All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:10
October 1, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, doing what I was born to do.
El Rushbo behind the golden EIB microphone here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
We had Carlos on the phone, the illegal immigrant from San Francisco.
It reminded me over the weekend, I came across a piece, a very, very long piece.
I think it was in San Francisco magazine by a guy by the name of Dave Talbot, who founded salon.com.
Now, this guy is unhappy.
He's upset.
All of the new wealth that the recent tech, I call it a bubble, not yet.
All the high-tech taking over San Francisco is creating a bunch of brand new, very young, rich people who drive nice cars and don't give enough money to charity.
He's very upset about it.
San Francisco's culture is changing and he doesn't like it.
And I cut and pasted segments of this piece for the fun of it.
And I thought, if it ever comes up, I'm going to share some of it with you.
And I think I would just since Carlos was from San Francisco, because I've always loved the city.
I know if I ever got spotted there now, I'd be run out of town if I got out alive or without being put in jail.
But I've loved, I've always been one of the most beautiful cities in the country.
And I was just out there in May for one quick overnight, but I didn't tell anybody in advance, so I was able to get in and out of town.
I was playing a golf tournament at an Olympic and spent the night in the city.
But I made sure I arrived after midnight so I wouldn't be seen.
I ran a Johnny Miller in the lobby of the hotel, who's a great guy.
And every hotel, it was the Ritz.
They were great.
It just reminded me how much I like the city.
But I want you to listen to this paragraph.
This lament.
Dave Talbot, founder of Salon.
I'm sitting at a table outside the new Presita Park Cafe in Bernal Heights.
And I don't know if it's Bernal or it's B-E-R-N-A-La, Bernal Heights, a gourmet sandwich shop that's one sign of the changing times.
When I moved into this neighborhood in 1993, just before the first dot-com boom, I avoided taking my two kids to the playground across the street from the cafe because local gangs sometimes stashed their guns in the sand.
And yet, despite gunfire from the old Army Street projects that often shattered the neighborhood's sleep, the place in those years was a glorious urban mix of deeply rooted blue-collar families, underground artists, radical activists, and lesbian settlers.
The neighborhood had a funky character as well as a history.
But at some point, he's longing for the old days where the gangs were playing shoot them up across the street, couldn't take his kids there because it used to be a great place for the lesbian settlers came and the underground artists and the radical activists and the deeply rooted blue-collar families.
It was a glorious urban mix, but you didn't dare go outside.
He's longing for them.
But at some point, the new tech boom began to make its presence felt here in Bernal Heights, whose sunny hills are close to not only south of market, Soma, Soma startups, but also the Highway 101 shuttle line to Silicon Valley.
Nowadays, you see Lexus SUVs parked in the driveways on President Avenue, young masters of the universe in Ivy League sweatshirts by yogurt and organic peaches at the corner stores where Cuervo flasks and cans of Colt 45 were once the most popular items.
And he's longing for those days.
Yuppies, yuppie types and their Lexuses and beamers drinking wine just not as cool as the shoot-'em-ups with their Cuervo flasks and the cans of Colt 45.
I just found this amusing.
We cleaned up the neighborhood, we stopped the violence in the projects, but now we can't afford to live here anymore, says Buck Bagot, who's been a Bernal Heights community organizer and housing activist since 1976.
When I moved here, every house on my block had a different ethnicity.
There were Latinos, blacks, American Indians, Samoans, Filipinos.
They had good union jobs.
They could raise their families here.
Now they're all gone.
These days, Baggett fights to block home foreclosures as the co-founder of Occupy Bernal engaged in a battle to preserve the neighborhood's diverse character that he admits often feels futile.
Mr. Talbot, there are homes available in Detroit, Chicago, New York.
Have all of that that you miss.
You want cans of Colt 45.
I'll send you some pictures.
You want some Cuervo flag?
You want gangs hiding guns in the sand across the street, playing shoot-em-up?
I'll even send you to body counts.
I just, I don't know.
It just, it amuses what if you read the whole thing, it's very long.
He's upset at all the success.
All of the white.com 23-year-old millionaires just bugs the heck out of the guy.
It's totally changing the culture of San Francisco.
And these people don't give to charity.
They don't leave their buildings for lunch.
This boom is not leading to neighborhood restaurants getting wealthy because, like the Yahoo people, feed their people in the building.
They don't leave.
And all these companies have these great restaurants that they don't want their employees leaving.
They want them staying right there.
So, no, it's not that.
It's not that they're afraid of anything.
It's that they don't want them leaving because they want them there working.
They don't want them leaving and running around and becoming a Cuervo flask or an empty can of Colt 45.
No, it's just more efficient.
If you've got 1,100 people working for you, it's more efficient to have a cafeteria, restaurant, or whatever, run it and flood the neighborhood because people might get back in time, might not come back at all, depending on the neighborhood.
I just, the guy's upset at wealth.
He's upset.
There's too much wealth creation among the young, and they're not charitable.
And there's no concern for the things that made the city great: ethnic diversity, lesbian settlers, no dikes on bikes enclave in the neighborhoods anymore.
It's just not the same as it used to be.
So it made me think it could be safe for me to go back when I read it.
All right, here is the story about the CBS radio reporter in a CBS radio newscast at noon last Friday.
CBS reporter Dan Raviv expressed relief that the Obama regime can look to Muslim nations and suggest it can crack down on free speech.
After he noted the maker of the video is still in jail, Raviv said now at least federal authorities might be able to punish the filmmaker.
CBS radio reporter celebrating the fact that the administration was able to put this filmmaker in jail and might now be able to punish him.
And why?
Because of what the filmmaker thinks, as much as what the filmmaker said.
As a media guy, you people in media want to try to tell us you have not changed, celebrating jail time because of what people think.
And this guy that did the video is not responsible for anything.
It really is eye-opening.
Well, no, it wasn't, Iowa.
It wasn't surprising.
That was the thing about it when I read it.
It wasn't surprising to me.
Governor Jerry Brown, California, signed a new law that would allow hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses.
He vetoed another bill that would have restricted sheriffs from helping federal authorities detain undocumented Californians for potential deportation.
His actions announced yesterday as the deadline neared to finish work on nearly a thousand pieces of legislation sent to him by the legislature this year followed an intense week of protests and prayer vigils and lobbying by immigrant advocacy groups.
The governor also revived a tax break for Hollywood, allowed juvenile killers serving life in prison a chance for release, and outlawed treatment intended to turn gay children straight.
That law takes effect on January 1st.
So what you have here, you have a great example of this is how liberals are content folks to win things in very small incremental steps and how they get away with it.
Of course, in California, they can't be stopped.
The Republicans don't exist.
There simply aren't the votes.
But driver's licenses for illegals means they can vote.
If you're going to give an illegal a driver's license, I guarantee you that person in some place in California is going to find a sympathetic registrar.
And that is the whole point.
And by the way, a driver's license is what?
A photo ID.
So if there is ever, if the left somehow loses that and photo ID becomes required, no problem, the illegals in California will have them.
John Fund got a new book about voter fraud, voter theft, called Who's Counting?
How fraudsters and bureaucrats put your vote at risk.
Do you realize with early voting, 85% of the country could vote?
Not that they will, but 85% of the country can vote before the last debate is over with early voting.
One of the real problems with early voting is that it makes it very hard for candidates to come from behind.
And candidates coming from behind are usually Republicans.
If you vote now or next week, and then something happens between now and Election Day to change your mind, you either have to live in Chicago where you can vote again, and all you'll be doing is canceling yourself out, or you're out of luck.
This early voting is a recipe for fraud.
Fund, this has been his cause.
And this book of his, Who's Counting How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk?
Well worth your time.
Let's take a brief time out.
Speaking of, and we'll come back and continue.
Your phone calls are next when we get back.
Don't go away.
Okay, where are we going?
I'm the Big Bear City, California.
This is Steve, and I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Thank you for having me.
This is the formerly the highest-paid white dishwasher in Big Bear.
What a great honor that is.
Yes, it is.
Yes, I was listening to your show earlier this year where you mentioned this Obama phone program.
We first talked about that in June, so you've been with us for at least a couple of months here.
Well, actually, I've been trying to get through since Bush 41.
So because of my circumstances, I researched it, got online, found out how to get it.
It was one heck of a three-ring circus trying to get through the phone call bureaucratic DS until I got my little pink envelope which I could send off and get my phone, which is a little Motorola, POS, refurbished, whatever, basic communications only.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hang on just a second.
The only people that know what POS means are in Rio Linda.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It's a point of stress or a piece of.
Yeah.
And it's the Obama phone is a POS phone, basically?
It's basic communications.
You can't do much with it.
The one I have, if I don't have the right charger, it doesn't hold a charge.
And that's why I've been on my charger all the time sitting here waiting for you to waiting to get through so I don't lose my call.
Well, why did you get an Obama phone?
Did you need, I mean, financially, you needed to go that route to have a phone?
Yes, sir.
It was financially I did have to go that route.
It's just a temporary situation.
After a year, they have to renew your contract anyway, and hopefully I'll be off the thing.
I can donate it to some shelter somewhere, and they can get use out of it.
Have you signed up additional people to get additional free minutes?
Have you used that part of the program?
Never heard of it.
Don't care about it.
I was wanting, I got the, I get unlimited, I sign up for the unlimited minutes and texting, so I don't have to worry about when my clock runs down.
So that covers that.
See, before, I worked eight years as a dishwasher.
Well, not just a dishwasher, but a dishwasher.
And I worked into other jobs where I was working six days a week.
Okay, now I'm curious, though.
I'm curious.
I'm curious.
Did you say you have unlimited minutes?
Yes, unlimited minutes.
Texting and minutes.
$26 a month.
limited texting and minutes on the Obama phone.
Now, we heard...
Here, grab the Obama phone lady in Cleveland.
I want to listen to this again because she tells us here how you qualify for one of these things.
