All Episodes
Previous Next
June 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
June 8, 2012, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Hope everything's cool.
Hope everything's fine and dandy.
It's Friday, and you know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Where we take calls randomly.
It makes no sense.
We don't take calls any particular order.
We don't try to arrange calls so that they make sense with what I'm talking about, because on Friday, you can talk about whatever you want.
I don't have to care about it.
It doesn't have to be anything I'm interested in.
It's totally up to you.
Now we try to take more calls on Friday.
We don't always pull that off, but we try.
And remember, it's the effort that counts.
It's the intentions that count.
So here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
You know this Barack Hussein Kardashian.
What it's it has spread.
It's it's it's spread like a rock and roll virus out there, like a rock and roll rash.
You know, just a throwaway line.
It's spread.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
My old buddy Mario Lopez from well, where's uh extra.
Well, yeah, you know, Mario MC'd the Miss America pageant the final night that uh that I judged when I won the dance contest.
I don't think I won it that night.
Yeah, Mario zoomed in for two hours of work uh after we had spent the whole week there doing judging Mario zooms in and uh he winked at me from up on stage, you know, from one professional to the to another.
Winked at me, gave me one of these little high-five type things.
Very nobody else would have noticed it.
Only two professionals would have realized the um the communications linkage that night.
It was what was that, a couple years ago now.
Anyway, last night on the syndicated TV program extra.
Here is Mario Lopez's introduction and a portion of a report on Obama and raising money with Hollywood types.
The correspondent here's a guy named Jerry Penicoli.
The president parties with Hollywood's biggest names, and that's why Rush Limbaugh is launching a new attack.
Mr. President, welcome to Obama Wood.
Thank you.
Share and Sun Chaz, Julia Reese and Alan.
As the president takes political fire from Rush, he is celebrity of the United States.
He is not the president.
Mr. Obama cracking this joke with Alan.
I want to thank my wonderful friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle beating her in push-ups.
I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down.
That's what I heard.
But the Star Pack campaign has some declaring war.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh blasting Mr. Obama.
He's becoming Barack Kardashian.
White House press secretary's response, quote, two words, Donald Trump.
So the president of the United States, and I'm sure they, by the way, they want this.
They want Barack Kardashian on Extra and Entertainment.
You don't think they do?
Of course they do.
This is why else do it.
Well, of course they know I'm right about it.
He's celebrity of the United States.
He doesn't care.
He's heading for the young vote.
This is how he's trying to revitally lost the young vote.
The polling data, he's way way down in the young vote, the youth vote, because you know the idealism from uh from from three and a half years ago is gone.
He's gotta he's gotta reach out to him in another way.
And uh this is how he's doing it.
He's a that's a by the way, the fact that that shouldn't go down all the way, the fact that that that made it they meant to do that.
That that that was not some faux pas slip of the time.
No, I haven't seen the video.
Snerdley said he saw the video of Obama saying She didn't go down all the way.
And you say, no doubt, no doubt.
This looked a little tired, and that was it, right?
So anyway, I'm I'm convinced that they want this Association.
They want Obama on extra and entertainment tonight.
But this Barack Hussein Kardashian.
Wow.
Now, folks, maybe I'm getting a little old.
I I'm I am.
We're all getting older.
And maybe my mind is starting to wander.
But I could have sworn about an hour ago, a little over an hour ago.
I could have sworn that I just heard the president of the United States say in his remarks about the economy that the private sector is doing fine.
He said the private sector is doing fine.
He said the problem is government jobs.
That's the jobs we're losing.
State, local government, though those are the jobs that are imperiled.
Private sector is doing fine.
Now, not even Obama can believe that.
And does he really expect us to buy it?
Maybe that was meant to be a dirty joke that we don't get.
Maybe that was a double entendre, private sector doing fine.
There's a transcript.
Here it is.
What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?
Obama.
Well, truth of the matter is, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector's doing fine.
Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.
Now, notice he's he's trying to blame the weakness in our economy on budget cuts being made by state and local government.
Now, how old is Obama?
Is he old enough for his staff to start making excuses for him yet?
Like Clinton's staff is trying to excuse his inanity.
Well, you know, Bill's getting up there.
He's 65.
They actually said that.
I told you yesterday, some of you may not have believed it.
They're actually saying Clinton would offer ball, you're about a Maya culpa.
Clinton went on Wolf Blitz yesterday and basically bent over grabbing the ankle and said, have your way with me.
I'm sorry.
I tell you, I got the timeline wrong.
You know, that's uh I I I I really I'm I just really goofed up.
You know, I got I got I got I got the timeline wrong, and uh my problem is I do go all the way down, and sometimes it's a long time before I get back up.
And by the time I get back up, a lot of stuff's happened I didn't know about.
And I just I forgot the timeline.
Yeah.
Somebody re-yeah, this is discipline.
Yeah.
Somebody reached out.
This is Corey Booker has been disciplined now.
Corey Booker has basically been told by the regime he doesn't matter.
He's yeah, the publicly, the regime is saying about Corey Booker, he is dead to us.
He's finished.
They gave Corey Booker, in their view, they gave Corey Booker a national spotlight on the on the Meet the Press Show.
And he went out there and he blew it.
He's dead to them.
So yeah, the discipline is starting to happen.
And Clinton clearly was read the riot act.
And I don't know what specifically it was that got to him, because there is no love lost between Clinton and Obama, but something did.
And it's all about, it's all about the Bush tax cuts.
And Clinton say, I think, yeah, I think we should extend those things, those babies.
And his excuse was he thought everybody was talking about between now and the election.
Not after the election.
That's his excuse.
He got the timeline wrong.
That's right, limbo understands.
Limbaugh's got it.
Because see, that's what I said.
I do.
I do go all the way down, and it's a long time to get back up.
And that's why I got the timeline wrong.
So they did get to him out there.
So he's blaming the weakness.
Obama is, but weakness in our economy on budget cuts made by state and local governments.
I offered a thought the other day.
I thought I don't think there's anything forward about Obama or progressive.
I think Obama's locked in the 30s.
I think that's his nirvana.
You know, a lot of people want to go back to Ozzy and Harriet and the 50s, the innocent burgeoning 50s.
Obama really wants to go back to the 30s.
He wants to redo the New Deal.
That is where he's stuck.
He went on to say if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and cut people or put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments?
In other words, he's calling for yet another stimulus.
He wants to shovel even more billions of dollars into the pockets of his campaign foot soldiers in the public sector unions.
That's what he's talking about.
He had Wisconsin in mind, I have no doubt when he said that the budget cuts, state local budget cuts, that's where families and people are losing their gigs, their jobs, and so forth.
And when you look at Wisconsin, I mean the big number out of Wisconsin, you see how many people gave up being members of like 40,000.
40,000 when Scott Walker passed this initiative to allow them to opt out of the government deducting dues.
40,000 people.
That went from 60,000 plus members to 27 or 28,000.
It was a huge huge blow.
But Obama knows that these votes are not going to buy themselves.
Now how in a touch do you have to be to say when the real unemployment rate is over 11%, the private sector's doing just fine.
The private sector is doing just fine.
Now maybe he's not CNO, but he certainly is obsessive compulsive.
Of course, we could be looking at this from the wrong end, folks.
I mean, you've got to be open to all possibilities.
Maybe in Obama's mind, the private sector is doing just fine.
I mean, there's a there's a story, another story out there today that the number of people on food stamps has doubled under Obama.
That to him might be the private sector doing just fine.
There might be 88 million adults not working, but they are eating.
Private sector's doing just fine.
He may look at it that way.
Maybe that's exactly what he wants.
Maybe he wants the private sector doing just fine is a lot of people not working but eating with their cell phones on and their TVs on, depending on government for all of that.
Maybe that's what he means by the private sectors doing just fine.
He wants more people to be made dependent on government, so they'll vote Democrat.
Private sector's doing just fine.
Ed Randell is not shutting up.
Fast Eddie, I've got sound bites in all this stuff, but I'll get to it hopefully somehow.
Ed Rendell won't give up the ghost.
He's still all week.
We got more sound bites.
Ed Rendell talking about how Hillary would have made a better president.
How Hillary would not have allowed this recall of Scott Walker.
That was a strategically stupid thing to do.
Fast Eddie is suggesting Hillary would have made a better president than Obama.
He says that's because Hillary had more executive experience.
Now think, folks.
How wacko that is.
When just being the wife of a president gives you more executive experience than Obama had.
What executive experience does Hillary have?
Trading cattle futures, reading the Wall Street Journal?
Managing bimbo eruptions.
What executive experience does Hillary Clinton have?
Oh, full president, fall governor.
When you're out there saying Hillary Clinton, who has zero executive experience, has more than Obama has.
Wow.
I'm beginning to wonder.
I really think something's going on.
How many other Democrats are realizing they would rather have somebody else's president?
I don't mean just Clinton and Larry Summers, Daval Patrick, Corey Booker, Arthur Davis.
There are a lot, I think, because this has been a horrible week for the Democrat and uh Democrats and Obama.
Peggy Noonan has a pretty interesting column on that, in fact, today.
So we've got a lot to get to today, plus your phone call, so I want you to sit tight.
And we'll be back and continue with all the rest of it right after this.
Welcome back, my friends.
Wonderful to have you here, Rush Limbaugh.
It is open line Friday.
Telephone number is 800-28282 and an email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
All right, here's something I just got from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Snerdley, you'll be fascinated by this.
Huffing and Puffington Post.
Men think about sex less than women think about fashion.
According to a survey.
Stick with me on this.
It might explain a lot.
How many times a day do you think about fashion?
According to an online study, women have fashion on the brain ninety-one times in a given day.
That is more than four times the amount that men about sex.
Online retailer, very dot coyed British women to see just how many times from sunrise to sunset they thought about fashion.
In fact, it says here, even simply daydreaming about that dress you should have bought during Kim Kardashian's eBay sale.
That's what it says.
According to the study, a fashion thought manages to creep into women's minds for an hour and nineteen minutes every day.
That means that every 11 minutes and 23 seconds, a woman stops to ponder style or fashion.
Also noteworthy is the clothing item that tops the list is dresses, not shoes.
Four times more than men think about sex.
And then there was this the Washington Post.
Look what one dinner party at Sarah Jessica Parker's house with what's her face, the helmet head, uh uh Anna Winter.
The Washington Post links to Obama campaign show fashion industry's political clout is growing.
Huffing and Puffington Post with a survey on women and their thoughts on fashion.
The Washington Post on Tuesday, Anna Winter Vogue editor holds sway over much of the U.S. fashion industry is expected in Chicago, where she and the supermodel Iman will join Obama, a campaign manager Jim Messina for a night of stumping for a thousand dollars.
Donors can schmooze, shop, and pose for photos with Anna Winter.
And then two days later.
Winter and Sarah Jessica Parker are planning to host a 40,000 dollar replate fundraising dinner with the Obamas at Parker's New York House.
The two high priced, high profile events put the spotlight on a symbiotic relationship developing between the Obama campaign, its style conscious first lady, and a deep pocketed largely Democrat fashion industry, which has been increasingly coordinating its support of Obama.
I don't believe this.
So we've now got the fashion industry as a major player in the Democrat Party.
There is a made-up war on women that the Obama campaign has ginned up.
They are having trouble.
In fact, the gender gap is narrowing.
Mitt Romney has significantly narrowed the gender gap with Obama despite massive Democrat attacks on the Republicans over a variety of issues.
As recently as April, Obama led Romney by 18 points among women voters in a U.S. A-to-day Gallup poll, 12 swing states.
The huge advantage with women gave Obama an overall edge of 9%.
Recent polls, however, show that Romney sliced into the lead.
In the same USA Today Gallup poll from early May, Obama's lead among women was cut to 12%, reducing his overall swing state lead to two.
So the fashion industry going in all the way for Obama.
Who would have unbelievable?
And of course, the fashion industry is um well, it's heavily populated by gay activists as well.
So this sign up all politically makes some sense.
Okay, so women are spending a lot of time during the day about putting clothes on.
Men are spending less time trying to get women out of their clothes.
That's what this all adds up to.
The bottom line here is that women spend four times longer thinking about putting on clothes than men think about taking them off.
And Obama has nevertheless.
So now we got to find a way.
Ladies and gentlemen, since since Obama is heading out for the fashion industry now, he's trying to lock down that important demographic and that voting block, the fashion industry.
Every day we keep learning something.
By the way, there was a grab soundbite number uh twenty five.
At Obama's little press gaggle today at the White House, unidentified reporter stood up, said a couple of uh books out with uh interesting details about national security issues.
There are reports of terrorist kill lists that you've supervised.
There are reports cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear programs that you've ordered.
It'd be stucks net.
First of all, what's your reaction to this information getting out in public?
And secondly, what is your reaction to lawmakers that accuse your team of leaking these details in order to promote your election?
The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive.
It's wrong.
And you know, people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people uh around me here approach this office.
We're dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and security of the American people, our families, or our military personnel, or our allies.
And so we don't play with that.
Somebody is somebody, as I remember leading into the Iraq war, battle plans, war plans would show up in detail, specific war plans for Iraq and later Afghanistan, would show up on the front page of either the New York Times or the Washington Post.
And when those leaks took place, now we all speculated here, those leaks were coming from career appointees or political pointed from the Clinton years.
That Bush remember Bush did not purge.
As a show of good faith, trying to heal the wounds of America, put everybody back together.
All of the political appointees over at the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, Bush left them there.
He did not replace them with his own people as a show of faith.
And it wasn't long before efforts to sabotage Bush military plans started showing up on the front page of the big newspapers and on the networks.
And it was easy to speculate that the leakers were holdover Democrats, Clinton appointees trying to undermine Bush.
And of course, the Republican establishment didn't want to hear that.
They thought when it came to foreign policy and national security that members of the establishment took off their partisan hats and everybody worked together.
They would loudly shout at them, get real!
Get modern.
You've got Democrats who are trying to undermine George was shouting at Bush.
Why don't you understand they're trying to undermine you?
Probably did.
Anyway, those leaks were good.
The press approved of every leak that might undermine a Republican president's strategy and plans.
But now we've got some really detailed links that some of the stuff on the kill list, that Obama is personally picking the targets.
This stuff is being leaked with detail that people have rarely seen in leaked information.
And then you had the stocks net, the uh computer virus that confounded the Iranian nuclear plan.
People admit, yep, we did it.
Huge national security breach.
I mean, even Democrat senators are outraged over that.
Diane Feinstein, California is beside herself that this is happening.
So Obama gets the question: are you doing this on purpose to help facilitate your election?
I'm offended by that.
The notion that my White House purposely release.
So the New York Times, I've never seen this before.
The politico has a story.
The New York Times is denying receiving leaks from Barack Obama.
I have never seen anything like this before.
The New York Times is getting the leaked information.
The New York Times has a story, it ain't Obama feeding us.
Story at the Politicos by Dylan Byers, caught in the crosshairs of a contentious dispute between a White House and Congress.
The New York Times is vowing to charge ahead with its coverage of developments in U.S. national security, denying that the newspaper is on the receiving end of a silver platter of leaks from the Obama regime.
The Times managing editor Dean Paquet told Politico Thursday, these are some of the most significant developments in national security in a generation.
We're going to keep doing these stories, but they are not coming from Obama.
When's the last time a newspaper said anything about a source?
So despite complaints from both Republican and Democrat senators, the New York Times is courageously vowing to continue to publish these secrets.
And the reason this stuff is being leaked, they're like the Stuxnet and the kill list.
This stuff is being leaked to make Obama look like a tough guy.
It's to burnish his reputation.
After all, he's a thin, wiry, can't even throw a baseball looking like a guy.
President, there's not a whole lot of masculinity there in appearance.
Plus he's a liberal Democrat.
That means he's a dove.
Liberal Democrat, progressive, socialist, whatever, means that in his mind the U.S. military is the focus of evil a modern world.
But it's election time.
Gotta make Obama look tough.
The United States, a great nation at risk in a dangerous world, and Obama's got to be made look like he's up to the task.
And so this stuff is being leaked to show how tough Obama is and how engaged he is, and how willing he is to pull the trigger on the bad guys.
That's what the kill list is all about.
And the New York Times is doing its duty.
And we're going to keep publishing this stuff.
By the way, Obama is not the guy sending us the stuff.
You have to admit the New York Times is consistent.
They always publish national security secrets if they will hurt a Republican President, or if they will help a Democrat president.
They don't play favorites.
But the most preposterous thing in this political story and relating to the New York Times is that the Times is denying that they're being given these leaks by the White House.
The managing editor is saying that his reporters came by the stories strenuously.
Whatever that means.
Our reporters are out there, they're turning over every rock.
They've got their ears to the pulse, fingers to the grindstone.
Our reporters are out there, they're doing good old fashioned shoe leather reporting.
Our reporters are digging deep.
Our reporters are undercoming all of these secrets.
That's what's strenuously mean.
But it's also it's laughable.
They're being fed this stuff, obviously.
That's why it's leaks.
Everybody knows it's leaks.
They're answering the phone.
The Times article on the uh Obama kill list.
I mean, that was positively lousy with references to their inside sources.
It was clear that Times reporters were simply taking dictation.
And in this story, in this, even the politico, which is a White House stenographer unit, even the politico is forced to admit that it's pretty obvious what's going on, since even the White House isn't complaining about the leaks.
Have you noticed that?
The only people complaining about it are on Capitol Hill and the general public.
So Democrat senators along with Republican senators are complaining about it.
They're very unhappy about it, but the White House isn't complaining.
The fact that the here's a takeout from the from the political story.
And the fact that the White House has not raised complaints about the Times reports further stokes congressional concern that the regime was somehow involved in leaking the stories.
But the Times managing editor rebutted those accusations, saying his reporters came by the story strenuously.
I can't believe anybody who says these are leaks, he said, read those stories.
They are so clearly the product of tons and tons and tons of reporting.
They took dictation.
Now, Feinstein, taking the or Feinstein, she is the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
And she told Wolf Blitzer, what we're seeing is an avalanche of leaks.
She used an incorrect word, but I know what she meant.
Anyway, a lot of people concerned about it, but the White House is leaking, it's all being done to make Obama look good, and the New York Times is saying, yeah, there aren't any leaks.
Obama's not giving us anything.
Our reporters are really digging deep and working hard for this stuff.
Meanwhile, it's being reported as a political game.
Everybody knows Obama's leaking.
The question is, will he get away with it?
Will the press not give up the ghost?
Will the American people buy this?
Will will uh will all this redound to Obama's benefit?
Can we end up making him look like the tough guy that everybody knows that he's not or not?
No, what I mean is these leaks are so detailed they had to have either been dictated or the detail provided.
There's too much information in these leaks.
Normally a leaker will give out enough to blow the whistle, but not to identify him or herself.
Oh, and that's another thing.
The whole whistleblower aspect that has to do with what's happening with Holder and Fast and Furious over it at the Department of Justice.
That's its own story.
And I told you yesterday I was going to try to assemble that, uh, make something complex understandable, which I've done, so we'll get to that too.
It's open line Friday, and we've just begun.
Be back with much more right after this.
Yeah, Lindsay Gramnesty actually got it right.
The other night on Fox.
He said, I don't think it's an accident that you have three stories within 45 days that paint the Obama administration as being effective in the War on terror at our national security detriment.
Now, that means that what's that's what McCain thinks, too.
Since Lindsay Graham does he said it.
So McCain thinks it.
He says you don't need Sherlock Holmes to figure this out.
And you don't.
So U.S. national security, you know, really the kill us is one thing, but owning up, it's one thing for everybody to think it.
It's another thing to own up that you're the author of the computer virus that confounded the Iranian nuclear.
To own up and admit that publicly the way it was done.
All to make Obama look like a tough guy.
Let's start in the phones.
Wellington, Florida.
Jim, you're first.
It's great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Oh, it's an honor to be speaking with you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Megadettoes.
Many, many listening for many years, first time I was able to get through.
I was wondering if you happen to have caught Chris Matthews this morning on uh PSNBC.
I haven't seen Chris Matthews on TV in probably six months.
Well, I think he is uh I think he is coming apart at the scenes.
Uh this morning before Mr. Before the anointed one took the uh podium in his press conference, Chris made the statement that businesses are holding on to trillions of dollars and will not reinvest in this economy because they don't want to make Obama look good.
That was the statement that he made on the air, and I I almost fell off my chair.
Well, you do you know that he believes it?
Do you know specifically what he's talking about?
I I do.
I believe I it's the fact that there are there is um that businesses are hanging on to money, and the reason that the businesses are hanging on to their money is because they don't know what's around the corner.
The old regulation there are two things.
There's two there's two things.
A lot of international uh businesses, headquarters in the U.S. make a lot of money in other countries and they're leaving it there.
There they're trillions of dollars that the word is repatriated, that everybody would love for the corporations to bring that money back home.
The reason they're not is that the tax rate on it is 35%.
It makes no business sense.
There's shareholders would be fit to be tied.
You don't give money away and bringing it back at a 35% tax rate.
That's the primary reason that trillions of dollars are remaining offshore.
Now, there's also and I don't know which of these two he's referring to, might have been referring to both of them.
There are small businesses and corporations who are holding on to piles of cash for exactly the reason you say.
They don't know what the future holds, but they're pretty sure it's not good.
They hear Obama saying taxes are going up.
They know what's coming with Obamacare.
But that just to say that these people are doing this to thwart Obama, let's say they were.
Let's say that so everybody's entitled to campaign and to secure outcomes in any way they wish.
They are not sabotaging the economy.
Obama is sabotaging the economy.
They are trying to protect themselves.
They are trying to stay viable.
Now, Matthews, as uh as he really has gone way, way over the deep end.
I to him, giant conspiracy, all these business people, that's right.
They want the economy to fact, Romney had it right, Jim.
It's Obama who basically started ignoring the economy to get health care done.
It's Obama who hasn't paid enough attention.
The attention he has paid has been destructive.
It's Obama who's doing damage to the U.S. private sector.
It's Obama and his policies doing all this.
What's everybody that that Matthews is talking about that you heard him refer to, they're simply in a defensive, protective posture right now.
They are under assault.
We all are.
Anybody with money, regardless how they have it, is under assault from the Democrat Party and Obama.
It's only smart to hold on to this until you know what's going to happen or have some reasonable expectation that the business climate is going to improve.
I'd like to remind you, back in the early 2000s, stock market was plummeting.
Dick Gephardt celebrating.
and every hundred-point drop in the stock market, we pick up a seat in the House.
He said happily and with a smile on his face.
It's the Democrats.
Who benefits when the economy goes bad, folks?
Big government types, right?
▲
Export Selection