All Episodes
Previous Next
April 24, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
April 24, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, I wish you all could have been there.
I really do.
We solved all the world's problems.
Let's see.
Sorry, Wednesday night, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
Wait a minute.
Three and a half days we solved the world's problem of the annual spring fling.
And my fashionable oceanside estate.
I would love to tell you who was there, but it's like Vegas.
Whatever happens there stays there, and who shows up always leaves in total secrecy.
But boy, it was uh it was tremendous fun.
Three and a half straight days is some of the finest intellectual stimulation I've had in a long time.
Three and a half straight days.
Um scattered with uh peppered with uh rounds of golf every day, uh fine uh fine uh dinners and and breakfasts, so it was just it's just a great time.
It's always a great time.
The annual spring fling.
This is like the uh seventh one, and I know I know I'm probably teasing you by uh telling you all of this and not being able to divulge the uh attendees.
You'd you'd know them all.
And uh only one of them, in fact, none of them from the world of politics per se.
A couple people from the news media, some from the sports media, some from sports uh executive suites, some from um uh the world of authorship uh novel writing.
Ah, it was just a great time, it always is.
Uh, even had an NFL owner drop by for a couple of days.
So it was just uh just a hoot.
And I'll find a way, I will find a way to work in all the things that we discussed, the brilliant points that were made, but I just I can't tell you who was there because of privacy and and uh uh promises and uh and so forth.
Well, I'll tell you one.
I'll tell you one of Vince Flynn was there uh with his uh lovely wife Lisa.
Uh Vince is happy to be known to go anywhere.
Uh so he he he was there.
But anyway, folks, it's great to be back.
It really is.
Happy to have you along here uh at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Rushlin bought 800 282-288-2, the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
One of the attendees said, you know, uh we're looking at the news.
We talk about the news that happens during the day at dinner each night.
And one of the attendees said, can you believe this?
And then offered a point of view.
And said the problem is you can't say it, and I said, I can.
What do you mean you can't say well, no, no, you can't say that.
Well, I've said it before.
I've just not said it in the words you just said it, but I've I've said it a lot.
I'll tell you how I've said it.
During the 2008 campaign, you remember Mahmud Ahmadinizad started a rant against this country, sounded just like anything out of the mouth of Joe Biden.
And I I remember saying, if I were Joe Biden or any other Democrat saying what I'm saying about the United States, and I heard it echoed by one of America's enemies, I'd be embarrassed.
And these people don't care.
I don't remember the specific things that Biden was saying that were being echoed by Ahmedini's.
In fact, the question really is who's copying who.
You know, your your average Democrat runs around, runs down America, criticizes America, and then Ahmedini's odd says the same thing.
Who said it first?
Biden copying Ahmedini's odd or verse Meissa.
Well, what reminds me of it is there's this story from Mediaite, which is uh a blog that covers television.
And it's from April 26th, it's uh yesterday.
Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev says he support supports President Obama.
Well, of course he does.
An environmentalist wacko, a communist.
Don't give me this former communist stuff.
Which won what?
Gorbachev, during his speech to advanced placement students at Von Stuben High School.
Where the heck is von Stuben High School.
During a speech to advanced placement students, these are I guess these are the students uh one grade above vote.
During a speech to slapped me upside the face for saying that.
By the way, everybody, you know, I didn't know this either.
I really I I I took uh, well, I didn't take time off away from the news, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time uh paying attention to anything in the news about me, and so I started getting overwhelmed with emails from people on Saturday or Sunday about the Nags.
And the Nags are having some uh meeting in May oriented around getting rid of me.
The national organization for women with a big convention oriented, I mean the the the objective is to get rid of me.
I looked at it and I said, these poor women, they must be running out of money and members.
Because that's all this is.
Don't worry about it, folks.
It's just a fundraising drive.
I am a fundraising magnet.
I mean, I'm the best thing ever happened to left-wing fundraisers.
The nags obviously running low on cash, and I don't know, I'm their membership probably isn't all that hot to trot either, so drag me out.
This is not the first time.
Drag me out in the hush rush get rush convention and and raise your fundraisers.
