All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 2, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:58
August 2, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh now into our 25th year of broadcast excellence.
Now wait.
I always get confused.
Are we starting the 25th?
And next August, later 25th, are we starting the 24th year now?
This was...
Yeah, okay, that's right.
I thought they were starting the 25th year.
And yeah, they will have completed 25 years next August for right, right, right, right.
Okay, good, good.
I always get messed up with numbers.
I mean, even the simplest numbers.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Facebook is admitting it has millions of fake accounts.
Now, there's a little problem at Facebook anyway.
Their stock price since the IPO has been falling.
And from Fox News, well, myfox.com, it's all the same thing.
Facebook share price dipped below 20 bucks today after reporting slowing growth and an admission of an alarming number of fake accounts.
Stocks down 41%.
And the IPO, well, what did it hit?
42 as a high?
42 or 45?
Anyways, it's down now to underneath below 20.
In a quarterly filing with the SEC, Facebook said that as many as 83 million of its accounts are fake.
It also reported that as many as 5% of its active users have duplicate accounts.
Facebook members grew to 955 million this year.
Says that 1.5% of its accounts are likely spam or accounts set up for other malicious activity.
The fake accounts are concentrated in developing markets.
That means third world cities, countries.
What doesn't it?
Developing markets?
Well, it could mean Detroit.
I'm just kidding.
Lighten up.
I'm just kidding.
There are inherent challenges in measuring usage, they said.
We are continually seeing, oh, it says here, shares are down almost 50% from its $38 opening in May on its IPO.
What is it?
85 million accounts?
Fake?
83 million.
If there are that many, I wonder if that's what they're actually admitting to.
Stanley Kurtz has an article adapted from Spreading the Wealth, how Obama is robbing the suburbs to pay for the cities.
And he's very blunt about this.
I have the book, but a powerful, influential member of the media.
My book is right over there, Spreading the Wealth.
I have a copy.
President Obama, not a fan of America's suburbs.
Indeed, he intends to abolish them.
Now, Kurtz believes that this is an excellent way to campaign against Obama.
That you don't need to be Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.
Just need to tell people that live in the suburbs that no matter what they are, Obama's coming for them.
That he has been raised to believe that it was flight from the cities that led to all of the horrible economic conditions, the rotten schools, and all of this that plague America's cities.
It's all about people fleeing, wanting a better life, and leaving behind their poor neighbors about whom they cared nothing.
Basically, the suburbs are made up of a bunch of selfish, greedy people who don't care about their fellow man.
That's how Obama was raised.
And indeed, it is what many leftists believe.
And I have to tell, folks, the constant push by Democrats to get us into mass transit is all about destroying the cities.
Let's take a look.
In California, Moonbeam Brown, the governor, is intent.
What are they?
$16 billion in debt.
$16 billion state deficit, right?
Maybe even higher.
And what are they focusing on?
What is one of Governor Brown's primary objectives, this bullet train, a speed train from nowhere to nowhere?
Why?
Mass transit.
And the key word in mass transit is mass.
As far as liberals are concerned, leader liberals, central planners, we are the masses.
I remember Reagan, I think in that famous Goldwater speech in 1964, made a point of saying how much it offended him to be considered a member of the masses, that we don't have masses in America, that we are made up of beautifully, wonderfully free individuals pursuing happiness and liberty, that we're not a nameless,
faceless conglomerate.
We are not the masses under state control.
And yet, this is the dream of the American left.
It's what Kurtz is writing about.
Now, you have mass transit.
I mean, all these light rail trains, every time I see one, there's hardly anybody on them.
Mass transit cannot support itself in most cities.
There's no interest in it.
America still has its love affair with the automobile.
But Kurtz writes here that Obama is not a fan of America's suburbs.
Indeed, he intends to abolish them.
With suburban voters set to be the swing constituency of this election, the administration's plans for this segment of the electorate deserve scrutiny.
Obama is a longtime supporter of regionalism.
That's the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools and housing and transportation, and above all, taxation.
To this end, the president has already put programs in place designed to push the country toward a sweeping social transformation in a possible second term.
His goal is income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities.
Now, you'll note in that paragraph, you don't read the word Republican or Democrat or conservative or liberal.
This is strictly geography.
Obama's plans to undercut the political and economic independence of America's suburbs reaches back decades.
The community organizers who trained Obama in the mid-1980s blame the plight of the cities on taxpayer flight to suburbs.
Now, beginning in the mid-90s, Obama's mentors at the Gamma Leal Foundation, a community organizing network that Obama helped found, by the way, formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban sprawl.
And from his position on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled a lot of financial support to these efforts.
And when he got into politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors' anti-suburban activism.
And Kurtz says that the alliance between Obama and all of his mentors endures.
It's still going on.
One of Obama's original trainers, a guy named Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Obama's foundation's anti-suburban crusade under another name.
Mike Kruglich and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, who are intellectual leaders of the anti-sprawl movement, have been quietly working with the regime for years on ambitious programs of social reform that are designed to basically penalize people for where they live in the suburbs.
Since the failure of LBJ's war on poverty and the collapse of federal urban policy, leftist theorists of community organizing have advocated a series of moves designed to quietly redistribute tax money to the cities.
Healthcare reform and federal infrastructure spending, as in the stimulus, are backed by organizers as the best ways to reconstitute an urban policy without directly calling it that.
These people can't admit that this is what they're doing.
They have to speak in code.
So when Obama goes out and attacks white working families, or when he refers to the bitter clingers, when he talks about not caring about the votes of white working families, it's the suburbanites.
This is how he was raised.
This is what he was taught is the problem.
It's what he has been led to believe is the big problem facing America.
Well, among many.
Suburban sprawl.
And a campaign against suburban sprawl under the guise of environmentalism is the next move.
Open calls for suburban tax-based sharing are the final and most controversial link in the chain of reconstituted and redistributive urban policy.
And Obama is following this plan.
Middle-class suburban supporters of the president, take note, it isn't just the pocketbooks of the 1% he's after.
It is yours.
Now, Kurtz has written a whole book about this, if you care to delve into it further.
It's called Spreading the Wealth, How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.
And if you look at their attacks on environmentalism, you'll find that most, it is very subtle, but most of the human activity that they blame for causing climate change or global warming, it doesn't happen in the cities, does it?
All the SUVs and all the automobiles and all the cars being driven around and all the development and all the cutting of the natural environment, clearing forests to build housing, all of this stuff is happening in the suburbs.
It is where suburbs is where the destruction of the planet is taking place.
Essentially, growth.
Wherever there's progress, wherever there is growth, that's where the problem.
Why doesn't Obama, why don't the Democrats close these disastrous inner city schools?
They don't want people leaving them.
They don't want the parents of students in those schools to have any options.
They want those schools open.
They want those neighborhoods as is.
They want to force people back into them.
That's why they don't get rid of the teachers there.
That's why they don't close down the schools.
That's why Obama opposes vouchers.
It's why he opposes school choice or practically any other human free choice that people want to make.
Because he has a plan, he and his leftist buddies.
Now, folks, for some people, I know this is very hard, as a lot of Obamaism, it's hard to get your arms around and understand.
Why would anybody hate suburbia?
What does it matter where people live?
Why do these, but you have to understand who they are.
You have to understand central planning, what it is.
Command and control economics, what it is.
And it all descends from a central belief that the average man or woman is incompetent.
They can't be trusted to do the right thing for society, for themselves, for the culture.
Any expressions of individuality in this regard are a threat to command and control types.
And the more they have you in mass transit, the more they have control over where you can and can't go.
I firmly believe that they have plans involving cell phones.
I think cell phones to them represent a best way to call it.
Cell phones represent potential uprising.
It's a way for people to communicate with themselves without the government being involved in the whole thing.
It's where, for lack of a better word, revolution could be fomented.
It could be discussed.
Now, we're nowhere near to that point that I know of.
But trying to explain the way these people think, I know Kurtz writes a book.
I come here to tell you about the book.
And the central premise is Obama wants to tax people out of the suburbs.
What does he care?
Rush, why you can't be serious that these people really don't like people just because they live in the suburbs.
They don't.
It's not that it's a personal dislike for the individuals who live there.
Although, when you listen to Obama talk about him, when he's under the belief he's off record, bitter clingers and all this kind of thing, he does have contempt.
All liberals do.
What is this constant push for mass transit?
Why all these bullet trains that go nowhere, high-speed rail?
They want you to have to depend on the government wherever you go, how you get there.
And they want to be able to control where you go.
I know it's hard to believe.
It's hard to accept.
It's hard to understand.
Why in the world would anybody be animated?
Why in the world would a president be animated by an enmity for people who live in the suburbs?
Rush, come on, that's a bit of a...
Just remember how you reacted when I told you they were going to come for your SUV or any other outlandish prediction I made over the years that later turned out to be true.
How are they going to do it?
Taxation.
Kurtz spells it out.
They're going to make it as expensive as they can to live in suburbia, and they're going to make it as impossible to build and develop in suburbia.
That's a long-term project.
They're not going to be able to do this in four years or two, but they're going to be able to make the effort once they get their hands on tax policy for this.
And once you give Obama a second term where there is no accountability, you'd have to face re-election again.
It doesn't matter how mad people get.
Then Katie barred the door.
See, suburbanites aren't paying their fair share.
Suburbanites have taken from the cities.
In suburbia, that's where the good schools are.
That's where the clean malls are.
That's where upscale living by comparison is.
They can't have that.
Remember, the rich are to blame for everything.
The achievers, those who succeed on their own, they are the ones to blame for all of these problems.
You fled.
You fled the inner cities when they needed you most.
You took your money and you took your life and you took everything to the suburbs and you left those who couldn't afford to go with nothing.
Well, it's time to get you or your money back.
Interesting idea to campaign on this basis.
Kurtz, Stanley Kurtz, profoundly believes it'd be profoundly effective.
Let's take a brief timeout.
We'll continue after this.
Chris in Manassas, Virginia.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi.
Yes, Chris, as you said.
I'm fairly new to politics.
I got into it in 2008, which was the first year I was able to vote.
I'm 24 now.
What I've experienced, I'm trying to get into like journalism, conservative journalism or truthful journalism.
And what I've experienced over the last three and a half years is a never-ending barrage of material to write about with Obama in office.
What I'm worried about is when he's out of office, like, is this politics?
Like, I'm worried about when he's gone, like, there'll be nothing to write about anymore.
Because how much worse can it get, you know?
So should I maybe...
You're worried that when Obama's gone, will there be nothing to write about?
Yeah.
So maybe you should not go into journalism, you mean?
What's that?
You're saying maybe you shouldn't go to journalism because there won't be anything to say?
Yes.
Like, maybe I should go to the press because I'm probably hiring.
Chris, Chris, you must hold on through the break.
You couldn't be more wrong about that, and I want to tell you why.
Okay?
So can you hang on?
Absolutely.
All right.
Don't go away.
And we go back to Manassas, Virginia with Chris.
Chris, did you say, just want to make sure I understood something before we get into this in detail?
Did you ask or are you asking if it will be as much fun in, say, well, next year, if Obama loses?
Because there's so much right.
There's no shortage of material now, so much to go on now.
You're having a lot of fun now, but will the fun vanish if Obama loses?
Is that basically your question?
Yeah.
The first thing I want to focus on, but the answer to your question, there will always be things to write of.
In fact, if Obama loses, the Democrats are going to get more hysterical than they are even now, more disruptive.
It's, well, they're more entertaining when they're out of office.
But I want to focus on this fun business with you.
All right.
Because I'm glad you mentioned that.
You're 24, you said.
Yes.
You're looking at this as fun.
It is.
It's a riot.
What is the riot?
There's no wrong answer.
Don't misunderstand the tone of my voice.
I'm not challenging anything.
What is fun about this?
Well, I mean, I know you have fun with it, too.
I do love seeing them squirm, the Democrats squirm with when you bring up, it's priceless.
It keeps you.
It keeps you wanting more.
It's like a drug.
I've never done drugs.
And Obama, it's, I mean, I can't explain it.
You could explain why it's fun.
It's probably the same reasons.
Well, no, because I'm going to disagree with you.
And it's interesting that you said it.
You're 24, and I am 61.
And I don't want to convey the wrong impression here.
I mean, I still love this, and I'm energized by it.
I'm inspired, motivated, all those things.
But it's not fun.
It's serious as hell.
I think the country's hanging in the balance.
