All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:20
July 12, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yep, there it is, folks, right there in the Washington Examiner.
The D.C. Examiner and the headline of the story, NAACP crowd, calls Romney demeaning and insulting.
And by the way, this is going to be the last on this for a while.
We're going to move on to other things.
I've got to tell you, Amos Brown of San Francisco.
Amos Brown is a board member of the NAA LCP.
Let me put it.
He's a member of the board.
Say a board member couldn't mean he's bored with the whole thing, and I wouldn't blame him, but we'll call him a member of the board.
NAACP, Amos Brown, called Romney's address to the NAALCP an insult to them, including Romney's references to the importance of family.
So Romney goes in, treats them as adults, treats them as equals, talks to them about his policies, and they're insulted.
This guy, Amos Brown, said for Romney to come here and lecture us about the family, he doesn't need to be talking to Negroes about that.
Who tore up the family?
Well, we all know who tore up the black family, and that's the American welfare state tore up the black family.
The American welfare state, as personified by the federal government, assumed the role of father and husband.
That's how the black family got torn up.
The Democrat Party did it, Mr. Brown, and you damn well know it.
So here, once again, Romney goes in.
What's he supposed to tell you?
You know what?
I'm going to bring you 15% unemployment.
I'm going to bring you even more of you on food stamps.
I'm going to give you more of what Obama.
And then they would have applauded him.
I'll tell you what, the more these people of the NAACP speak up and give us a chance to tell people what they said, because the drive-bys are not going to report this.
You're not going to see this.
You're going to see videotape.
You're going to see or hear audio tape.
You're not going to read this in mainstream media publications.
You're not going to read about this Stoker babe and her comments.
You're not going to read about Amos Brown here.
But as long as they keep talking, this is going to end up being a bigger win-win for Romney as these people come off as just small, inconsequential, and really out of the mainstream.
As I said, there's other things going on out there, and I want to touch on some of this stuff.
From the Daily Caller today, the government, your government, the federal government, has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio novellas promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the food stamp program.
Essentially what's happening here is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is using Spanish soap operas, Spanish-language soap operas to push food stamps among both non-citizens and citizens.
Each novella, comprising a 10-part series called Parquet Alegria, or Hulk Park, presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.
The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food.
So your government, this is why Obama doesn't go to the NAACP.
What's there to celebrate?
I'm going to have more people on food stamps?
Yeah, I'll tell you how I'm going to do it.
I got the government now using Spanish-language soap operas to push food stamps, citizens and non-citizens.
Barack Obama doesn't want to change what's going on.
He doesn't want to improve the circumstances of this economy.
It's altogether true.
Barack Obama wants a bigger government, him in charge of it.
He wants more people depending on it.
It really isn't any more complicated than that.
From the Harvard Business Review Blog Network, less confident people are more successful.
There is no bigger cliché in business psychology than the idea that high self-confidence is key to career success.
These people say it's time to debunk the myth.
In fact, low self-confidence is more likely to make you successful.
After many years of researching and consulting on talent, that's why Thomas Shamoro Premuchik is his name.
I have come to the conclusion, he says, that self-confidence is only helpful when it is low.
Now, sure, extremely low confidence is not helpful.
It inhibits performance by inducing fear and worry and stress, which may drive people to give up sooner or later.
But just low enough confidence can help you recalibrate your goals so that they are more realistic and attainable.
Lower self-confidence makes you pay attention to negative feedback and learn to be self-critical.
Lower self-confidence can motivate you to work harder and prepare more.
Lower self-confidence reduces the chances of coming across as arrogant or being deluded.
I think I understand what the guy's getting at.
If you're arrogant, self-confident, braggadocious, you think you know it all.
There's nothing you can learn.
Nothing anybody can show you.
Nothing anybody can teach you.
You've got it all figured out.
I don't think he's talking about massive insecurity here.
That's a different thing.
But I'll tell you what, there's so much for the liberal movement to instill self-confidence in the public schools or self-esteem.
I get what the guy's talking about.
You've got something to prove if your self-confidence is to prove to people.
Might be something to look further into.
As well, ladies and gentlemen, let's see the.
Oh, yeah, talked about this.
We are going to go back to the grooveyard of forgotten favorites.
Ladies and gentlemen, the SUV has re-entered, at least in a part of this country, and we have one of our favorite all-time updates.
A liberal guy and a liberal girl by you who drive with pride.
Cause if there's one thing that this world needs, it's a biomedical friend to take away the year.
They say, people, don't you understand?
Those suburbans are ruining the land.
And they wish you had a full-size fan one day.
If one thing is that you and me, they say we're too fine to see.
But do we simply use our hands and choose a way as those slow wheels turn 50 miles to the gown and these on the chest?
I don't want to save enough gas for all the rest in the U.V.O. Man, I think it's suddenly lost control.
They swerved to miss a baby dying.
Squashed by an SUV.
They read aloof, but they drove with pride.
They drove with pride out there.
And as the crowds drive past a little flat car, they know they said a lot of gas, but they didn't get far.
And as they're trapped inside, at a used car lot on the other side of town, liberal guy.
And they drive with pride.
That's white comedian Paul Shanklin channeling Elvis Presley's in the ghetto, one of our all-time update favorite themes in a Yugo.
Now, this goes back to the mid-90s.
Sierra Club issued their first report on the SUV as a destroyer of the climate.
And the SUV is an unfair vehicle.
It's unsafe for some people to be able to be in an SUV in an accident.
They would survive.
Other people in a smaller car would die.
And so, rather than put everybody in a safer vehicle, we take people out of SUVs, put them into cracker boxes, and make everybody equally at risk for injury on the road because it's simply unfair.
Plus, the SUV was destroying the climate.
And I remember first touting this: I told people are going to be coming for your SUVs.
People laughed at me.
Ah, Russ, you're exaggerating here.
They're not that stupid.
And a decade-long effort began to discredit the SUV and to lie about the SUV.
And we began to chronicle news stories where SUVs appeared to be driving on their own without drivers.
An SUV drove off the third level of a parking garage and crushed a poor homeless guy sitting on a bench, reading a week-old issue of the New York Times.
We never heard about a driver.
The SUV did it.
Every time there was an accident involving an SUV, it was the SUV out of control.
It was amazing to read these things.
Well, eventually, those stories dried up.
The SUV was saved.
It did not get banned.
The American people continued to vote with their pocketbooks and buy them.
And so the left had to move on to some other thing to try to scare people into living the way they wanted them to in order to save the planet.
But guess what?
I was perusing a blog that I read now called Powerline, and there was a post last night entitled The SUV Did Its.
I said, Whoa, what's this?
And apparently, a 16-year-old girl in St. Paul, Minnesota was sitting in the grass at her hat scroll, nowhere near the street.
She was struck and killed by a vehicle that careened out of control, bounced off a fire hydrant.
The vehicle was driven by an illegal immigrant who has been in Minnesota for 10 years without ever having a driver's license.
He was known to local authorities, having been convicted of drunk driving in 2001 and driving without a license just a few months ago.
But the immigration laws are not enforced in St. Paul, Minnesota.
So the St. Paul Pioneer Press yesterday reported on the funeral of 16-year-old Clarice Grime.
That's the name of the little girl that died.
Pioneer Press reporting on her funeral.
This was the headline, St. Paul Teen, killed by SUV, remembered at her funeral.
Killed by SUV.
It's an oldie but a goodie.
These stories happened every day for a 10-year period, starting in the late 90s into the mid-70s.
And then in the second paragraph of the story, Clarice Grime run over by an out-of-control sport utility vehicle was Martha Tameen, whatever the last name I can't pronounce it, only child.
Run over by an out-of-control SUV.
You had to read to the end of the story to find out who the driver was.
That he was an illegal immigrant.
And that's why they left out the people who put the story together left out the fact there was a driver for two reasons.
A, the SUV did it.
There is still, laugh at me all you want.
There is still in mainstream liberalism bias against SUVs, except when they have one to get their families around, but not for you.
There's a bias against SUVs.
They're killers by virtue of their very existence.
And this one was driven by an illegal.
I can't have people find that out.
We don't want any bad vibes out there about illegal aliens, so we'll hide the fact.
So the SUV did it.
Haven't seen a story like this.
I can't tell you in how many years.
And they used to happen every day.
Maybe they're coming back.
We can only home.
Back to the phones we go to Minneapolis.
It's Jackie.
Nice to have you on the EIB Network and the Rush Limbo program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Oh, this is a nice honor.
I've been listening to you since 1991, I think, during Desert Storm.
And I wanted to get the true facts.
And I found it with you.
Thank you.
I really appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Yes.
Well, I wanted to touch on the point with why you were so puzzled or wondering why everyone's making or thinks it's such a big deal that Romney spoke at the NAACP when none of other presidents or candidates have before.
No, no.
That's not why.
I'm glad you put it.
What I was reacting to was everybody citing how wonderful it would be and was for the independents to see it.
I've got a bugaboo about independence.
Yes.
That's all.
I know that.
And yes, I agree.
I agree with the independents, but you have a bug about too.
What I was going to say is that I think it's different because he went there while there's a sitting black president, that that's what's different than other presidents that have gone and spoken at the NAACP or why this is so different.
And so he went there while there's a sitting black president.
And Romney is basically saying, I know Obama's black.
I'm aware of that.
But that doesn't intimidate me.
And I think that's what people see as him being strong or courageous.
Well, I have to say, I hadn't thought of that.
That's a good point.
In terms of long-distance perception, you've got a first black president.
It's known that this is a setup.
It's known there's no way.
And he still went.
He still went.
And he made his case to this group as an adult, as equals, even though there is a black president sitting in the Oval Office.
Yes, and so that's what makes it so different.
Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, hold on a minute.
Hold on.
Wait a minute.
I just remembered something.
Obama is not the first black president.
Clinton was.
I just remembered that.
I just remembered that.
Well, yes, this is true.
So, but Romney's saying, you know, Obama doesn't own the black vote.
He doesn't own the blacks.
The blacks own themselves.
And, you know, they're Americans like everyone else.
And the blacks and every other American, they own their own future.
And so I think Romney went there laying out a plan to help make, you know, Americans be able to pursue a better future for all Americans.
Okay, I tell you what.
Do you say that?
And if you want to say that people would then conclude that Romney's got guts, pretty courageous.
I understand.
That makes sense.
I hadn't thought of that because I don't.
Obama ceased being black to me a long time ago is just full-fledged disaster.
And it doesn't matter to me.
And that's why I don't.
But that's an excellent point in terms of people's perception.
I have to hand it to you, Jackie.
Thanks very much.
Jim in Palm Desert, California.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Rush, when you mentioned that Joe Biden commented goingly about Jeremiah Wright, it occurred to me that he did so because he obviously felt the crowd was sympathetic to Jeremiah Wright.
Now, we know that Obama always tailors his speeches to the audience to which he is speaking.
In this case, he would be speaking to, he would have to give a Jeremiah Wright type speech.
And if he did that, he would look very, very bad for the rest of the country who do not agree with Jeremiah Wright.
So obviously, he could not go down there and orate the way Wright would, so he just stayed away.
That's my feeling.
How do you think?
Oh, you're talking about why Obama didn't go.
Why Obama didn't go, yes.
Okay.
Because I got confused.
You were talking about Biden.
Well, Biden, in other words, if Biden did not feel that that audience was going to take sympathetically to his comments about Jeremiah Wright, obviously by saying that, it would indicate that the audience agreed with Jeremiah Wright.
How do we did the audience boo Biden when he talked about Jeremiah Wright?
No, no, no, no.
I'm trying to capsulize my comments.
I'm doing it too briefly.
Are you saying that if Obama had shown up, he would have had to sound like Jeremiah Wright?
Yes.
You see, Obama speaks to the audience.
You know, the way he orates, he shouts, and they all cheer over him, and he keeps talking and talking.
And he says whatever they want to hear to whomever he is speaking.
What they wanted to hear from the president, that crowd, was a Jeremiah Wright point of view.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
And you're saying Obama can't go in there right now and afford a sound like, okay.
All right.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
According to Ronald Brownstein, writing in the National Journal, President Barack Obama has shrunk to historic lows in support among blue-collar men.
In other words, Obama's support among white men with a college education is the lowest it has been since 1980 and the candidacy of Ronaldos Magnus.
A National Journal found this after a study of exit polls from past elections, the recent Quinnipiac Washington Post-ABC News.
By the way, that Washington Post ABC News poll is devastating for Obama.
They're reporting that it's Obama-Romney 4747, but that poll is devastating for Obama and independence.
What is it?
Romney is up by 14 in independence in that poll.
That same poll, and a couple of this Quinnipiac poll, shows that Obama's support among blue-collar men, white men without a college education, is what that means, is at an all-time low.
And yet, somehow he's still viable and in their minds could likely win this thing.
Now, in the Quinnipiac poll, Obama got a 29% support level from non-college white men, 28% in the Washington Post poll.
Since 1980, the worst performance for any Democrat nominee among the working-class white men was 31% that Mondo managed against Ronaldos Magnus in 1984.
The 39% that Obama got in 2008 was actually the Democrat Party's best showing in the modern era.
So it isn't racism.
But now he's down to 29.28 for his 10% down.
And I hearken back to that Thomas Edsel piece last November where the and he was huffing in Puffington Post editor, former Washington Post, and he had ties to the Obama campaign and made it clear, pointed out purpose of the column.
Obama has written off white working-class families.
Now, you would think that these blue-collar guys are also union workers.
But the way it's delineated, it's not actually the same group of people.
Now, the article says these non-college white men represent Obama's largest source of decline in the white electorate since 2008.
Now, why would this be?
Could it be that these are the kind of people that want jobs?
Blue-collar workers want jobs.
They don't want a celebrity famous for his vacations and his fundraisers with Hollywood types.
They don't want some guy slowjamming the news on Comedy Central or wherever.
Now, what they know is that Barack Obama has orchestrated nearly $6 trillion now added to the national debt.
Worst recovery after a recession.
In fact, we're probably in another one.
41 consecutive months of over 8% unemployment.
Is it any wonder Obama would be overwhelmingly unpopular with people that want to work?
It's not hard to understand that at all.
If you want a job, if you really want to work, if work means something to you, it's how you define yourself.
If work is from where you derive your identity, you want to work, Obama is a disaster for you.
And now you move to Wisconsin and you see that Obama, he didn't go.
He turned his back on blue-collar union workers.
Well, they may be white-collar given that they're teachers and state employees.
But nevertheless, they're union people, and Obama turned his back on him.
He didn't show up in Wisconsin.
He tweeted.
He tweeted less than 140 characters, his support for the Democrat candidate opposing Scott Walker.
And what these guys all know is that Obama's got his back, not theirs.
Obama's looking out for himself, not them.
So the regime lets it be known some time ago that they were not even interested in this voting block.
White blue-collar vote.
And the white blue-collar votes figured it out.
Okay, you don't care about us.
Well, then we're out of here.
Historic lows.
Now, folks, you can't have piling up of news like this down 14 points in independence, historic lows among blue-collar men.
I'm sorry, I'm not lacking in confidence today, and I'm just telling you that this idea that the route to victory in this country is putting together a coalition of people spending their day in the welfare hammock, it's not a safety net, it's a hammock.
There aren't enough of them.
I know you live in great fear that there are.
I know that many of you think we've lost the country and that there's enough of them.
And now, with the regime, if you miss this, the regime is advertising for additional food stamp recipients in Spanish-language soap operas.
They are creating little novellas, Spanish-language soap operas on Spanish TV networks, telling people that it's cool to be on food stamps and how to get on food stamps and then how great life is after you're on food stamps and then how to tell other people how to do it, citizens and non-citizens.
So it's clear what Obama's doing.
Obama wants to be elected president by the takers.
Obama wants to be the president of the non-producers.
And I'm here to tell you that our country's not gotten to the point where there are a majority of them.
Now, when it comes to turnout, that's a whole different thing.
Unemployment news.
This is Thursday.
Now, normally we would lead on Thursday with the unemployment news.
I think it's fascinating here, is not by design that here we are in the last half hour of the program, and I'm getting to the unemployment news.
Now, you probably, if you're a Liberal Democrat, you think that I'm waiting toward the end of the show because it's such great news.
And the way it's being reported is a crime.
Here's the AP headline from Christopher Ruegeber, who is the media stenographer at AP to report the White House version of this kind of news.
U.S. jobless claims plunge to lowest in four years.
Oh, goody.
The number of people seeking unemployment benefits plunged last week to the lowest level in four years, a hopeful sign for the struggling job market.
But the decline was partly due to temporary factors.
Temporary factors?
Ladies and gentlemen, would you be interested in knowing?
This is zerohedge.com.
The use of temporary hires is outpacing outright new hirings by a ratio of 10 to 1.
Temporary agencies, temporary workers are being hired at a 10 to 1 greater ratio than outright new full-time hires.
And that's because of uncertainty.
The people doing the hiring don't know what's ahead of them the next six months and more, given who wins and who does what.
So they don't think they can commit to full-time hires.
So they're going the temporary route, 10 to 1 ratio.
But back to this AP story.
Sadly, and purposefully, I should say this is a little complicated, but it is a lesson.
This is a great lesson in how the weekly jobless numbers are manipulated.
The Department of Labor is claiming that the number of people seeking new jobless benefits, unemployment benefits, plunged by 26,000.
And the new number for last week was 350,000.
And now we're told that that is the lowest level in four years.
But the real number of new jobless claims actually went up.
What is that you say, Rush?
That's exactly what I said.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, is claiming the number of people seeking new unemployment benefits plunged by 26,000.
The Department of Labor, in their press release, says, and I quote: the advance number of actual initial claims under state programs unadjusted totaled 439,743, an increase of 69,971 from the previous week.
So the number of real new claims for unemployment is up by nearly 70,000.
It is not down by 26,000.
The total number of new claims is really 440,000, not a new low of 350,000, as is reported by AP.
Now, the news media never report the actual new claims.
I'm not saying that they're doing something they've never done before.
They always report the seasonally adjusted estimate, which they've done here.
In this case, the seasonally adjusted estimate ignores this nearly 70,000 new claims.
It's actually 90,000.
If you, it's a difference between the unadjusted number, 439,000, and the seasonally adjusted number, 350,000.
So the real number is 89,000 new claims.
But then they did the seasonal adjustment.
And in the seasonal adjustment, they converted nearly 90,000 new claims.
90 real people.
That's 90,000 real people signed up for unemployment.
The seasonal adjustment is what a lot, and they do this every week.
There's nothing new here.
It's just never this dramatic.
The seasonal adjustment is never this dramatic.
So real new claims on employment unadjusted near 90,000 after adjustment becomes a 26,000 plunge in new claims.
Now, why is the Department of Labor cutting their estimate of jobless claims by nearly 90,000?
The AP actually explains why in the story.
Because this year, some automakers aren't laying off some of their workers this summer.
So the Department of Labor has seasonally adjusted the real-life new claims number by ignoring 90,000 real-life claims.
It's crazy, to put it mildly, but these are the games they play every week with the seasonal adjustments.
So the fact that the automobile makers are not laying people off is being counted as new claims or as plunging new claims.
The fact that they're not laying people off as they usually do, we're going to call that plunges.
These people normally would go apply for unemployment, but since they're not, then we're going to calculate it as a drop.
But the real number is reported in the story: 90,000 new claims.
And we'll be back.
Don't go away.
Here's Mariah.
Somewhere in Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks for having me, Rush.
My pleasure.
I was at the NAACP convention for the first day, and a lot of things that you were talking about were true.
It was very interesting to see just some people were protesting in front of the NAACP convention, and they were black, and they had signs about the NAACP supports gay marriage and abortion, black genocide, and stuff like that.
And also, the whole concept of the convention was vote for Obama.
And if you mentioned, well, they called him the other guy, Mitt, you were just like in the wrong place and you just thought the wrong thing.
So your point is that there were people protesting NAAC, but nobody reported this?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, here's the thing.
I think the NAACP nobody cares what the NAACP thinks because none of it is a surprise.
The NAACP is just your next average leftist extremist group.
And some people think that Romney shouldn't even go on there.
It's a waste of his time to go there.
Other people, hearing from him today, think that he scored a home run because of the way he spoke to them and how that's being reported above and beyond the NAACP.
But if anybody harbors the idea the NAACP is going to do anything other than support Obama, give it up.
Not happening.
They're no different than another far-left interest group.
They're going to do everything they can to kill Romney at the ballot box, just like every other liberal group is.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Another shiny example of broadcast excellence in the can.
And we are already at the end of the week, Open Line Friday tomorrow.
I can't believe it's there already, but it is.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection