All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:31
June 4, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As usual, have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Great to have you with us, my friends.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
We're already here at the final hour of the program.
I don't know where the time goes.
But since we have some every day, it doesn't matter.
Great to have you here.
Again, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address Lrushbaugh at EIB net.com.
Now, folks, uh one other thing.
The last call we had uh two calls ago, the uh the union member who said, I really, really, really, really could have a positive influence on public policy if I were just factual.
Have people forgotten shortly after Obama was immaculated, I did submit a column to the Wall Street Journal, a bipartisan stimulus proposal.
I mean, it had everything that everybody claimed to want, working together, contrasting two different points of view, checking which one worked.
I offered it up.
Here basically what it was.
You know, Obama wanted to spend a trillion dollars on stimulus.
And that was going to cause the economy to grow.
And by the way, look at all the money we've been spent, and the exact opposite has happened.
I mean, it's it's it's devastating for Keynesians.
It's devastating for the big government crowd.
Everybody knows now it doesn't work, but that's up against the media trying to tell everybody it can and will, and perhaps even has, depending on how biased the uh network happens to be.
What I proposed was okay, Obama won 53 to what was it, 47%.
So I said, you take 530 billion, Mr. President, and you do with it what you want, and give me the other 400 and whatever it was, 60 billion, and I'll do tax cuts and I'll do my side with it.
We'll see which ends up actually causing more growth to take place.
It had anything everybody can win.
Bipartisanship, it uh it acknowledged we could try Obama's way.
Now it wasn't accepted, of course.
I knew it wasn't going to be, but it was a brilliant plan.
And it was bipartisan.
And it showed a willingness to cooperate, a willingness to work with.
It was rejected out of hand.
I have not forgotten it.
Little story here from the um Washington exam.
Byron York had this this uh ran Sunday.
Headline, in tough fight with Romney, Obama longs for McCain.
Obama told an audience at a Minneapolis restaurant called The Bachelor Farmers where he's one of his six fundraisers, where he got really close to Wisconsin.
But he wouldn't go to Wisconsin.
Why doesn't a man so universally loved and popular?
We're told Obama's personal popularity, way, way up.
Why didn't you go to Wisconsin?
You know, bail out Tom Barrett.
I mean, if this election, if Wisconsin's got so much importance, which by the way, they're downplaying now.
The Democrats, no, no, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.
No, Wisconsin doesn't mean anything, the presidential race.
It's a Wisconsin election.
What are you talking about?
Six months ago, it was the blueprint for the presidential race.
Six months ago, it was the presidential race in microcosm.
But now that the polling data looks so bad, they're running away from it.
Obama is so universally loved and so popular.
Why not go to Wisconsin if he's so loved he could help bear it out?
Go in there and campaign for the guy.
Why'd he go and help help Barrett like he helped Martha Coakley?
And go in there and help Barrett like he helped uh who was that lost to Bob McConnell?
And who was it that lost to Chris Christie?
Obama winning campaign for all these guys.
Well, I guess that's why he's not going.
Everybody endorses loses.
Same thing with Clinton, by the way.
So at this fundraiser in Minnesota, Obama said, I mean, 2008 was a significant election, obviously.
But John McCain believed in climate change.
John believed in campaign finance reform.
John believed in immigration reform.
I mean, there were some areas where you saw some overlap.
And now Obama said things are different.
We're gonna have as stark a contrast as we've seen a very long time between the candidates.
So here's Obama in a tough fight with Romney, longing for McCain.
Now, what does that tell you?
He wants a guaranteed loser.
He wants a Republican that's going to compromise his core beliefs and agree with Obama.
He wants somebody who's going to cave, and he's unhappy.
Romney is not caving.
Now there are, ladies and gentlemen.
I am duty bound.
I ran across this in show prep.
I have to pass these two things along to you.
And they take us back to the primary.
And they take us back to a lot of people's concerns in the primary that Romney really isn't conservative.
Now we don't have to relive all of that.
You know what I'm talking about.
First item is from National Review Online.
Former Utah Governor Mike Levitt, who is leading the effort to be prepared for the White House transition should Romney win, is a huge fan of state health care exchanges in Obamacare and does not want the Republicans to eliminate the exchanges from Obamacare.
Mike Levitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama's health reform law.
He suggested earlier this year that Obamacare empowers the Health and Human Services Secretary to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.
We believe that these health exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market, and that's gotten sideways with some conservatives, Levitt said.
The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Levitt, they're a cash cow.
The size of his firm Levitt partners doubled in the year after Obamacare was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.
So Romney's transition guy loves a central part of Obamacare.
Now they asked a Romney spokesperson, uh Andrea Saul, National Review asked her to respond, and her response was Governor Romney alone decides policy, as he's made clear he is committed to completely repealing Obamacare.
Now that's true, too.
Romney has never wavered from that.
But the guy he's chosen to head up his transition, and transition is not a policy position.
Transition is what it is.
Transition from having won the election to the presidency.
It's the team that goes in and learns, you know, where the typewriters are, the computers, uh, you know, all the little details that get passed on from administration to administration.
It's not really a policy position, but the transition guy loves Obamacare.
Or a central aspect of it and has profited from it.
I have to point this out.
Now, by the same token, people are going to say you got to get rid of this guy, Mitt.
I mean, this guy's going to do great harm to you.
He could be the nicest guy in the world, and you might hate the exchanges, and you might insist that you're going to repeal Obamacare, but this guy is going to is going to worry voters.
You don't need to be doing and Romney will stand by him, just like he stands by Trump.
By gas, anyway.
That's not the only one.
Glenn Hubbard is another Romney advisor who believes that the bulk of any economic policy aimed at reducing the deficit should be borne By the wealthy.
Glenn Hubbard, economic advisor to Mitt Romney, a former George W. Bush official, appeared to channel President Obama on Sunday during a discussion about Romney's tax plan, speaking with CNN's Farid Zakaria.
In fact, I we might have.
Let me see.
I have to go.
Let me see.
We have this guy.
Do we have Hubbard?
I'm going through the list here real quickly to see if we've got Hubbard.
I can't find it.
He uh here's what he said.
Speaking with Farid Zakaria on CNN.
Hubbard said the bulk of the adjustment should be borne by upper income households.
He said that Romney was willing to put everything on the table.
Meaning tax increases on the rich.
Hubbard's comments appear to fly in the face of the Romney camp's contention that Obama's push to tax the wealthy at a higher rate is class warfare.
According to Glenn Hubbard, Romney would focus on cutting marginal tax rates to the levels proposed in the Bull Simpson plan in an effort to spur economic growth.
The rest of the deficit reduction would come by broadening the tax base, which means creating more jobs and more taxpayers.
The wealthy would also foot part of the bill for expanding Medicare and Social Security costs.
So these two names, these two guys, just warning you, are, if they haven't already, are going to create red flags, particularly out there in the blogosphere.
People are going to start being, oh no, oh no.
Why does he have to have a guy advising him on raising taxes on the rich?
That's Obama.
We need to differentiate ourselves.
That's going to be one thing.
The other one's going to be, oh no, why does he have to have a transition guy that believes in the state-run health exchanges and who profited from them as his transition guy?
I thought we wanted to differentiate ourselves from Obama.
We don't need people who like things Obama's saying.
I don't pretend to have the answers to these objections to the questions.
I could guess, but that's all they would be.
The political, by the way, this, as far as Mike Mike Levitt is concerned, who is the health exchange guy, likes those things.
The politico is characterizing Mike Levitt as Mitt Romney's Mitt Romney.
Meaning Levitt is Romney.
Now the political is also maybe trying to stir up a little mess here in doing so.
But remember, we are talking about, and we can't deny this, we're talking about the Republican establishment.
The Republican establishment openly admitted, some members of it, just in the last couple of weeks, that it's only now that they are beginning to think they can win.
The Republican establishment believes that we need to have compromise, and that we need to show the independence that we're not a bunch of extremists.
And they believe that there are certain aspects of Obamacare that the public wants that we're going to have to keep.
In addition, I didn't know the exchanges were part of that up till now.
What we were told that the Republicans liked was the precondition insurance aspect of it.
And to keep the kids on the policy to their 20s.
Those two things voters want to maintain no matter what happens to Obamacare.
So all this means is that the Republican establishment is the Republican establishment.
They're there, and they are involved in the Romney campaign.
But I agree with the caller who got all this started.
Romney has been awesome.
He has just been dramatically superb in beating back some of these Obama attacks.
The rapid response team he's put together is fabulous.
The ads they're running are great.
You know what?
I've got an idea for an ad for him.
You know, Obama's out doing all these fundraisers.
And at the same time, he's blaming Congress for not doing anything.
So if I were Boehner, I'd put an ad together with Republican leaders standing outside an Obama fundraiser, waiting for an opportunity to talk to him.
Since he's saying the Republicans aren't doing anything, well, I do a little ad, plenty of visuals with Republicans outside a fundraiser being denied entry.
All they want to do is work with Obama on jobs, but he's too busy raising money.
But they're where he is trying to help.
Let's take a brief time out.
Your calls are coming next, right after this.
Don't go away.
Now have to mention this, uh folks, Romney and his Republican establishment buddies.
I mean, they do say repeal and replace when they talk about Obamacare.
Not every time, but they say it enough.
And the replace that gives them a little, shall we say, maneuvering room for mischief if they want to.
And Levitt, Levitt has made money on these health care exchanges, as we mentioned, uh tons of money setting up these health care exchanges.
So he likes these things.
He's in charge of the transition.
Transition does get involved in personnel, people in positions.
I have don't know.
I don't know if Levitt's the tip of the iceberg on Republicans who secretly like Obamacare.
I don't know that there are a bunch of Republicans who secretly like Obamacare.
What I know is there are a lot of Republicans who have spines of linguiney who think the American people want it.
And are scared to death that they're going to lose the election if they go for flat out repeal.
They're going to run away.
See, the Republican establishment's focused on 20%, the independents.
They think the election's going to be one or lost there.
They're scared to death.
They believe every liberal mantra about the independence and how this will cause them to start running back to Democrats, and that'll cause them to start running back to Democrats.
And there are some things about Obamacare, the Republican establishment really thinks he's independence love, and they're just very nervous talking about full repeal.
That's why they put repeal and replace in there.
The whole Romneycare-Obamacare linkage, the Obama campaign hadn't gotten to that yet, and they will.
I'm just warning you, they're going that it's not going to be pretty when they do.
We talked about all this during the primaries.
We've got Romney care architects who are bragging that they also wrote Obamacare.
Now the transition guy, Mr. Levitt, is a big believer in a central theme of Obamacare, and that is the state-run health exchanges, which take the place of private sector insurance outfits, companies, the industry at large.
Now Glenn Hubbard is a different thing.
Glenn Hubbard is from Blackstone, the private equity firm.
He's a director, a trustee, one of the two of the of the economic club of New York, the Tax Foundation.
These are supply-side groups.
I'm having trouble figuring out where he comes from here on Farid Zicaria show on CNN, advocating these tax increases on the uh on the rich.
He's renowned as a supply side economist, and he was apparently instrumental in the design of the 2003 Bush tax cuts.
I'm not making excuses.
I'm just saying there appears to be a little bit of a disconnect here.
But I am just your humble servant reporter, passing information along.
It's out there in the uh in the public domain as it was.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
How many of you believe that eating too much salt is a no-no?
Eating too much salt is a horrible thing.
I know you all do.
Guess what?
It's not so.
I'm telling you, I I folks, let me tell you something here.
I I'm I am seriously beginning to think here that much of what is wrong with us generally, and particularly health-wise, is due to the way the liberal academia and liberal scientists report what they do and study what they do.
It's not science.
It's nothing more than an agenda that is supposedly cloaked in science, but it's nothing more than agenda-driven liberalism.
This salt debate, there's a debate on it now about about, and actually the debate thought to be over long ago.
Too much salt, high blood pressure, all kinds of horrible things, but no less than the New York Times.
On Saturday, by the way.
Let me give you the pull quote here.
One could still argue that all these people should reduce their salt intake to prevent hypertension, high blood pressure for those of you in Rio Linda.
Except for the fact that four of these studies involving type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetics, healthy Europeans, and patients with chronic heart failure reported that the people eating salt at the lower limit of normal were more likely to have heart disease than those eating smack in the middle of the normal range.
Proponents of the Eat Less Salt campaign tend to deal with this contradictory evidence by implying that anybody raising it is a shill for the food industry and doesn't care about saving lives.
The author here is Gary Tobbs.
He says an NIH, National Institute of Health Administrator, told me back in 1998 that to publicly question the science on salt was to play into the hands of the salt industry.
As long as there are things in the media that say salt, controversy continues, he said they win.
The upshot is that you can do damage to yourself by not eating enough.
If you eat too little, you raise your possibilities of heart disease and types one and two diabetes.
If you eat more than what is normal, there are fewer health problems that are caused.
And this is how many I wish I I'm gonna have to start a list, folks, because it's too long for me now to remember.
All of the foods that you and I grew up with thinking were heartful and the egg and cheese and dairy products, it turns out not nearly as harmful as what people science, left-wing scientists led us to believe.
We've gone back butter turns out that hydrogenated margarine is much worse for you than butter is.
Coconut oil, which was banned as one of the most healthful oils that you can eat.
Eggs, saccharin, coffee, oat bran, all of these things were gonna lead to high blood pressure.
They were gonna kill you.
High fat food.
Find out now.
If you don't have enough fat in your diet, and you are not preparing yourself to withstand sickness, illness, any number of things.
It's it's every myth practically turns out to be wrong.
Or not every myth.
Every supposed stated fact turns out to be a myth.
Now the salt story prints out to a lot of pages.
Uh I didn't, it's like seven or eight, and I didn't print them all out.
Didn't have to.
We only think we know the truth about salt is the headline of this story.
And it could be said about oat brand, it can be said about coffee, nicotine, any, for example, what if we look at nicotine?
Nicotine helps ward off Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, one of the two, I forget which.
Alzheimer's.
And yet we've all bought nicotine is a Killer.
Nicotine is horrible.
Nicotine, it has some benefits to it.
That nobody's told about.
But the classic in here is you have a bunch of liberal, and they are liberals.
I know people cringe when I try to make everything a left-right issue, but it is.
Everybody trying to force you to live a certain way happens to have a political ideology.
They do.
You can call, you can argue with me all day long if you want, but I'm telling you, these are people that are interested in control and domination.
And they do it with fear.
They do it with guilt.
And by gosh, if somebody comes along and tells you, you know, you're killing yourself, but I can save you.
You're going to listen to them.
And if they tell you salt is killing you, salt is raising your blood pressure.
You'll listen to them.
Nobody wants to die.
So all of these things get started.
They become accepted conventional wisdom.
And slowly but surely we're learning.
Just like global warming.
And just like coconut oil, just like a bunch of other things that everybody presumed that were fact did not.
And here this guy who writes a story reveals that he has been trying to write the truth about salt for years, since 1998.
And he's always attacked, and he's accused of being a tool of the salt industry.
Now we get big salt.
Who knew?
Big pepper far behind.
Well, nobody's what have people said that can happen to you for having too much pepper.
I don't know, nothing.
Anyway, I'm glossing over this now, but it's worth a little bit more time at some point because we're being lied to and we're being misled, and it's all oriented toward control and surrendering control, power over our lives.
And it becomes have you noticed, by the way, have you noticed the number of people that agree with Bloomberg on this silly 16 ounce soft drink ban?
In the left wing media, they're all over the place who think it's about time somebody put their foot down on this.
Oh my god, the the the number of people I can more than you can count on two hands who are prominent who think it's about time it's a great thing in the sports media to boot.
I'm even reading about it in the sports media.
Praising Bloomberg for finally having the courage to say what needs to be said.
That a 16-ounce Coke is just too damn much.
When the truth is it's nobody's business.
When you get down to brass tax, it's nobody's business.
And it's all prefaced on a bunch of lies.
This sugar is gonna kill you, or the carbonation's gonna kill you, or this is gonna make you sick.
It's all based upon a bunch of lies.
Now, where does salt go to get its reputation back?
And by the way, Doomberg was leading the assault on salt, too.
It's not trans fats and now sugar.
And these people become very militant about it.
Let me take a brief time out, my friends.
We've got much more straight ahead when we get back.
Don't go away.
So I checked the email during the break.
Rush, do you know how ridiculous you sound defending salt?
Yeah, but I'm not afraid to.
Folks, see, I never bought any of this stuff in the first place.
I don't I don't watch the amount of salt I eat.
And my blood pressure is normal.
And my I don't I just I've never followed conventional wisdom.
I don't go along with the crowd.
I realize we're all individuals.
The New York Times last week had a story on how exercise is not good for everybody.
And I can totally understand that.
We are all different.
We are not the same.
It's impossible that something is good for everybody and bad for everybody, and I mean everybody.
There are exceptions to everything.
Now, this salt business.
I want to read you it's just an excerpt from this story.
Already a quarter century into the eat less salt recommendations, journal editors and public health administrators were still remarkably candid in their assessment of how flimsy the evidence was implicating salt as the cause of high blood pressure.
Would you like to know how it happens?
Why have we been told that salt is so deadly?
Well, the advice has always sounded reasonable.
It has what nutritionists like to call biological plausibility.
You eat more salt, your body retains water to maintain a stable concentration of sodium in your blood.
And that's why eating salty foods tends to make you thirsty.
So you drink more and you retain more.
The result can be a temporary increase in blood pressure, which exists until your kidneys eliminate both salt and water.
Meaning if you eat too much, your body takes care of it.
Unless you have a problem, which you go get treated for.
But it's not universal that the stuff is gonna kill you.
The fact is you can't live without it, is the bottom line.
Now, here's here's where this stuff leads.
I can remember making jokes about this ten years ago.
Have you heard that New Jersey, and I'm dead serious about this, New Jersey with a conservative governor, is going to start fining drivers $1,000 for having pets in their cars without wearing a seatbelt.
See, Snerdley doesn't even believe it.
Oh, come on!
Can't possibly, I kid you not.
If this, if this becomes law, you could be fined a thousand dollars if your pet is not wearing a seatbelt.
Now, this is the kind of thing that we used to joke about, you know, use absurdity to illustrate, illustrate absurdity to be absurd, whatever.
This is the kind of example we'd come up with to point out how ridiculous these nanny state people are.
Now the absurdity is catching up and it's becoming reality.
It's from the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia, snurdly.
New fines in place for cats and dogs that don't buckle up in New Jersey.
Now, how in heck are you going to put your cat or dog in a seatbelt in a car?
How is it even possible?
No, they just want money.
They'll just think they can for money.
Here's Adam in Chicago.
Adam, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you very much, Ross.
The reason why I'm calling is because that story you talked about earlier about the one woman falling during the track race and the other person helping her up and all, and everyone stood up and congratulated her.
I mean, I think that just goes to show that America's that's not what America's all about.
You know, it's supposed to be like just like competitive nature in the workplace.
You know, the best man for the job is supposed to have the job.
You know, where's competitive competitiveness gone, you know?
All of a sudden, you know, well, now wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just this was a women's high school track event.
Um, but if I was a coach, she would never run again.
Yeah, but neither, neither of these two, neither of these two women was going to win.
They neither of them was in first place.
No matter what you do, you always do it 100% in life.
And that's what you should do.
And that's what people aren't doing.
She could have done better.
Maybe she would have got in, you know, F instead of 14.
All right.
Here's folks, I've got a limited broadcast seconds remaining.
Let me take over from what do you what he's I know where he's leading with this.
What is if we had time, he would say that we're losing our competitive instincts in this country.
Nobody wants to be competitive anymore.
That's not entirely true.
The problem is that there are still plenty of people who are competitive.
And they will eat you up and spit you out if you're not.
And if you don't learn to be competitive at some point in your life, you're gonna be chewed up and spit out.
Because there are still lots of people who are very competitive and who thrive on it, and you can't legislate it out, and you can't good feelings it out, and you can't strip it away.
Folks, we gotta go.
If you want to talk about this uh Ohio track meat thing tomorrow, we will.
All time in the world to do this.
Whatever you want to talk about, there'll be other stuff that'll come up.
▲
Export Selection