And as such, I have a different approach now when talking to people about this stuff.
I've got fewer years ahead of me than behind me.
You don't.
You're the exact opposite end of the scale.
And don't lose your attitude about it.
I'm not trying to talk you out of where you are.
I'm trying to say that from my perspective now, this next election is pretty crucial in terms of the kind of life you're going to have, in terms of the amount of freedom you're going to have, in terms of the opportunity to be successful, to create wealth, and to keep most of it.
Those are going to be, all of that's on the line in this election.
Your future, your opportunity to accomplish what I have is on the line here.
And if this election goes the wrong way, you're going to have a much harder row to hoe than I did.
And you'll deal with it because you'll have to.
And I know that I can tell that you're capable of it.
I just find it interesting in the generational difference in looking at it.
The Democrats are all fun, and they are nuts, and they're whack, and they say some of the most outrageous things.
And we can put together some of the funniest parodies and we can laugh at them and make fun of them.
But what Obama's trying to do, what he and his party are attempting to accomplish here, is to basically subvert the Constitution of this country.
They are trying to transform this nation into something that it was never intended to be.
And I look at them as having to be stopped all within the political arena.
And even if Obama loses, to get right to your question, they're not going away.
They're going to become more extreme.
They're going to become even more violent.
They're going to be, they're not going to accept it.
They're going to do everything they can to undermine whatever it is they thought is responsible for their loss or the Republican victory.
They they're a different, they're a different breed.
They don't look at this as you win some, you lose some, we're all in it together.
It's a fraternity, we share power.
They look at this as life and death.
Their entire existence, they're never happy.
They are not having fun, Chris.
There's not one aspect of their lives that's fun.
You never see them laugh.
You never see them having fun.
I mean, they're out there wringing their hands.
This is deadly serious to them.
They're intolerant to get Chick-fil-A.
They don't tolerate anybody who doesn't live or behave the way they do and therefore want everybody else to.
You're never going to run out of things to write about because liberals are always going to be there.
Your challenge is to get paid for it.
Your challenge is to do it in a way that you get to write what you want.
Your challenge is to end up someplace where you have the total ability to use every ounce of creativity and ability that you have.
So the decisions that you're going to have as you get older, do you work for somebody?
Do you try to find a place for a while that gives you some freedom where you can establish yourself as unique and different from everybody else?
I mean, everybody's a writer now, Chris.
Everybody posts on a blog or Facebook or Twitter.
Everybody has followers.
Everybody wants fame.
Everybody wants to know.
I want everybody to know who they are.
You have a tremendous amount of competition.
You have everybody in your generation wants to be known and will do whatever it takes to be known, including embarrass themselves.
So you've got a tremendous challenge coupled with your opportunity.
And it all depends on you learning what it is you really want and what it is you really love, because that's where the passion that you'll need to accomplish it lies.
So do you know the answers to those questions?
You say you want to write.
But one thing, forget this.
When I started 1988, George Bush won the election two months later, and the critics said, well, that's it.
Limbaugh's got nothing to talk about.
When Clinton won in 1992, same people said, well, that's it.
Limbaugh's side just lost.
Nobody cares what Limbaugh says.
He's got nothing to talk about.
And it was two years later they're saying Clinton is the reason for my success.
So another thing, first thing, never, ever listen to your critics if they're personal.
If you've got some people you trust who genuinely want to help you with constructive criticism, of course.
But don't listen to people that are reacting to what you're writing, particularly those that disagree with you.
You're a threat to them.
They're trying to take you off your game, mess with your head psychologically.
You've got to learn to ignore all that.
But you're never going to run out of things to write about.
Never.
You're never going to run out of things to have an opinion about.
You're never going to run out of things that'll fire you up.
It's only going to get more intense, particularly if they lose.
Well, and just so you know, I do understand the severity of this election.
I think the news media is the number one threat to the country right now because they're the ones who allow Democrats to get away with what they get away with.
So I want to join the opposition.
You know, that's what got me into this.
But as I'm doing it, it's like, oh, man, this is actually fun.
Well, no, that's, that's, don't, don't lose that.
The more fun that it is for you, and therefore the more enjoyment you derive from it, the more you're going to want to do it.
And the more it'll become your life.
And then you'll have a sense of purpose attached to it as well, which is always helpful.
But you're very right.
Media and the Democrat Party are one and the same.
It's not that one allows the other.
They are the same.
There's no difference.
They've chosen sides now.
There's not even a pretense at objectivity anymore.
Right.
They are your enemy.
Well.
And you know what the biggest temptation you're going to face is?
Politicians, I'm sorry.
biggest temptation you're going to face?
You live in Manassas.
So you want to end up in Washington?
Maybe.
Okay.
Well, the biggest.
Oh, you mean as a politician?
No.
Just where you live.
Yeah, okay.
Writing in Washington would be nice, but I don't want to be a politician now.
Okay.
That's where you want to grow up.
That's where you want to live.
That's where you want to live and work.
My point in asking that is that the more you establish yourself as you have said you want to here, the more of a target you're going to become by those people you just said enable Democrats and Obama.
And they run that town, Chris.
They run it socially.
They run it politically.
They run it in every which way.
And one of the biggest pitfalls to conservatives of any kind, be they elected officials, media people, academics, broadcasters, doesn't matter.
Well, the biggest temptation is to want to belong in the town and be accepted by the people who run it.
And to do that, you're going to have to dilute yourself.
You have to water yourself down and you're going to have to hide what you really believe.
You're going to have to avoid writing things and doing things that will make them like you and not criticize you.
No, no, I love the criticism.
The hate mail I get every day.
My blogs.
It's awesome.
If that's true, then I can't tell you how much farther ahead of the game you are.
The best I was talking about this the other day.
In fact, I've got something here.
There's a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Sue Schellenberger.
And it's a piece, The Case for Lying to Yourself.
And it's some self-deception can boost power and influence.
And it starts as young as age three.
And it's an article has some test questions here.
There's seven test questions.
Let me take a break here, and we'll play this game with you when we come back.
Can you hang on again?
Yeah, I'm going to be late for work, but it's worth it.
I'm going to stay on the phone.
Well, I don't want to get you in trouble.
No, no, I won't be in trouble.
All right.
I'll write you a note.
Or I'll plug the place on the air.
It could go either way, but whatever.
We'll be back before you know it.
Don't go away.
Okay, Chris, back to you.
I appreciate your holding on.
The one thing I was going to say, you have sounds like you're there, but it gets harder not caring what other people, particularly people you don't know, say about you.
If you can master that, can't tell you how much freedom that is.
Now, there's this little test in the Wall Street Journal, a case for lying to yourself.
It's a way to determine how self-deluded you are.
For example, what would you say if I asked you, is your first impression almost always right of anything?
Yes.
Number two, I don't care to know what other people really think of me.
I do care to know.
Okay.
Once I've made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion.
I'm always open to hearing it, but that's, I guess, usually true.
Okay.
I am fully in control of my own fate.
True.
I never regret my decisions.
False.
I am a completely rational person.
Usually true.
I am very confident of my judgments.
True.
Okay.
According to the woman who wrote this, by virtue of your answers, you are deluding yourself on the high end of the scale.
It is her opinion that most people's first impressions are never right, that most people care only about what people think of them.
That you think you can't have your mind changed, but you can easily.
That people can change their mind on things at a whim.
That you're not in control of your fate.
You're just stupid to think that you are.
And to say that you never regret your decisions, well, that's silly.
Everybody has regrets.
And nobody's rational and confident of your judgment.
Point is the higher you score on this, the more self-deluded you are.
Now, and she's making a case that it's okay to be.
It's okay to lie to yourself.
That's a throwback or a hanger on from the Clinton era.
I just, you know, you keep thinking it's fun and really decide at the end of the day when you vision yourself at the top.
Do you want to be working for somebody else or working for yourself?
Oh, for myself.
Well, there are ways to do that, and it is the most freedom.
It's also the one tack that carries with it the absolute most responsibility.
And nobody else to fall back on.
So feel free to call back anytime.
I wish you the best, but don't worry.
You're never going to run out of fun things to talk about as long as the liberals are there, and they always will be.
We'll go through those questions in a little bit more detail tomorrow, folks.
Open Line Friday will meld that in.
Self-delusion.
Lying to yourself.
Good or bad.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection