All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
May 3, 2012, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Documented to be almost always right rush limb 99.7% of the time Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
We love fairness here at the EIB network.
And we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
It's a delight to have you with us here, folks.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
Let's see what if.
Yeah, we'll get to the calls and as they look pretty good out there.
So we'll get to the funk, hopefully in this half hour.
Ladies and gentlemen, the regime has, as part of its reelection campaign, put up a slideshow entitled Julia on the internet.
The slideshow traces the life of a young girl from the day she's born until she hits 67.
It is the greatest illustration of the Obama administration, liberals, Democrat Party, whatever, view of cradle to grave government control over a person's life.
Except they don't see that this way.
They're putting this thing up as the way you should want your life to be.
The RNC has reacted to it now, and they've done it fairly well.
I'm not going to get into it right now.
I can't show you the slide.
Really, the pictures are just hand drawings.
They're not that big a deal.
It's the text that accompanies each slide.
And I have the text.
We can go through it.
There's seven or eight different stages of Julia's life from birth up to age 67.
And it's garnering a lot of attention out there on the blogosphere.
So we will share it with you as the program unfolds today before your very eyes and ears.
Now, I mentioned in the previous hour, and we had, I'm reading this book on LBJ, fourth in a series of biography by Robert Carro.
And Doris Kearns-Goodwin, a bunch of Democrat biographers, to them, LBJ was the absolute greatest, most wonderful Senate majority leader, the absolutely most wonderful, greatest president, even rivaling JFK.
They just marvel.
And one of the reasons why is, from what I can gather, Great Society, of course, the War on Poverty, of course, the Civil Rights Act, 1964, all this transformative legislation that built on the New Deal.
But they also love LBJ because he was mean.
LBJ, you remember pictures, well, you may not.
He had a couple of beagles.
And there were pictures of LBJ picking these dogs up by their ears when they were misbehaving or some such thing.
He took a little grief for that before PETA even existed.
But he was admired because he was so mean, so forceful.
He didn't take any gun from anybody.
He told people what was going to happen.
He made it happen.
Anybody like that today, even a Democrat.
No, take it back.
A Democrat like that today would be fawned over.
That's true.
So I thought what we would do, go back to our archives and give you a side-by-side illustration of LBJ talking about his war on poverty and great society and Ronald Reagan at the same time, 1964, reacting to it.
We'll start out with LBJ first, January 8th, 1964.
This is State of the Union Address.
And this is a period of time that's covered extensively, by the way, in Robert Caro's latest book on LBJ.
Basically, the seven weeks, the 49 days from the assassination of Kennedy through the State of the Union address, which was January 8th that year, Johnson's re-election, which was his first election as president after the Kennedy assassination.
And it was a profound period.
This is where Johnson did everything.
In these 49 days, he settled all the scores.
He got even with all the people who told him it was never going to matter at Hill of Beach.
He got even with Robert Kennedy, who hated him, and he hated Robert Kennedy and so forth.
But that's not really relevant here to the soundbites.
The sound bites start off with LBJ and his war on poverty.
This administration today, here, and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America.
It will not be a short or easy struggle.
No single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.
The richest nation on earth can afford to win it.
We cannot afford to lose it.
$1,000 invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.
Now, that war on poverty is still being waged.
We haven't made a dent.
There has been easily $4 trillion.
It may be higher now.
Oh, gosh, it's got to be what with Obama.
My gosh, it may be double that.
Well, we'll stick $5 trillion.
It's a good number.
It's very close.
$5 trillion of redistribution of wealth from producers to the poor to eradicate poverty.
And the percentages are still the same.
Now, we have a very different definition of poverty here than, say, in the third world or even in Europe.
People in poverty here have a car, a couple TV sets, but everything's relevant, and so we stick with it.
But big government building on the New Deal, wipe out poverty.
And how about this number?
$1,000 invested.
That means taxes.
$1,000 invested from every person in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.
Except what's happened?
Now people are on unemployment for 99 weeks.
They don't go to work.
And in the Obama administration, there aren't any new jobs being created for them to go to work or to even apply.
Here's the next soundbite from LBJ from his State of the Union Address, January 8, 1964.
Lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom.
The cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.
Our joint federal local effort must pursue poverty, pursue it wherever it exists, in city slums and small towns, in sharecropper shacks or in migrant worker camps, on Indian reservations, among whites as well as Negroes, among the young as well as the aged, in the boom towns and in the depressed areas.
Yeah, it was Negroes back then.
It didn't sound like Negroes to you.
Okay, let's play it again.
I knew this was going to grab.
I knew this was going to get you.
I knew this soundbite.
I knew, because it doesn't sound like he says Negroes.
That's what's in the transcript.
And before we play it again, let me just illustrate.
Does it all sound familiar to you, folks?
This is 1964.
This is 50-plus years ago.
And it's the same rhetoric, the same complaints, the same excuses, and the same solutions and the same.
Of course, what causes poverty?
What's the point of his statement here?
America's unfairness, fundamental unfairness.
Lack of jobs and money is not the cause, but the symptom.
Cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacity.
Our failure to give.
We are discriminating against our fellow citizens.
It's the same rhetoric.
It's the same class warfare rhetoric, and it's the same solution.
Obama is talking the identical thing today, just on an even grander scale.
But note, it's 50 years that we've had the war on poverty, LBJ's signature program of the Great Society, and the problem is as bad as ever.
Well, expressed as percentage.
Liberalism doesn't work.
The war on poverty didn't work.
The Great Society didn't work.
We're not allowed to say that.
No, no, no, no.
Can't say that.
We're supposed to credit LBJ's big heart.
We're supposed to credit his big, wonderful, good intentions.
But if he had been CEO of a company and had instituted this plan to grow the company and make it profitable and so forth, he'd have been long gone.
And this method would have been forever buried.
Okay, here, play the soundbite again.
Snerdley particularly here, very interested in it.
Lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom.
The cause may lie deeper in our failure to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities, in a lack of education and training, in a lack of medical care and housing, in a lack of decent communities in which to live and bring up their children.
Our joint federal local effort must pursue poverty, pursue it wherever it exists, in city slums and small towns, in sharecropper shacks or in migrant worker camps, on Indian reservations, among whites as well as Negroes, among the young as well as the aged, in the boom towns and in the depressed areas.
Okay, Snerdley, what?
What did he say?
He did.
You're right.
He did.
Snerdley is right.
He didn't say Negroes.
He did.
He didn't say it as Snerdley is saying it to me.
He did not say Negroes.
He did not say the N-word.
We're not saying he said the N-word.
He had a very relaxed, almost lazy pronunciation of the word Negroes.
In place of an E, there was an I. Spell it the way he pronounced it.
N-I-G-G-R-A-H-S.
That's how he pronounced it.
Now we move on, ladies and gentlemen.
Ronaldus Magnus.
Some months later, October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan televised speech in support, Barry Goldwater's speech entitled A Time for Choosing.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a Finwin without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the Finwin.
So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning.
Well, now, if government planning and welfare have the answer, and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while?
Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help, the reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true.
Each year, the need grows greater, the program grows greater.
Right?
And a new program is needed to fix what didn't work in the first program.
Government breaks it, government fixes it, breaks it, fixes it.
Cycle never ends.
And here we are 50 years later, and we are still fixing it.
It will never work.
New York Times listened to September 13th last year.
Quote, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years.
The Bureau has been publishing figures on it.
The war on poverty was begun 48 years ago.
The New York Times says that last year was the highest ever since they've been keeping records in 52 years of the number of Americans living below the poverty line.
LBJ's war on poverty made it worse.
The New York Times admits it.
The evidence is in the war on poverty, taking from producers, sending to government for redistribution, never works.
It isn't fair.
It doesn't solve anything.
It doesn't grow the economy.
It doesn't create jobs.
It doesn't get people out of poverty.
It never has.
And for those of you who are new to this program, maybe young and never heard LBJ or have heard of him but never heard him speak, this is 1964.
48, 50 years ago, it doesn't work.
All this idealism, everything your college professors tell you, it doesn't work.
It's demonstrably failed.
We're living amidst the failure.
Here is more from Ronaldus Magnus, so the same speech.
We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night.
Well, that was probably true.
They were all on a diet.
But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year.
Welfare spending 10 times greater than it was in the dark depths of the Depression.
We're spending $45 billion on welfare.
Now do a little arithmetic and you'll find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family $4,600 a year.
And this, added to their present income, should eliminate poverty.
Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running about $600 per family.
Would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Back in the 80s, the administrative cost of a dollar of welfare was 28 cents, meaning that for every dollar of welfare, 72 cents got to the recipient.
28 cents ended up funding government or whatever.
It's probably worse now.
That's what Reagan was talking about.
Just further evidence, it doesn't work.
It never has worked.
One final bite from Reagan.
So now we declare war on poverty.
Do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have, and remember this new program doesn't replace any.
It just duplicates existing programs.
Do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic?
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals.
They say we're always against things.
We're never for anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant.
It's just that they know so much that isn't so.
We will be right back.
Don't go away.
We are back.
I promised that we would get to phone calls this F hour, and we're now going to do that.
We're going to start in Milwaukee.
This is Charles.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yes, sir.
Thank you for having me.
I just had all the stuff that you played before almost.
Hey, Charles, could you speak a little bit more directly into the telephone microphone there?
Can you hear me better now?
That's much like 110% better, yeah.
Okay, I'm sorry.
The only thing I wanted to talk about was, I forget her name, but she was talking about high cheekbones and Indians and all that.
That would be Elizabeth Warren, Senate candidate in Massachusetts.
Yes.
Yes, Elizabeth Warren.
That statement to me is monolithic racism.
It's painting them all with the same brush.
It's bigotry.
Yeah.
It's racism, monolithic or otherwise.
I know what you mean by that.
Okay, all Indians have high cheekbones.
That's just it.
All Indians have high cheekbones.
That's horrible.
And how many of them have blue eyes like she has and blonde hair?
Okay, gray hair then, if it's dyed.
How many of them have blue eyes and gray hair?
You're right, but I don't really know what the reaction she's getting in Massachusetts is.
Nerdly asked me if they're laughing at her.
I really don't know.
And I would be afraid to hazard a guess.
I would assume that the Brown campaign's trying to make something of it, but the media will give her a pass.
They'll say, well, you know what her intentions were here?
The real joke here is that she's claiming 132nd Indian blood coursing through her veins.
So she's now a dual minority and therefore deserving of special favors.
She's a woman, which makes her a member of the only majority minority I've ever heard of, because there are more women than men, anybody else, but yet they're still considered a minority.
And then she's Indian, 132nd Indian.
So she's a double whammy.
So she is deserving of special favors, special attentions, And special favors because she is from a discriminated against minority.
Indians.
And they all have high cheekbones.
That's further evidence that she is one because she has high cheekbones.
As all Indians.
Every one of them.
Makes her an Indian.
Who knew?
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution and the phones we return.
Kurt Prescott, Arizona.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Rush, listen, I worked in Washington, D.C. in forensics, and that for a decade and more.
And I just wanted to highlight that if you look at the characteristics that I want to mention here that are being narcissistic, aloof, manipulative, you know, just being able to change midstream with bold-faced lies, then, you know, those things fall into a psychiatric category.
And it's called psychopath, used to be called so, I mean, it's called sociopath, used to be called psychopath.
And if you look at the pattern of behavior with the grandiosity of Barack Hussein Obama, those things fit.
The narcissism is, you know, it's off the charts.
So it's one thing to consider the political framework or what have you that he may be coming from, but there's something that really, in my mind, supersedes all of that.
Now, you are, what is your profession?
Clinical social worker.
Clinical social worker.
Are you a psychologist?
No.
No, I work together with teams of psychologists, psychiatrists.
With who?
You work with patients?
Yes.
Yeah, with the criminally insane in Washington, D.C. You work with the criminally insane.
In Washington, D.C. You treat the criminally insane?
Yes.
You know, preparing them for trial via medications and psychotherapy, as well as those that have, you know, been processed legally and are there on maximum security.
Wow, Washington, you must be busy.
Do you ever get a day off?
No, I'm not there any longer.
I'm here in Yavapai County in Arizona.
Okay, so you gave it up for your own mental health.
Thank you very much.
Right.
So you really, you work with the criminally insane.
You're not saying Obama's criminally insane.
You're saying that he's a narcissist and perhaps a sociopath.
What are you bouncing off of to come to that conclusion?
Well, the fact, if you consider the traits here, the level of manipulativeness, the grandiosity with his travel around the world, presenting himself with the pillars as he did.
But wait, all presidents do that.
They all travel around.
The things that he does that are different.
He apologizes for the United States.
He takes credit for everything.
Or when things go wrong, it's never his fault.
It's always somebody else's.
Exactly.
There's a constant deflection.
He's like the Teflon Don, if you will.
Okay, well, what do you make of, since you have dealt with narcissists, are you up to speed on the revelations that we've been treated to in the past couple days about these composite girlfriends of Obama that he compressed into one figure in his autobiography?
Well, the thing that stood out to me in that is the fact that he stands aloof, that, you know, there is a level of detachment that he has that, you know, he's great on the superficial initial contact, but in terms of having depth, continuity of care and that kind of stuff, no.
I remember Carl Rove's first description of Obama after he'd met him the first time.
And I'm going to paraphrase Rove as best I remember it.
Rove said, these guys are all over the place.
You see them at the country club standing by themselves or with one other person, a woman, with a drink in their hand and a cigarette and not talking to anybody.
You can see they're passing judgment on everybody that walks by them, and they're always thinking they're better than everybody else.
And so I think it's pretty close to what Rove suggested.
But while I have you here, since you have some experience, what is your professional reaction when you hear all of these experts on TV explaining why Junior Sayao committed suicide?
Oh, boy.
I'm sorry, but I haven't attended to that.
All right.
I don't know.
Well, I knew that came out of Left Field, but I thought maybe if you'd seen some of it, you would have a professional reaction to it.
Kurt, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Since we're on this subject, I did not want to talk about it, but since it's come up now, Obama and the compressed girlfriend.
We have some sound bites here from noted professionals in journalism and noted historians to try to explain this to us and to basically say, hey, that's just because Obama's talented and he's really, really cool.
Up first is Jake Tapper, who was on Good Morning America today.
And this is a portion of his report about the new biography about Obama, David Moranis, and the revelations about his new girlfriend, Genevieve Cook.
Obama morphed a few interracial relationships into one composite in that book to discuss racial issues, providing few other details.
Cook and Obama moved in together in 1984.
She wrote of their love in her journals and her concern about how guarded and controlled he was.
Distance, distance, distance, and wariness, she wrote.
The sexual warmth is definitely there, but the rest of it has sharp edges.
His warmth can be deceptive.
Though he speaks sweet words and can be open and trusting, there is also that coolness.
She tells him she loves him.
His response, thank you.
Well, it's better than I know.
It's better than saying I know.
She tells him she loves him and he says, thank you.
Now, Obama was originally approached to write a book on race.
And in fact, he intended to write a series of essays on race based on his experiences, but he decided instead to write on the same subject in autobiographical form.
So isn't it more than a little weird that his book on race would go to such lengths to skirt around the fact that he had a white girlfriend?
Genevieve Cook was white, I think.
Why hide that fact?
Since he was originally going to write a book on race.
But above and beyond that, here's Jacob Tapper, ACE reporter ABC, who's just now learning about it took another journalist, Maranus or Moranis.
I've got to figure out.
I've known how he pronounces his name.
I just don't remember.
I'm not trying to purposely mispronounce it.
At any rate, David, I'll say Moranus.
This stuff was all knowable four years ago.
Isn't it striking how all these Obama-beat journalists are fascinated with this?
They didn't know anything about it.
It was right there at Obama's autobiography.
They didn't know anything about it.
Now that a fellow journalist has ripped a cover off of this, now it's perfectly fine to talk about it.
So we move on to CBS this morning.
The guest is Rice University Professor of History, Doug Brinkley.
And I'm having a discussion with Charlie Rose about the report that Obama created a composite character made up of several real people in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father.
And Doug Brinkley says here, I kid you not, you'll hear it with your own ears, that Obama's autobiography was not meant to be factual.
So everything's okay here.
There's no reason for anybody to panic at what might appear to be compressed characters, composites, because Obama's autobiography was not meant to be factual.
If it is different, does it matter?
Because it's a difference between autobiography and biography.
Well, exactly.
I mean, there's a lot of compression that President Obama used in his book.
Some of the women that we read about now in the Vanity Fair piece were compressed by the president, but they're two different breeds, autobiography and history.
David Marinus is a very fine biographer.
He's written excellent books on Roberto Clemente and Bill Clinton and many others.
And so he's credible.
He's a longtime Washington Post reporter, and he's done the best job of really giving us the factual timeline of the president's Occidental College move to New York City and what he did in New York, not just who his girlfriends are, but how he was fighting for racial identity.
Fighting for racial identity.
What a courageous struggle.
Fighting for racial identity.
Because, of course, that's all that matters.
Well, I know his mother was white and his father was black.
So who am I?
It matters.
Racial identity.
But you see, it is different.
Charlie Rose says it really doesn't matter, does it?
It's a difference between autobiography and biography.
And Doug Brinkley says, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Really, autobiography not meant to be factual.
He's got latitude and leeway here because he's Obama and we are the reviewers.
So Charlie Rose says, well, what comes across here, Doug, is the notion that this is a young man, clearly with a remarkable ability.
Remarkable talent, remarkable ability, Doug.
But he was also ambitious.
Really had a plan.
He was looking to find his own way to the things he wanted to do, which I find not unusual for somebody of his talent.
Exactly.
And that talent is what he was.
Some of the letters and writing we see of Barack Obama is quite guarded.
He's not putting himself up on the lines.
He's not exposing his personality.
He's keeping a lot to himself.
And we see that sort of aloofness sometimes with his presidential leadership.
He's very Zen-like and self-contained now as president, and we see that even in an early age he was that.
He was so, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
He's so talented.
He is so cool.
He is just so Zen-like.
He's so aloof.
He's so self-contained.
He's in the midst of this racial struggle.
It doesn't matter whether his autobiography is factual because he's Barack Obama.
So everything's okay now.
What could have been a disaster?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Obama wrote some stuff.
Well, we got it covered now.
We've fixed it.
I know Nixon was aloof, but he wasn't called Zen-like.
He's called paranoid.
Nixon was called a psychological freak.
Anyway, brief time out here, folks, says we're up against it on time, but we'll be back and continue after this.
And welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limboy and the EIB Network.
Here we are at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I know the ditto cam's not on.
I'm going to turn it on here in mere moments.
Folks, over the last year, practically from the beginning, when we announced 2ifbytea.com, we have been deluged, and I mean deluged with requests from people.
They love the tea, but they really would like one with no sugar or no sweetener, just plain old tea.
And we listened.
Well, we listened the whole year.
We go back and forth.
My first reaction was, screw it for crying out loud.
If you want tea, go brew it yourself.
Anybody can make a tea with no sweetener in it or no flavoring.
But of course, I saw the error of my ways because the requests kept coming in.
Literally, we have been deluged with people who want a 2IF by tea with no sweetener and no sugar.
So we listened.
And today we are thrilled to announce the latest and greatest addition to our fleet of flavors at 2IF by Tea.
So as of today, plain old tea.
That's right, unsweetened for those of you in Port St. Lucie and Riolinda is available at 2IFBT.com.
And we've got a new label that I want to show you here.
There it is.
Plain old tea, me in a vintage World War II plane.
Normally I'm on a horse as Rush Revere, but this is just plain old tea.
It's a gorgeous white label.
And I think it's pretty clever, especially since it was my idea.
Plain old tea.
So there you have it.
And it's as good as any of the other two if by teas.
We went through the rigorous tasting process here.
We just didn't say, put together some tea and don't put any sweetener in it.
We actually tested the strength and the weakness and all those things.
And it's now available at 2ifbytea.com.
Now, seeing as the election, right around the corner, we figured that Rush Revere needed to pick up his pace to spread the alarm.
And that's why I'm in the plane here.
One If by Land, Two If by T is how our brand began.
So I, Rush Revere, had to temporarily trade in the faithful horse for a 1952 bomber.
It's really, it's funny.
It is, I'm still dressed as Rush Revere from the 1700s, but in this in this airplane.
Now, this could be the greatest label yet.
And of course, the label does signify how great is inside the bottle as well.
This is the perfect American-made tea for your next barbecue or your patriotic event.
And now, this closes the loop.
We might have some additional flavors coming, but here it is by popular demand, plain old tea, unsweetened, no sugar.
And of course, as always, we remain a proud sponsor of the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
This is an incredible organization that works tirelessly to provide scholarships and a future for the children of fallen heroes lost in combat or in domestic tragedies like 9-11.
Now, I have to warn you: there's just a limited supply of plain old tea right now.
We are bottling even as we speak.
But the demand on this is going to be very, very high.
And if we run out today or this week, be patient because we are continuing to bottle.
But it is available for order now at 2ifbytea.com.
And by the way, while I have you here and I'm talking about this, this is also something that we're getting a lot of requests for.
We are opening up our distribution channels to you.
If you would like to be part of 2F by Tea, spread the alarm by offering 2F by T in your personal mom-and-pop store or your restaurant or your chain of stores.
See, we have always wanted to maintain direct contact with our customer, which is one of the reasons why we haven't shipped a bunch of this stuff off to distributors that lost control of it and put it in all the grocery stores.
So, what we thought we would do is simply, if you want large orders, if you want to put it in your restaurant or in your mom and pop store or your mom and pop chain or whatever, there's a large order inquiry form at 2ifbit.com.
It's right under the shop tab.
And I mean, you might want a large order or truckload for your next party where you could do it that way as well.
But if you want to resell it, we're interested in talking to you about it at 2ifbit.com.
Look for the large order inquiry form under the shop tab, and we will be right back.
Next time somebody that matters to you tells you that they love you, I want you to do what Obama does and say thank you and see what happens.
Doesn't it?
Yeah, and then after that, say, I don't blame you.
I love you.
Thank you.
I don't blame you.
▲
Export Selection