All Episodes
Previous Next
May 16, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:23
May 16, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I told you we'd be back, and here we are, Rush Limbaugh.
The Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Telephone number if you want to join us, 800-282-2882.
And the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
From the San Francisco NBC affiliate.
Stimulus dollars were used to fund studies into erectile dysfunction.
The NBC investigative unit has raised questions about two grants totaling near one and a half million dollars distributed to the University of California San Francisco.
The money was part of the federal stimulus program.
And went to studies into the erectile dysfunction of overweight middle-aged men and the accurate reporting of somebody's sexual history.
Now I'm not going to read the rest of this because it's pretty poorly written article.
But in a nutshell, so to speak, in a nutshell, the San Francisco NBC affiliate has been looking deep into where some of Obama's porculous money went.
Better late than never, I guess.
It's only three and a half years after the fact.
They have uncovered stimulus money was used to fund two studies.
University of California, San Francisco.
The first study was how to make people more honest in reporting their sexual history.
Did you know?
I had this in a stack yesterday.
And I don't know.
Let me let me check and see if I kept this.
There was a they did a study on studies.
They actually spent money to find out about studies.
I can't I I am not making it up.
I don't know what shovel ready about erectile dysfunction.
But clearly in the Obama regime, something is.
And that study, which cost $250,000, was to see if losing weight would help men who had erectile dysfunction problems.
$250,000.
You know, for that, I I take the money and lie to them.
I don't it doesn't matter.
It's like the I remember we long, long time ago, back in the in the 70s.
I worked in Kansas City and it was discovered that they had spent some incredible for back then amount of money in the millions to study whether or not Eskimos still swap wives.
And I I for 10% of that money, I would have blown the whistle on Overland Park, Kansas.
But this was stimulus money.
In addition, hundreds of millions of dollars meant to provide a little relief to the nation's struggling homeowners is being diverted to plug state budget gaps.
In a budget proposed this week, California joined more than a dozen states that want to help close the gaping shortfalls using money paid by the nation's biggest banks, earmarks for foreclosure prevention, investigations of financial fraud, and blunting the ill effects of the housing crisis.
California was awarded more than 400 million dollars from the banks.
Governor Jerry Brown has proposed using the bulk of that money to pay the state's debts.
This is so typical.
$25 billion the Obama administration managed to shake down from five banks.
It was supposed to go to people who were improperly foreclosed on.
It was one of Obama's multiple mortgage assistants, foreclosure assistance programs.
And it instead went to state public sector unions.
When you read a story that the governor, like Jerry Brown in this case, wanted to use it to pay the state's debts.
What that means is he took that money that was intended to help citizens in California who had been foreclosed on, and he gave the money to the unions.
Which is probably what Obama intended from the get-go.
This this settlement, which Was the second largest in history after the tobacco shakedown was only reached in February.
You may not have even heard about this.
But they shook some banks down for $25 billion, much like they shook down BP.
The money has already been diverted to quote unquote plug state budget gaps, which means it's going to public sector unions, since the biggest gap in any state's budget is their payout to union members, either in salaries or pensions or health care programs.
Now, according to this story, which is in the New York Times, only 27 states have devoted all their funds from the banks to housing programs.
This is sort of like all the money from lotteries supposed to go to education.
All of this money is going to the unions.
All of it is going to union public employee pension plans or what have you.
In Texas, $125 million went straight to the general fund.
It was not supposed to go to the general fund.
It was supposed to go to individuals who, according to the regime, had been improperly foreclosed on by these evil banks.
Missouri will use its $40 million to soften, it says here, the cuts to higher education.
Indiana is spending more than half of its allotment to pay energy bills for low income families.
Virginia will use most of its sixty-seven million dollars to help revenue starved local governments.
Now notice that in all of those states except for Indiana, the money is going straight to unions.
I would say that it's shocking, except that seems to be where all the money from Obama's brilliant schemes always end up, but probably just coincidence, right?
I kid you not, from the porculus bill, and you remember some of the horror stories there.
In fact, even after porculus, there was porculus two, that was dedicated, state of California to go to teachers and the education system so that teachers wouldn't be laid off.
And instead, the state did not use it for that purpose.
It applied it to pension payments to the pension plan later on down the road, years down the road.
Sorry.
Wrong button.
There was never any intention to use this money as allocated.
And that seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
So here's what's happening.
And I I don't know how else to say this.
Obama will go on television.
He'll make a heart rendering, heart-tugging speech about the difficulties people are facing even while our economy is recovering.
There are some who are being left out.
It is unfair the policies that were left over from the Bush administration.
My predecessor, worse than we knew, some people have been foreclosed on who shouldn't have been.
Today I'm announcing a program that will provide assistance to these people and help them stay in their homes.
And that's just for people who foreclosed on.
Then there's another special interest group suffering some economic plight that Obama has a program for.
He announces it all on television.
The media amplifies it.
The message is what a great guy.
What a compassionate guy.
This is a guy who cares about people.
So as far as anybody's concerned, people who've been improperly foreclosed on are going to get help.
And that's the last anybody's heard about it until today when we find out that in the case of the bank shakedown, the money is going to unions.
And nobody ever knows.
So Obama gets credit publicly for compassion and wanting to help people out who have fallen on hard times, and all he's doing is creating slush fund after slush fund that's going to his union people.
Now don't forget the circuitous route this money takes.
Because all money given to the, well, not all, but a great percentage of the money given to unions ends up back with the Democrat Party.
It's one of the cleverest money laundering schemes I've ever seen.
It finally became clear to me during this brew haha in the state of Wisconsin.
It's been going on for a long time.
I just never figured it out.
But what happens is this.
Obama comes up with a with a with a program to help the uh disadvantaged or the downtrodden or whatever.
Announces the plan, the money goes to state agencies to distribute, it goes to public sector unions who do what?
They stay employed.
The whole point is to make sure that in this dire down economy, union people don't get laid off.
Public sector union people primarily, but private sector as well.
And the reason Obama doesn't want those people fired is because they pay dues on their salaries.
So the money leaves Washington, it ends up keeping union people employed, they pay dues on the money that their salaries are coming from, and that dues money then ends up as contributions to the Democrat Party.
It's a way for Obama to raid the treasury and have the money take a circuitous route and end up back in his coffers or the party's coffers, laundered through the unions under the guise of bailing out people who have been foreclosed on in this case.
That's how it works.
Yeah, there's an ideological tie to the unions.
I mean socialists hang together.
But the point of all of this is to make sure that in this down economy, union people hold on to their jobs.
If the states don't have the money to keep the teachers employed or whoever else, whatever other union workers employed, no problem.
We'll have a new program, pork's program or whatever.
Stimulus too.
Guess what?
We're gonna help an aggrieved group.
And the money always ends up with unions.
They never lose their jobs.
They never get canned, they don't get laid off.
I mean, some do.
This is not a hundred percent effective.
They can't they can't raid the treasury to help and save every union job, but the I guarantee you, people being laid off and fired in the private sector greater percentage there than in the public sector.
And it's all because those public sector people pay dues and that money goes back Democrat Party.
Well, I don't know what the percentage would be.
Let's take a round number, ten billion dollars from the from the treasury to the state of California that ends up in union hands.
How much of that ten billion comes back to Obama?
What, ten, twenty percent?
It's ten to twenty percent they wouldn't have, but it's free money.
They're just raiding the treasury for it.
The states are not paying the money from state tax collections.
They don't have the money.
California's 16 billion dollars in debt.
They're getting this from the federal government.
It's it's it's a slush fund.
Series of slush funds laundering money through unions so that the Democrat Party always has campaign contributions flowing in.
I'm just a little surprised that the New York Times uncovered this.
Now they don't go into the money laundering angle.
They just point out that five big banks were shaken down for $25 billion because they had improperly foreclosed on their customers.
And Obama thought that wasn't right.
So he was going to help those people out.
So they get the 25 bill, they send it to the states.
The states are supposed to find the people who got screwed and help them out.
Except the money goes to the public employee sector unions.
I've just told you why.
It's not because Obama loves unions, although he does, it's not because Obama has some affinity for that kind of work.
It's not because Obama thinks they're downtrodden, taken advantage of, and all that.
It's because it's a way of getting money.
It's always all about the money for everybody in politics.
Democrats, liberals want to convince you that they don't care about the money.
They're doing it for the hearts and the compassion and all that.
And it's always always all about them.
How about Obama?
He appeared on the View yesterday.
Barbara Walter show with uh Joy Behar and Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Whoopi Goldberg.
And who's the other one?
Sherry somebody.
And uh He was asked whether he thought the upcoming election will be tight.
He said, When your name is Barack Obama, it's always tight.
And so Jay Joy Behar pipes in, yeah, Barack Hussein.
Meaning that there's so much bigotry, and there's so much bias.
His name makes every election tight.
It's always a toss-up because there's so much hate for Barack Obama because of his name.
Remember, in 1996, Obama managed to get several opponents kicked off the ballot.
He ran unopposed.
In his 2000 race for Congress, Obama ran against Bobby Rush in the Democrat primary.
Rush received 61% of the vote.
Obama received 30% of the vote.
In 2004, Obama ran for the U.S. Senate primary against Blair Hull.
For some odd reason, Mr. Hull's divorce records were unsealed.
Obama took 54% of the vote.
Obama in the general election squared off against a Republican Jack Ryan.
Somehow his divorce records unsealed, and Ryan dropped out, and they sent Alan Keyes in there.
Obama won 70% of the vote.
In 2008, Obama won the presidency by achieving 53% against McCain's 46.
Where are these tight races?
All of Obama's opponents end up having private information about them somehow mysteriously discovered, and they end up resigning the race, and he ends up with no opponent.
Tight races.
So here's Obama trying to make everybody think there's so much bigotry and racism aligned against him because of his name.
And then you've got sponges like Joy Behar agreeing with it just on the premise of it.
So Obama both lied and smeared the voters of the country he leads when he says, When your name's Barack Obama, it's always tight.
He's ripping the people of this country with his comment.
It's offensive and it is classless, but that's how Mr. Cool rolls.
Accuses Americans of bigotry.
The very people who elected him in a practical landslide.
Yeah.
Yeah, when your name's Barack Obama, it's always tight.
It's never tight.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones we go.
Santa Fe, New Mexico.
This is Mike.
Great to have you.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Rush, thank you.
20-year kiddos.
You know, for the past year or so, since the 2010 elections, we've been hearing from uh the news media and CNN, CNN and so on about the uh the low approval ratings of Congress.
All the all every week you would see a report about 10%, 12%.
So now in the primary, we see an opportunity for Republican voters and voters in general to throw out the bums, throw out the moderates, throw out the people who've been in office as career politicians, and then now we have long-winded discussions on CNN about what Republican voters are doing.
Throwing out people like uh Richard Luger, who's been there for a hundred years.
Well, your your your point is a little hypocrisy in the media here.
Your point is it makes sense that with congressional approval so low that incumbents would be defeated in droves.
That's that's my main point.
And the irony is, you know, we're supposed to leave people like Richard Luger in their office, I guess, to work with moderates like Barack Obama so that we don't get five trillion dollars in debt in four years.
Let me tell you a little story.
Let me tell you a little story.
This is uh 1989, 1990, with the first two years of this program.
There's a uh much beloved on the Democrat side and highly respected Congressman from California named Tony Coello.
And Tony Cuello was very, very powerful in the Democrat caucus in the House of Representatives.
And at the time, Tony Quello ran the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.
So it was his job to get Democrats elected and re-elected in that particular election cycle.
And out of the blue, Coello was beaten.
And Barbara Walters hosted Nightline that night.
And it was almost like awake.
Every guest, and I don't remember the guests.
Barbara Walters actually said, can the Congress survive?
Can it go on?
What will we do now?
Because Coelho was judged to be such a high-ranking and powerful Democrat.
But more than that, he was one of these entrenched career lifers.
It was inconceivable that Tony Cuello would even have an opponent, much less the opponent would win.
Well, it's the same thing that you're talking about here, a little bit different with Luger Luger's a Republican, but still, if you look at the people who are writing eulogies, they're all Democrats.
And that tells you something which you, Mike, have instinctively understood.
So when you get a poll that when you see a poll that congressional approval's 10-12%, then these guys start dropping like flies.
The establishment is lamenting the loss of one of their own, not just the Republican establishment, mind you.
The DC establishment.
The political class has lost one of its own to an outsider.
Those approval polls don't mean anything to these guys other than it's an interesting laughing point because ever since Will Rogers people have been criticizing and laughing at impuning Congress, making fun of them.
And so they've always had low approval ratings.
When one of the establishment guys loses, then the people are losing their minds, is what this all means.
Here is the exact Barbara Walters quote.
By the way, what happened to Tony Cuelo?
He resigned from the House in 1989.
I believe Coelho was from Modesto.
He resigned from the House in 1989 in the wake of media reports that he had received a loan from a savings and loan executive to buy junk bonds.
And uh it went through various stages of trying to deflect it and deny it, but it eventually caught up with him.
And I remember we uh EIB affiliate uh at the time, I forget, was it Bakersfield?
No, it was Stockton.
I I don't remember which one it was.
I read it's 1989.
I remember that we worked pretty closely.
There was a there was a uh a colleague in that station who really loved Coelho.
He was a conservative and he loved Coelho was that district.
Tony Cuello was, didn't matter, Republican Democrat Coelho was that district, and and and this guy, this host just did not believe this, could not believe it.
And he had Cuello on to talk about it.
And I uh Coelho eventually lost this host's support, and I don't remember if it was because Coelho in the appearance lied to him.
And it was later uncovered that he had lied, and then the guy lost respect, or if Coelho had admitted it.
I just the details are foggy, but it was a it was a corruption thing that, like everybody at first to try to deny it's not true, they're out to get me, turned out to be true and established.
And here's Barbara Walters' exact quote.
It seems to be a personal tragedy as well as perhaps one for the country.
A member of Congress leaving.
This is the establishment.
This is this is uh not supposed to happen.
They're lifers.
They're there forever.
It doesn't matter what congressional approval is.
The same doesn't matter what CNN's ratings are, it's a great example, it's a great analogy.
To them, it doesn't matter what CNN's ratings are, as though as long as they remain loyal to the cause.
Brooks Jackson of CNN at the time, not long after, wrote a book about Coelho, and you know what the title was?
Honest Graft.
Honest Graft.
Is that not an oxymoron?
Honest graft was the and Brooks Brooks Jackson's now at one of these fact check sites.
Out the left CNN, and he's at a fact check site now.
I I I forget uh which one it is.
Donna in Frederick, Maryland, thank you for calling.
Great to have you here on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
It's a privilege.
Congrats on your award this week.
And uh I have to humor you.
When I tuned in earlier, I actually thought I was hearing Bill Clinton's voice.
You've perfected it quite a bit there.
Thank you very much I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
But the reason why I'm calling is there's been a lot in the media lately.
Um concerned about what's going to happen with uh Joe the Burden, I mean Joe Biden, our vice president as far as the upcoming election.
So I was curious about your take on the possible shakedown of so to speak.
Tell you what, since you called, I've got a couple of Biden soundbites that just rolled in here.
I want to play those sound bites, and then I'll I'll tell you what some of the things I think could happen in terms of uh uh rabbit being pulled out of a hat.
Here is Biden, he's in Youngstown, Ohio this afternoon at a campaign event.
Things really are starting to come back.
There are signs of life and hope in the heartland.
Jobs are starting to come back.
And the ones that are coming back are the kind of jobs you can build a middle class family on.
They're manufacturing jobs, decent paying jobs, so you can live in a safe neighborhood.
Own your home, not rent your home.
If a kid wants to be able to send your kid to college or send her to trade school.
All right.
He might be talking about Wisconsin.
Now he's in Youngstown, Ohio, but he might be talking about Wisconsin, where you know what jobs are being created.
Jobs are being created in Wisconsin because of Governor Scott Walker, because of some of the policies at the state level.
But overall, this is bunk.
I have a lot of charts.
Jim Pethacukas, our buddy at American Enterprise Institute, heard that Biden said this.
And he's a think tank guy, so he went to his tank and he started thinking.
And he produced a bunch of charts that are worthless to me here.
I can't show them to you.
And to try to describe a chart is impossible.
But the charts uh simply confirm everything you know.
Jobs are not coming back.
Everything he said in this bite is nothing more than a dream.
It's smoke and mirrors.
But he's out there screaming on the campaign for Republicans don't get us.
Jobs are coming back.
Everybody's coming middle class, gonna be able to send your kid to c everybody knows this is Bo Hunk.
They're desperate.
Biden is being sent out there, no, he's on his own, and they're simply trying to create an alternative universe where they want you to think everything for everybody else is happening, and you're next.
It's going great guns.
That may not be happening for you, but uh where we are today in Youngstown, Ohio, boy, it's really coming back.
Things are hot and trot.
It's gonna get better, you're gonna be able to get a manufacturing job, support your family for send your kid to college.
It's happening, it's happening.
And you're supposed to sit there and say, Wow, cool, all right, finally coming.
You don't see any evidence of it, but he's the vice president.
He's saying it.
So the uh the game is you're supposed to believe it and think it's happening for others and maybe right around the corner for you.
One more soundbite from Biden.
I resent when they talk about families like mine that I grew up in.
I resent the fact that they think we're talking about we're envy, it's job envy, it's wealth envy, that we don't dream.
My mother believed, and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be, I could be vice president.
My mother and father believe that if my brother or sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire.
My mother and father dreamed as Much as any rich guy dreams.
They don't get us.
They don't get who we are.
Well, then why is your administration so against millionaires?
Why is your administration trying to target and punish them?
Why is your administration blaming them for everything that's gone wrong, Mr. Vice President?
Why is your administration single-handedly doing everything they can to discourage people from becoming millionaires?
Because they're bad people.
You guys don't inspire people to be the best they can be.
Mr. Vice President, with all respect, sir, your party tells people how impossible it is for them in this country because the deck is stacked against them.
There's either discrimination or there's racism, or there's sexism, or there's bigotry, or the richer taking all the money.
Or Bush spent all the money, or what the last thing you do when the Democrat Party's inspire people.
And you do try to kill people's dreams.
You're trying to convince people the only route they've got to any kind of happiness is through government.
The government program for that, for this.
This is all this is just ridiculous.
But now what could they do?
What rabbit could they pull out?
Well, a couple of them, as I've mentioned.
Obama, sometime this summer, October, could decide to forgive all student loans in an effort to get the youth vote.
He can do that.
He could propose it.
It doesn't have to happen.
He can say he wants it, just like he said he hopes one day that same-sex people can get married.
People open up their checkbooks to him.
He didn't make one bit of difference in the whole issue, but he said something.
He could say he wants to forgive people's mortgages and to come over the program and pay everybody's mortgage who's underwater.
He's president.
He can do these things.
He can propose them.
Even if they don't happen immediately, he can try to convince people that that's what he's going to do if he's re-elected.
That that's what he's going to do now.
Romney can't say anything like that.
The question if it continues this this way for Obama, and if they can keep floundering, a proposal like that, my thinking is would not have broad-based appeal because it would be such a reach.
It'd be so obvious what it is.
But doesn't say couldn't try.
They could replace Biden on the ticket with somebody.
Could invade Iran.
Could tell the Israelis to stand aside.
There's any a number of things in the incumbent playbook that you can do at the last moment.
Could come up with some dastardly deed that Romney's been involved in, but they'll probably have exposed all those by that time.
I just sent the charts talking about from our buddy Jim Pethacukis at the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.
I sent them up to uh Coco and we'll put them at Rushlimbo.com and really devastating charts.
It's it's it's a great way to see the real economic decline and the fact that Biden is simply dreaming when he talks about things coming back and recovering and pay special attention to the labor force chart.
The labor force participation rate pay special attention to the decline.
That chart is I don't know, devastating.
To show you the number of people no longer in the workforce in this country.
So we've sent it up to Coco, and he'll get it up there as quickly as we can update the site.
Washington Post, next month America's health insurance plans may lose one trillion dollars in revenue.
May lose.
You know why?
One trillion dollars is the amount of revenue health insurance plans can expect to lose if the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act.
This is a story about health insurance plans losing money that they think they will have, but they don't have yet.
This is total BS.
You can't lose what you don't have.
If you don't get what you're expecting, you can't lose it.
You have to have it to lose it.
They don't have it.
And where's the trillion dollars coming from anyway?
We don't have that.
So it's a scare tactic, and this story is aimed right at justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, folks, if I don't win the lottery next week, then I will lose $10 million.
That's what the Washington Post wants you to believe.
It's simply a scare tactic.
Nobody has the trillion, including us to give it away to any healthcare providers.
You sit tight.
We'll be back in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection