historic reference, one if by land, two if by sea.
Paul Revere fearlessly rode through the streets of Boston warning that the British were coming.
Well, today, it's the liberals are coming.
And it's us, conservatives, need to jump on our horses and sound the alarm.
The liberals are coming.
And two if by tea is a takeoff on that.
Now, due to popular demand, in addition to the new flavor, and I knew this was going to happen, we're internet only.
And the reason that we did that, well, there are many reasons, but the real primary reason was to maintain direct contact with you, the customer.
If we got into distributorships and ended up various retail outlets, then we lose direct contact with you.
So we offered free shipping for the product, the internet, knowing full well that the internet is not how people buy bottled beverages.
You go to the store to buy them.
But nevertheless, that was the business model that we started with for that and some other reasons.
But we are going now to try something like I always do it, out of the box, not according to formula, not according to the way consultants would advise us to do.
We are going to open up our distribution channels directly to you without somebody in the middle.
So if you would like to help spread the alarm by offering 2IF by T in your retail stores, or if you'd like to serve 2F by T at a large event that you're having, this is your chance to do it and to do it by being in touch directly with us.
Just go to our website, 2IFBYT.com and complete the large order inquiry form that is under the shop tab.
Go to 2ifbytea.com, find the shop tab, click on it, and then complete the large order inquiry form.
And this maintains a direct connection between me and us and you, the customer.
Now, the 2IF by T label screams proud to be America.
It's me, decked out as Paul Revere.
The character is Rush Revere.
The iced tea is produced and bottled right here in the United States.
And in addition, 2F by T is a proud sponsor, the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
A great organization.
And they provide scholarships to the children of servicemen and women lost while serving this great country.
That's who we sponsor.
It's a win-win all the way around.
So people have been clamoring to be able to get this in stores.
I understand that.
Who wants you hankering for a bottle of iced tea?
You don't want to wait for two days while it's delivered to you.
We get that.
So if you have a store, a chain of stores, or a big event coming up, and you want to have it in your store, we're ready.
Just go toifbytea.com, click on the shop page, and fill out the large order form.
And it's grassroots, grassroots retailers for the best iced tea in the country.
The flavors, raspberry, peach, blueberry.
And when you just unscrew the top of the bottle and smell it, you think you're smelling blueberry muffin batter, for example.
It just is great stuff.
It's excellent.
And we're happy that people love it.
And this is how we're going to get it retail.
So you're interested, 2fbit.com, shop page tab, and fill out the large order inquiry form.
All week long, last week, we have been discussing Obama's fundraising troubles in conjunction with the Washington Post piece that ran on Sunday about the debt deal last summer and Obama telling all the Democrats in the Congress, where I'm not giving you any campaign money from my stash because he doesn't have enough to give away.
This is the point.
All this business about Obama raising a billion dollars, it isn't true.
And yesterday, there was Ed Morrissey from Hot Air was breaking down a story from the Politico.
Obama's fundraising 28% off the 2008 piece.
And the Politico breaks it down further to find the actual total money raised for Obama by three different committees in February comes to $39.4 million, which is way off his fundraising level in 2008.
Remember last Friday, five or six fundraisers, and they came in about a million and a half beneath or below their expectations.
Now, don't forget, Obama also had some competition for Democrat contributors in February.
He had Hillary out there.
Hillary Clinton raised $34 million, which was not in February of 2008, which is not much below what Obama raised in a field all by himself last month.
He doesn't have any fundraising competitors, and he's way below what he was with Hillary also competing for dollars.
And overall, Democrat presidential fundraising, not just Obama, but the whole operation is off 55%.
And I only mention this to you in order to keep everybody's spirits up.
It's a daily assault on us.
And I'm not talking about what happened to me.
I'm talking about the daily assault on conservatism.
The daily assault on conservatism in the media is actually nothing more than a bunch of daily lies about the strength of the economy and how great Obama's doing.
Another Keystone pipeline.
He's going to Oklahoma tomorrow and he's going to supposedly authorize the Keystone pipelines.
All a bunch of PAP.
It just isn't happening.
The unemployment numbers are suspicious.
There is no great economic recovery.
And everybody living in this country knows it.
And yet the reporting each day is the exact opposite.
There is a recovery.
It's really booming out there.
There's some curiosity about Why there is any more economic growth than there was?
I remember when the stimulus was first passed in February, March of 2009, they then talked about the fact that we should look for a jobless recovery for a while, which had us all scratching our heads.
What's a jobless recovery?
How can you have a recovery with no jobs, no new jobs?
Well, guess what?
Now, now they're reporting that unemployment is going down.
A bunch of new jobs are being created, but where's the growth?
They're all asking the Democrats and their economic experts, the people of media, where's the growth?
Where's the economic growth?
So we've gone from a jobless recovery to a recovery-less job growth.
Neither one makes any sense.
But the efforts that the media are going to to find any shred of bad news and turn it into good news is happening.
They're taking every opportunity to do it, and it's designed to dispirit you and to keep Obama's base enthused.
I'm not saying he's going to lose.
I'm not saying it's in the cards now he's going to lose.
I'm telling you, it's not inevitable that he wins by any stretch of the imagination.
And the fundraising might take care of itself later on as his side becomes aware of the fact that he's not a shoe-in.
Or it could well be that the energy for Obama will, well, it isn't what it was in 2008, and it may not even get even close to it again.
The things that have happened in this country are real.
The economic destruction is real.
Obamacare is real.
The fact that people are going to lose their health care plan is real, and people know these things.
The fact that they can't find good-paying jobs, that's real.
So, all these efforts by Obama and the media to tell people that what they know and feel is not true isn't going to work, but they're still going to keep trying.
Here's another one: this is from Reuters, a great example here.
What I was just talking about: the effort to do whatever they can to try to accentuate the positive under Obama.
Permits for home building neared a 3.5-year high in February, suggesting, suggesting, it's a news story, suggesting a budding recovery in the housing market was still on track, even though groundbreaking activity slipped.
Okay, permits to build homes three and a half-year high in February.
That's no great shakes, by the way.
When you go back and compare it to February, three and a half years ago, permits, pieces of paper, all-time high, but groundbreaking activity slipped.
Means nobody building them.
They got the permits, but they're not breaking ground.
But the good news, there's a lot of paper out there that says people can if they want to.
Actual number of housing construction starts went down.
We're going to hear later they went down by 1.1%.
That starts on single-family houses, which is the lion's share of house construction, went down 9.9%.
New building permits surged 5.1% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 717,000 units last month, the highest since October 2008.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
Now, why are building permits seasonally adjusted?
We know the unemployment numbers are, but why are building permits seasonally adjusted?
Isn't that a real countable number?
The number of permits is not a guess, like the unemployment figure is.
The jump in permits, which exceeded economists' expectations for an advance, reinforced views the housing market was improving.
And that home building would add to economic growth this year for the first time since 2005.
Well, they're not breaking ground, though.
So they casually just throw that in.
Now, we have noted for some time how Reuters, AP, Washington Post, New York Times, you name them, constantly accentuates the positive in their economic reports with Obama in the White House.
Now, while Bush was president, it was just the opposite.
In this case here in this story, they emphasize the news that home building permits are up 5.1% in February.
They bury the fact that housing starts were actually down for the month.
In fact, housing starts for single-family homes were down by 9.9%.
So why wasn't the headline, single-family home starts, down 9.9%?
Why focus on seasonally adjusted permits?
Because they want to be able to suggest that there might be forthcoming economic boom activity in the housing market.
Reuters says here that permits usually lead home construction by about a month, meaning that starts will likely reverse their slide in March, likely, to guess, using historical patterns.
But it's more evidence that there is not conclusive evidence, indication that the economy is roaring back.
And from the politico, we got a random act of journalism in the politico today, of all places.
Headline, global warming gets a rebranding.
They got to rebrand it.
It's not working.
Global warming, climate change.
You people aren't buying it anymore, so they have to go rebrand their hoax.
I love it.
Rebrand the hoax.
Because you people aren't falling for their original techniques any longer.
Alex have more on this.
I got to take a break now.
Be back with much more right after this.
Global warming gets a rebranding.
This is in the Politico today.
Been a change in climate for Washington's greenhouse gang.
And they've come to this conclusion.
To win, they have to talk about other topics like gas prices and kids choking on pollutants.
More than two years since the Democrats' cap and trade plan died in Congress, the strategic shift represents a reluctant acknowledgement from environmentalist wackos that they have lost ground by tackling global warming head-on.
Their best bet now lies in a bit of a bait and switch.
Help elect global warming fighters by basing campaigns on kitchen table issues.
How many of you thought global warming was about saving the climate and the planet?
How many of you thought global warming was about actual science?
How many of you thought global warming was about the polar bears losing their ice homes, so forth?
How does it feel to realize now that all it is is the latest Democrat hoax?
It's the latest Democrat Party political move.
It's actually not the latest.
It's nearing 30 years of age.
Designed to get you to willingly give up some of your freedom and transfer it to the federal government.
The Politico, wittingly or unwittingly, has let it be known here that global warming is nothing more than a purely political issue.
And the Democrats think they're losing it, not because of the science, which is a lie.
They're losing it because somehow the politics just isn't working its magic on you anymore.
This story points out even the radical global warmer types at the Sierra Club are realizing that people just aren't buying the dangers of man-made global warming anymore.
And they're trying to figure out why.
You know what really stumps them?
You know what really stumps them?
They thought the lack of a brutal winter in the Northeast would convince everybody that there is global warming.
And frankly, I've been sitting here wondering if that would have an impact because people do associate the temperature on a particular day, a time of year, with whether or not there's global warming.
That's how effective the campaign's been.
But apparently, this warm winter has not changed anybody's opinion on the whole man-made global warming business.
Because the Sierra Club realizes people are not buying the dangers of man-made global warming.
So it's the Sierra Club that wants to rebrand their message.
Or as the Politico says, their best bet now lies in a bit of bait and switch.
That's the Politico.
That's the two writers at the Politico.
The global warmers now have to rely on a best bet in a bait and switch, which, of course, is something the left are past masters at.
So now, the Sierra Club is running campaign ads in swing states featuring young children with asthma inhalers making their way through the Capitol.
Of course, hiding behind women and children is another thing the left are masters at.
They're going to try to sell global warming with pictures of children with inhalers.
As the article notes, the left has figured out it needs a better message, one that's more resonant on the local level to combat the job killer talk from the evil Republicans.
Cap and trade, all this stuff that would be mandated to fight global warming would result in a loss of jobs.
And the Republicans have pointed it out, and people believe it.
So the Democrats, well, we can't have that, so we got to combat that somehow.
Melting glaciers are giving way to smog-induced asthma.
That's the new campaign.
And your kid, see this kid with an inhaler?
That's because the glaciers are melting and that's causing asthma.
Fuel efficiency is now a matter of pump prices, not pollutants.
See, as far as they're concerned, all the left needs to do to counter the claim is to come up with better optics.
We're told the Sierra Club campaign has some ads focused on how CO2 causes asthma attacks now.
Did you know that?
What you exhale causes asthma attacks.
That's their new campaign.
What you exhale.
And they've got kids with inhalers to protect them from what they exhale because it's causing asthma attacks.
And their ads cheer the regime for their planned regulations for power plants.
CR Club's a 501c3 charity that forbids them from lobbying Congress on legislation or backing political candidates, yet they do it all the time.
Got to take a break, but much more still ahead when we get back.
No, I've not forgotten.
Today we give away an iPad, ladies and gentlemen.
We've been doing this for a week now.
We activated a Twitter account.
We've got two of them that serve the same purpose, at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh.
No space between Rush and Limbaugh.
Brian, what are we up to?
What's the number of followers we've got now?
Somebody just tell me I can't.
Almost 300,000 followers.
Now that's just superb.
Here's the way it works.
What you do, if you don't have a Twitter account, go to twitter.com and get an account.
You use your email address.
That's all.
Nothing will happen to you.
Your computer will not catch fire.
Gremlins and goblins will not find their way into your hard drive.
Nothing will happen unless you do something else.
Once you become a Twitter member, there are people out there on Twitter that you can follow by finding out what their handle is.
Our handle is at limbaugh at Rush Limbaugh.
You simply say you want to follow at Limbaugh or at Rush Limbaugh.
You can follow them both.
And we're going to post things as we have done within the past hour.
And these things, as of now, are helping to get the truth out about this terrorism that's going on, sponsored by Democrat operatives and conducted by Democrat operatives against local advertisers and radio stations which carry this program.
In fact, the tweet that we put up recently is we got the link, right, to the video of Mark Stevens on Fox Business Today describing that this boycott is not a boycott, that it's a pure act of terrorism, that they're not angry consumers reaching out to him and trying to intimidate any Democrat operatives and terrorists.
And he revealed that after he was on Fox yesterday, he got 40,000 emails, and 38,000 of them were in support of him.
2,000 were probably written by five or six little Democrat operatives in their pajamas in their basements of their parents' house, trying to make themselves look like 2,000 people.
So we've put him saying this, or Charles Payne actually said it after talking to him on the radio, but the video of all that is what we tweeted with some of the some of the news about it.
That what you do, after you follow us, you simply retweet it, and that will send it out to all the people that you follow.
And then we have a geometric expansion of the number of people who will see it.
So our almost 300,000 followers could become multiple millions who will see it.
And what we are doing is randomly selecting from our new list of followers a person each day to win the new third-generation iPad.
And these are top-of-the-line full-boat iPads.
64 gigabyte storage, which is the biggest that they make.
4G LTE.
They're either going to be ATT or Verizon.
And they come in white or black.
And I have a stash.
Powerful, influential member of the media.
I was able to get enough of these to be able to give one away for a week.
Actually, we have more than that.
And so we'll be doing that.
And we're not going to announce on air who wins the iPad each day.
We will contact the person via their handle and let them know that they have been randomly selected.
And just so you didn't think that we forgot to announce the iPad winner, we're not actually going to be doing that.
Now, you might think that we only have 142,000 followers, but that's on one handle.
You got to combine both handles.
If you combine both handles, you get close to 300,000 followers.
And it's growing.
We'll be over half a million followers by the end of the week.
I feel fairly confident that you will make that happen.
I don't have too many doubts that you will make that happen.
Okay, who's next?
Max in Sandy, Utah.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I've been used listening to you for years.
Yesterday, you mentioned that the New York Times said, why would anybody eat meat?
A survey or something?
The New York Times in their magazine is running a contest asking for people to explain why it's okay to eat meat, basically.
Okay, how about to save the Earth?
Because hay and grass is useless to humans.
And when it dies back in the wintertime, it all just rots, you know, like the leaves.
And it turns into methane.
But if you, cows can eat what humans cannot.
And as a result, they make food out of it, like milk and cheese and meat.
And the less plant matter is available for bacteria to decay.
So cows, therefore, are a carbon sink, a food maker, and its byproducts are a fertilizer graining the planet.
Well, you should send that into them.
I don't have the availability.
But I am kind of a science hobbyist, and so I kind of think about these things.
Well, here's the thing about it.
And this is a great teachable moment.
See, you are unwittingly, and at the same time trying to be creative, accepting the premise.
They've got this silly contest run.
The premise is that eating meat is bad.
It destroys the planet, causes climate change, kills you.
So what they want to know, they want somebody to write in and tell them why that's wrong.
They want somebody to come in and tell them what's so good about eating meat.
Can you believe we've come to that?
That there's a contest for the best entry on why to eat meat.
The New York Times intends to put people who eat meat on trial.
The New York Times intends to stigmatize people who eat meat.
That's the purpose of this.
Tell us why it's ethical to eat meat.
Therefore, the premise that they're starting with, it's unethical.
Their belief says it's unethical to eat this stuff.
You tell us why it's ethical.
They're going to make an example of your stupidity and your idiocy if you take the premise seriously.
So the way to respond to this, if anybody wants to, is to attack their premise rather than accept it.
If you want to accept the premise and try to come up with some really hair-brained, but these people have no sense of humor and they are not clever and they will regard any attempt of you to be satirical or to do any kind of parody, they'll think you're intimidating or offending them.
They think you're being offensive or you're gross or they do not have a sense of humor.
It's wasted on them.
They literally have no, unless the joke is about Sarah Palin.
And then they'll laugh.
And it doesn't matter whether it's funny or not.
So it's just a, I think it's a great, great, great indication of exactly where the New York Times is.
And they're thinking.
All right, got to take another brief time out here, folks.
Obscene profit timeout.
And we'll be back and continue with much more right after this.
I was reminded of something, and it turns out it's true.
So the Sierra Club, according to Politico, is having to rebrand global warming because you people have caught on to the trick.
And you now understand it's political.
You're not falling for it.
So they've got ads with little children from out in the hinterlands visiting the Capitol using inhalers because melting glaciers, I don't know how, but melting glaciers are causing pollution, dirtying the air, and our children are having to use inhalers because these things, this CO2,
causing asthma attacks.
Now, CO2 is exhaled.
Have you ever heard of anything that you exhale, i.e., get out of your lungs, causing asthma?
This is what they're trying.
However, they have a problem from last September.
I got two stories.
One's U.S. News and World Report, the other is Fox News.
Obama administration set to ban asthma inhalers over environmental concerns.
Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations to the EPA because they were too costly?
Well, it seems that the regime would rather make people with asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer.
Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.
This is in last September.
How absurd!
You now have to get a prescription inhaler if you use one, otherwise you are destroying the Earth's atmosphere.
So they've made inhalers almost impossible to get or very difficult to get.
FDA banning inhaler over environment.
How absurd.
Just at its most base level here, an inhaler is going to destroy our climate and cause pollution.
And so now they can only be parceled out by pollution.
And yet, here's the Sierra Club with a television ad with all these little kids with inhalers.
So in their rebranding, they forgot that the regime has banned inhalers.
It's a Keystone Cobb's panicking.
They're panicking on the left.
Now, they're still very confident.
They still have this arrogant superiority about them.
But Obama's not raising money.
The Washington Post got a story here on how he blew the deficit deal or the debt limit deal.
The Washington Post and New York Times had two devastating polls on his approval number.
The Hill.com of the poll this Monday that was devastating.
And now the global warming people are having to rebrand the political effort.
Oh, and I was supposed to be gone and finished with by this time last week.
But I, El Rushbo, thanks to you, am still here.
Frederick Maryland and Donna, next to have you on the program.
Great to see you.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
It's so good to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
Like many of your listeners, I'm just waiting for the left to implode on their issues.
Everything they do is emotionally charged.
There's nothing logical about it.
And they seem to thrive on divisiveness, which brings me to the subject you brought up earlier, which is social justice.
And I have to tell you, even outside of D.C. and the country out here, we deal with this on a daily basis with our school system.
And they do do it very insidiously.
And I've seen it with my child who in social studies classes here, and I refer to it as socialist studies class, would be basically called out for having a right point of view.
You know what?
Hey, hey, Donna, you've got to do me.
If I feel like I'm going to drive in at a restaurant and I can't understand somebody, could you hold that phone further away from your mouth and try again?
I lost you when you said you were responding to social justice.
Yes, and I was saying my son had a socialist studies teacher that claimed he loved the debate, but he'd be very aggressive when it came to my son's far-right point of view.
And he'd humiliate my child in class.
And I'm sure there are lots of parents dealing with this on a daily basis.
And even just a few minutes ago, when he came home from school, he said in language arts, his language arts teacher was defending Obama with the gas crisis out of the blue.
Well, I don't know what to say.
This is what's happened.
Education.
They own that.
They literally own it, and they don't use it for education.
It's indoctrination.
And that's that, Donna, it's why your job as a parent is bigger than you ever thought it was going to be, and it's more important than you ever thought it was.
I'm sure you've accepted the responsibilities fully, but it's more important than you've ever thought it was going to be.
I got to tell you, folks, I'm 61.
I guess it qualifies me as a funny duddy.
My parents never once worried that all the things going to happen to me at school.
I'm going to grade school, junior high, and high school, that a bunch of liberal activists were going to be polluting my mind.
They thought I was going to be the one getting in trouble.
It's a whole different ballgame now.
And you're the counterweight when your kid gets home.
It's just the way it is.
That's infuriating to hear, but it's the way it is.
Okay, we've got an op-ed, folks, that we have written in response to a silly piece of BS that's on the Politico today.
It'll be up in the next 15 minutes.
And it's about the latest batch of Media Matters lies.
It'll be on our website tonight.
We'll tweet it out later, and we'll be back here tomorrow, and see you then.
▲
Export Selection