That's what's going on.
But I mean people were emailing me worried, silly.
Whoa, Rush, what are they gonna stop coming after you?
I said, never.
Okay, von Stuben Haskrul is in North Park, Chicago, North Park, Chicago, during a speech to advanced placement students at Von Stuben High School, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev.
You know, I will never forget.
My mind is fertile today, folks.
It always is when I've been going for a while.
I never forget back when Frank Cesno worked at CNN, and Gorbachev was still running the Soviet Union, and there was a G7 meeting coming up in Europe somewhere, I believe it was Flanes.
And Gorbachev called everybody, said, hey, I'm coming.
Everybody laughed because the Soviet Union was never a major economic power, but Gorbachev decided he's gonna go.
So that stopped every it was news bulletins all over everywhere.
Flash, bulletin, breaking news, whatever it's called back then.
And I was watching Frank Cesno on CNN beside himself.
Mikhail Gorbachev!
Mikhail Gorbachev, says he said, Mikhail Gorbachev, and ever since I've heard him pronounce Mikhail Gorbachev.
I find it hard not to say Mikhail Gorbachev when I'm talking about Gorbachev.
Of course, I've also the guy that invented the word Gorbasm to describe the way Frank Cessnol was reacting to Mikhail Gorbachev coming to the G7, thereby making it the G7.2.
Anyway, uh during his speech, I will get through this, during a speech to advanced placement students at Von Stuben High School in North Park, Chicago.
By the way, how can how can the uh how can the Nags attack me after calling me God's gift of women?
You know, they did that.
I don't know if we it's because women can change their minds, is that it?
I guess so.
I did we have audio of that, or was it just uh a printed report where one of these uh during the contraception craze controversy, they call me some fundraiser, some some some feminist fundraisers of God's gift of women.
Or God's gift of their organization.
And anyway.
Uh the National Organization for Women why would men want to crash it, snerdly.
Well, I don't think um I'm sure Alan Alda's invited.
I haven't seen anything about that.
I uh I assume men can go.
Um the the head nag, Terry O'Neill says the work that we have ahead of us is not gonna be easy.
Right now it really seems like, you know, we got this godsend named we've got this godsend named Rush Limbaugh.
She actually the head nag who's running their convention on May 2nd to get rid of me.
The work we have ahead of us is not gonna be easy.
Right now it really seems like, you know, we got this godsend named Rush Limbus.
I God's gift of the Nags not long ago.
Now they want to have a convention to get rid of me.
At any rate, during his speech to the advanced placement students at Von Stuben High School in North Park, Chicago.
Former President Mikhail Gorbachev made a strong statement of approval for President Obama.
Of course, he said.
Of course, there are many people who don't like what the president is doing, but in my opinion, it's very good.
My opinion of him is very favorable.
I will support him.
Well, there you have it.
So you might, you might, you could say that America's enemies all support Barack Obama.
We know that the Iranians want Obama re-elected, do we not?
We know that uh the Muslim Brotherhood wants Obama re-elected, do we not?
We know that Ezbala and these guys, they want Obama real.
We know that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro want Obama real.
Well, who are these guys?
They they're a America's enemies.
What's and and at the spring fling, my guy said, you can't say that.
You can't say, well, I've I've said it in in other words.
So why not just say again?
It's undeniable.
Now Snerdley's all worried I'm gonna get in trouble.
But I it's it's not one of these things that's up for debate.
I mean, Gorbachev didn't say I'm thinking of supporting Obama.
He says I like him, my opinion of him is very favorable.
I will support him.
And Gorbachev said, I I think I think you Americans need your own perestroika.
During his address, Gorbachev recalled an anecdote about a talk he gave to 12,000 university students prior to the 2008 election.
At that event, there were a couple of students who were particularly persistent on election day in how Gorbachev should advise them to vote.
When they asked this question, Gorbachev said, I don't want to teach you, because often America teaches others how they should live.
If I give you advice, I said that would be a risk.
So here's Slave Gorbachev slamming us.
It's the same old thing.
We've been telling everybody what to do.
We're a superpower because we've been running around keeping everybody under our thumb.
We've been ordering everybody what to do, and stealing their resources, their oil, their minerals, their diamonds, their algae, uh, and converting it into our own stuff and becoming an illegitimate and immoral and unjust superpower.
But then Gorbachev said, nevertheless, I did say, I think you Americans need your own perestroika.
Snurdley, do you remember there was Glasnost and Perestroika?
You remember the difference in the two.
Okay.
Okay.
Let's turn it on.
As Snurdley's memory says that Glasnost was openness.
That the Russians, the Soviets are supposed to be open with us.
What did you how did you just define perestroika?
Okay.
Perestroika, Snurdly says, uh, is that we were supposed to be bipartisan with the communists.
And perestroika was.
If I recall right, and I usually do, Snerdley.
Perestroika was Gorbachev's attempt to parcel out freedom but hold on to communism.
Perestroika was limited free.
And that's what he's telling us we need here.
You Americans need your own perestroika.
No, we do not want to limit our freedoms here.
We don't want to parcel out freedom.
Parestroika it couldn't work.
When you start parceling out freedom, but then you try to hold on to communism, the two are in conflict.
You cannot have both simultaneously existing.
Perestroika essentially was communism with a capitalist base.
It's what they're what they've got in China today.
Democratic centralism, perestroika, democratic.
That's that's that's So what Gorbachev is saying is we need a little bit of capitalism here, but for the most part, a command and control government in charge of it.
That's when he says we and there, and who does he support?
Barack Obama.
Is that what you think we need?
You think we need a little bit of capitalism out there with the command and control of the whole thing coming from because it's where we're headed.
If we don't stop.
Anyway, uh, folks, the New York Times is in the news twice today.
There is the most hilarious six-minute video.
We're going to play the whole thing for you, but a bunch of employees of the New York Times are just fit to be tied, that that little pinch wants to change their pension plan on them.
Now, the New York Times right now has a defined benefit plan, which basically is what General Motors used to have and what a lot of big companies used to have until they found out they couldn't afford it.
What happened was it that uh in negotiating union contracts, they allowed early retirement in some of these places because the jobs were so mundane and boring.
But you could retire early, and then after you retired, you got health benefits as part of your pension for the rest of your days.
Even though you weren't producing anything more for the company, and for a while sounded good, looked good until the moment came when all of these people began to retire at once, and pretty much became obvious that the companies could not afford this.
Couldn't afford lifetime health benefits and pensions for people that weren't working.
Well, that's what the New York Times has.
And so Little Pinch and the management want to change from a defined benefit plan to a benefit plan where the workers contribute to their own retirement that is matched somewhat by the company.
The company will match 3%, basically a 401k.
And the employees at the times are livid.
And they've put together a six-minute video.
They've been they've been in in uh practically bare knuckle union negotiations over this for a year.
And the reason it's funny is because it's happening all over the world.
All over the world, governments, states, cities, federal, whatever companies can't sustain themselves with these deals.
They're all having to revise backwards and change it in order to stay solvent and sustainable.
Wisconsin's a good example.
But the employees of the New York Times, despite reporters covering this and seeing the reality that it cannot work and cannot be sustained.
And this and despite the New York Times being in the news business, and therefore seeing what's happening to that business, are still saying the heck with it.
We won the money.
The sense of entitlement and greed is on display in this video.
We have that plus they're promising a hard look at President Obama editorial.
A hard look at the president coming up soon in the New York Times.
Gotta take a break, folks.
But is your whistle wetted?
Should be.
Yeah, here it is.
Scrab audio sound by number 37.
This is from March the 10th in New Orleans.
The uh the National Organization for Women Mid-South Regional Conference, the now President Terry O'Neill delivered the keynote address.
We have the uh really only important thing that she had to say.
The work we have ahead of us is not gonna be easy.
Right now, it really seems like, you know, we've got this God send named Rush Limbaugh, who has like, whoa!
Drop this thing in our lap, which is just wonderful.
But the road ahead is really not gonna be conflicting rosy.
We've got to be very clear on what the challenges are, and very clear about how we can move our own agenda forward in the current football climate.
There you have it.
Godsend named Rush Limbaugh.
So I was God's gift to the Nags back on uh March 10th.
And now on May the 2nd, they're gonna convene again, another convention, this time to get rid of me.
God's gift of women.
See, this is how quickly you can lose favor with them.
But anyway, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that's it's a fundraising thing, and probably a membership drive as well.
Jessica Yellen of CNN is following Obama.
Obama's in North Carolina.
By the way, there's a sex scandal in North Carolina, started out to be some very small inconsequential thing.
It's ballooning now.
Details are coming up.
Jessica Yellen is tweeting that Obama's crowd today is 50% the size it was when he went to the same place in 2008.
He's at uh where is he?
Chapel Hill University.
Yeah.
Dean Smith Center.
9,000 people.
Having more fun already than a human being should be allowed to have Rush limbaugh.
The distinguished and prestigious limbo institute for advanced conservative studies.
I think the funniest joke over the weekend has to be that editorial by the uh the New York Times public editor.
Uh the guy's name is Arthur Brisbane.
And here's the the piece is entitled A Hard Look at the President.
Here we are four years for all intents and purposes.
Well, yeah, if you count 2008, four years into coverage of Barack Obama as either the president or presidential candidate by the New York Times, and they promise in a piece on April 21st, a hard look at the president, and get this.
Snerdley, listen to this.
Gotta know this because people might call you about it.
The last line of the New York Times piece, which it's an editorial from the public editor.
The last line ends with readers deserve to know who is the real Barack Obama.
And the Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.
That is the funniest joke of the weekend.
Four years into it, the New York Times is promising us that readers deserve to know the real Barack Obama and the Times needs to show that it can address that question in a hard-nosed way.
Now, this is just flat out hilarious.
Unless you think how much the rest of the news media depends upon the New York Times to lead the way in coverage.
Will the rest of the news media now do, okay, well, I guess we have to show people who the real Obama is.
Here we are more than three and a half years into his presidency, more than five trillion dollars into more debt.
And the paper of record decides that its readers deserve to know who is the real Barack Obama.
Now the question is, why does the New York Times need to show who Obama is now?
Where is the pressure coming from to do this?
Why now?
Well, I think largely people are getting their news from other places.
And the things that these other places are reporting and saying about Obama doesn't jive with what the New York Times wants people to know about Obama.
That would be my guess.
So the New York Times has decided, with all this other information out there about Obama, they have to come out with their own version of it to try to guard against the truth being reported about Obama.
Now one I'm jumping ahead.
I skipped into something very quickly here.
This Jessica Yellen, but we'll get back to the New York Times thing In a minute because the second piece to it.
But Jessica Yellen of CNN is traveling with Obama.
He's in North Carolina.
That's a big problem state for Obama.
Everybody's talking about Ohio, Republicans need Ohio or Florida, and maybe, but Obama needs North Carolina.
If they if he loses North Carolina, there's trouble all the way down the Electoral College that they don't want to mess with.
So they got their convention there, there's a number of trips that have been slated.
We did that story about the 45,000 professionals that work in the uh the Uber triangle, whatever it is, uh Raleigh, Durham, and that area, and how they vote depends on the way North Carolina votes when coupled with certain voters from the Charlotte area.
Research triangle.
So Jessica Yellen has tweeted.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama spoke at University of North Carolina's Dean Smith Center, capacity 22,000.
Today he's at Carmichael Arena, seats 9,000.
Where's the love?
Jessica Yellen at CNN is pointing out that Obama is drawing less than half.
The crowd today that he drew four years ago.
And I mentioned this, this is not insignificant, folks.
This campaign is in trouble.
Obama is not popular, and there are, when I get to them, stories in the stacks about Obama not doing well with women, Obama not doing well with young people.
There's a lot of mythology out there still today about Obama and his strengths, and uh and how there hasn't been any fallout from the dismal record that he is a mass.
None of this is true.
They're in trouble.
They're in deep trouble.
You basically have David Fluff, who's the president, you got Axelrod, who is the chief of staff, and Obama's out playing golf.
Obama, not quite.
Obama's out doing the fundraising.
But David Plough is the acting president, Axel Rod's chief advisor, and Obama's outplaying golf.
Obama basically has a 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. day.
And it's it's these other guys that are formulating policy, doing all this other stuff.
He knows what's going on, don't misunderstand.
And he's guiding an influence.
I'm not saying Obama's disengaged, doesn't know what's going on, and he's a puppet.
Don't misunderstand.
Not saying that at all.
But he's not known as a hard worker.
He's not known as somebody who gets in there early and stays late.
The only time he stays late's when he's got Netanyahu over in another room waiting for him to finish dinner with his family.
Then he'll come back and stay late.
Well, he did that.
So the crowds aren't what they are.
The fundraising isn't what it is.
Romney is showing the ability to sneak up on people in a way.
The New York Times promising a hard look.
Readers deserve to know who's the real Barack Obama.
The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.
Now, this uh this editorial in the New York Times begins by the public editor Arthur Brisbane admitting that there's been a lot more negative coverage of Romney than Obama in the New York Times.
But that's just the way things go with primaries.
But he says now, though, the general election season is on, and the Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president's record policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question, who is the real Barack Obama?
Is that not laughable?
Here is the newspaper of record.
The newspaper, the greatest newspaper in the world by reputation.
Deciding after four years.
And they're going to find out who is the real Barack Obama.
You know, I'm reminded of this soundbite we play often, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw.
On October 30th of 2008, about a week before the election, and these two guys sitting around, I don't know what books he's read.
I don't know who primary influences are.
I we really know what his foreign policy is.
We don't know.
Who is this man?
We don't really know who this I couldn't tell you, Tom, nor I, Charlie.
We don't know.
He had two primo journalists a week before the election, proudly admitting they had no idea who it was they were supporting.
They had full intentions of voting for the guy, and they're admitting they don't know who he is.
Here's the New York Times four years later promising to find out who he is.
And then after they find out who he is, they're gonna tell us.
And after telling us, then they assure us that they're gonna be honest.
And they're gonna be brave.
And Times has got to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.
Brisbane notes that according to a study by media scholars, the Times coverage of the Obama's first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first year coverage of three predecessors.
Yeah, we wouldn't have noticed that if they hadn't told us, right?
They could have added the last two and a half years as well.
He says the warm afterglow of Mr. Obama's election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers.
These can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.
Now the New York Times is four years late and five trillion dollars short, as they promise and endeavor to tell us who Barack Obama really is.
So while David Plough is the president, Axel Rodge the chief advisor, Obama's outraising money after his campaign stop in North Carolina today.
He's going on his comedy tour.
He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being arrested at the White House correspondence dinner this weekend.
Snurdley, were you invited?
You weren't?
I thought you got invited every year to the White House correspondence dinner.
I used to.
I used to be invited until it became widely known I would never go.
I would never accept.
Now the invitations don't come in.
It's like last week Snerdley was all upset.
Was it you or was it?
No.
Yeah, it was all, you know, my guests at the Spring Fling were all up.
There were apparently Vanity Fair had a uh hundred most powerful influential, and uh the the one one of my guests said, how how can somebody with an audience of one million people be on that we're talking about Colbert?
How can you not be?
And in Time Magazine, a hundred more powerful, how can you not be on it?
I said, because I don't go to the party.
I've been on that list twice, and I've never gone.
It's a party invitation.
It's a party list, and I don't go.
I'm through being circus act.
You know, I got the t-shirt.
You know, I got uh I got I got.
No, I would be the circus act if I went.
I would be one of maybe two or three conservatives, and the rest of Livesby sitting around pointing like I'm a baby polar bear in the zoo.
That's what I mean by uh by circus act.
Well, it doesn't matter.
They still be still be yucking it up.
Anyway, I just decided uh not to go.
So anyway, Obama's out doing what he's doing, which isn't working.
He's fundraising and going on comedy tours.
He's in North Carolina today drawing half the crowd that he drew a year ago.
Now I want to go back to this New York Times employee video.
Folks, this is very telling.
Let's go around the country in Wisconsin and many other places.
Governments and businesses are no longer able to fulfill agreements, no longer able to meet agreements they made years ago.
The greatest illustration is uh GM or the United Auto Workers.
The um by the way, Michael Baron has a great piece about this.
I want to get to today, too.
But bottom line is that United Auto Workers members were uh by contract allowed to retire long before age sixty-five.
And at retirement, they were allowed to keep as a Benefit, lifetime, pension, and primarily health care benefits.
And that is what is sinking every state government, every city government, every town government, and many companies.
It's what's sinking many foreign governments.
This idea that you can continue to pay people either a full salary or 80% plus health benefits for 30 years when they're not working.
In addition to having to pay that for current employees.
Just isn't the money there for it.
And so states are revising these plans, as has happened in Wisconsin.
And the unions are so ticked off, that's why the recall of the governor, the attempt at the recall of Scott Walker.
In Greece, in Spain, wherever you go, the fact of the matter is that lifetime health care benefits and pensions when you're no longer work for the company cannot be sustained.
The money isn't there.
And what happens is if they're forced to make the payments and keep they'll go bankrupt and out of business.
So accommodations have to be made.
The New York Times is having the same thing happen to it.
The same exact thing.
They cannot maintain their current defined benefit plan.
Now these are reporters.
These are news people.
They see this happening all over the world.
They see it happening all over the country.
Many of them are reporting on it.
Now when it happens to them, they are demanding an exemption.
And it's funny because the New York Times runs around and rips Scott Walker.
The New York Times management and editorial rips Scott Walker and rip any government or company that tries to renegotiate these deals to stay in business and stay solvent.
They rip them to shreds, and yet here comes that little pinch doing the same thing his paper ripping everybody else for.
So there's hypocrisy, there's entitlement.
It is delightful to behold this in a in a well, not delightful, but it's it's a it's it's instructive as it can be.
I've got to take a break.
I'm way long here, but don't go away.
I'm gonna come back, I'm gonna close the loop, I'm gonna make all this complexity easily understood.
Okay, back we are, Rush Linba.
And half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Talent.
Oh so much talent.
On loan from God.
Okay.
So the New York Times is having pension problems.
Company cannot afford the defined benefit plan anymore.
Cannot afford it.
Wisconsin couldn't afford it.
General Motors couldn't afford it.
Nobody can afford any more to pay lifetime salaries and health benefits for people that don't work for them, especially for 20 or 30 years.
The Times covers this.
The New York Times rips Scott Walker for making these changes while the New York Times institutes its same very same changes.
So the Times reporters, editors have put together a six-minute video, whining and complaining.
They think they're going to get our sympathy.
It is the most illustrious example of being out of touch that I've ever heard.
It's 53 seconds.
We've edited six minutes to 53 seconds.
Listen to this.
I'm horrified.
I'm sickened by what's been going on at the Times.
They would take away $350,000 between 65 and 85.
$350,000 is a lot of money.
$350,000 is worth fighting over.
This does mean a threat to what I thought my retirement era was going to look like.
Even if it's like a couple thousand a month or whatnot, at least it's there for me in my old age.
If I hopefully I won't find myself, you know, scruffling around looking for a cardboard box to live in, for God's sakes.
If the pension was not frozen and I worked here 30 years, I would collect $58,000 a year until the end of my life.
If the pension is frozen, I will collect $15,000 a year.
I would be one of those elders covered in the Times who's living on food stamps.
What am I going to do?
Am I going to eat cat food?
And am I going to move in with my kids?
Am I going to commit suicide?
It's a very ugly choice to stick People with.
Welcome to the real world, New York Times reporters.
This is happening all over the world.
And you know why?
For those of you at the New York Times, it's happening because of policies you've supported and people you've endorsed.
You have brought this about with your own reporting.
You've brought around your own future with your own reporting choices and your own votes in support of candidates and liberals who have broke the bank.
It's almost safe to say you deserve this.
This is what you have advocated your entire journalistic lives.
Why are you asking me about Oprah?
Oh, all.
▲
Export Selection