Obama!
You got Obama phones?
Yes, everybody in Cleveland is no minority got Obama phone.
Keep Obama in president, you know?
He gave us a phone!
He gave you a phone?
What's the floor?
How'd he give you a phone?
You sign up if you're a fool stamp, you all, Social Security!
You got low income, you disability!
Okay, what's wrong with Romney again?
Romney!
He sucks!
Okay, so food stamps, low income, disability.
There was one of the, how did you prove your income in order to qualify?
How hard was it to get the phone, other than the bureaucratic business?
Not very hard if you actually got somebody who could speak decent English.
He's filled the paperwork and send proof of my unemployment, and off it went.
And then it just a matter of time for them to process it, send it directly to the house, pick it up, call, activate, good to go.
So that's pretty much what it took.
It didn't take much, but I sure would prefer to have a better economy so I could afford a better phone that has the stuff on it that I want and use it when I want to and enjoy it.
Because before I lost all my plan and all the other phones I had myself.
So you got your Obama phone when you're on unemployment.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, okay.
But it's not feature-packed.
It doesn't have a lot of goodies to it, just basically phones and texts.
Yeah, but you can upgrade, but you can upgrade to what they allow you.
Listen to this.
You can upgrade?
Can you send emails on your phone?
Excuse me?
Can you send emails on your phone?
No, sir.
I can barely send texts on this phone.
Well, what a cheap skate this Obama is.
Yeah, no kidding.
I can't even send picture mail.
You know, you can't on your free Obama phone.
You can't even send pictures or photos.
What?
It's a shame, don't you know?
Gosh.
It is a shame.
You're getting this.
You know, most people pay $60 a month for unlimited minutes and texting.
If they get away that cheaply.
Yes.
So you've got a deal there.
So this never ends.
Do you keep this phone as long as you want it?
They have to renew the policy or whatever the forms after a year from the date of your initial sign-up.
And if it's changed, then they either continue or you drop off yourself.
Have you ever had your service turned off?
On this thing?
No, it just went out of my time or minutes, and then I just have to get online and put more time on, and that's about it.
Most of them get renewed.
I can't imagine them ever turning off any Obama phone.
I know what they say you have to do, but I can't imagine them ever turning it off.
Well, they don't get turned off.
You have to wait until you put some more minutes on.
California, it's like, I think, the only state where you actually have to pay for your time, but even at a reduced rate, you still have to pay everybody else, I guess, gets a freebie.
I don't really care about them, and that's not my problem right now.
My problem is I wanted to have a better job so I can actually get back on my old job.
What do you want to do?
What do you want to do?
Well, right now, my buddy and I just picked up a one-ton farm truck from a camp that we're going to try and get running.
It's a diesel 4-by with an eight-foot plow.
So if we can get that running for winter, then we have another extra income where we can go do snow removal.
Or worse comes to worst, we can scrap it.
But we have other things to do.
One or the other one is I have one of our other mutual acquaintances has a chimney sweep business, but he's off the hill, and he's not doing much with that.
So he's allowing us to use his equipment and pick up that.
See, the problem, though, you sound like you have entrepreneurial characteristics.
You're going to go get a truck and try to find somebody.
You didn't answer with a specific kind of job when I ask you.
But most people, the problem with the Obama, most people would rather have the free phone than a job.
You are unusual.
You'd rather get a job, be able to get your own phone.
The woman in Cleveland wouldn't even think of that.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, El Rushball, the EIB network.
And when I say it, there's nothing left to be said.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
Divorce rate is higher for couples that share housework, according to a new study.
A new study is challenging the conventional wisdom that sharing household duties, such as scrubbing the kitchen and toilets together, will reduce your odds of divorce.
Researchers caution, though, the findings are not an excuse for men to start shirking their chores.
Well, then, why put it out?
They actually say, they actually say this: the divorce rate is higher for couples who share housework.
Everybody knows women do the most of it, right?
Okay, now divorce rate higher for couples that share housework.
New study challenging the conventional wisdom that sharing the housework makes a smooth marriage.
And then they say, but this is not an excuse for you men to shirk doing the chores.
Well, then, what the hell?
Why even do the stupid story?
They found the divorce rates were actually higher for the approximately 25% of couples who shared housework equally than for the 71% of couples where women did most of it.
Yeah, both are working.
Both are the divorce rates also were significantly higher among the 4% of households in which the men did the majority of the housework, although the sample size was quite small for that group.
Well, obviously, the answer here: just get staff, folks.
I don't know why more people don't do that.
Here's Cindy in Loganville, Georgia.
Hi, Cindy.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
My pleasure.
I'm a little bit nervous, so you could just bear with me.
First time caller, been listening to you since I married my husband in 82, so quite a while.
Wait, which came first?
The marriage came first, but he started listening to you.
And then I see.
Okay, cool.
Excellent.
Let me give you a, I'm going to try to give you a brief background of why my husband is in Afghanistan.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
One set.
I heard you say Afghanistan.
You said 82 or 92?
We got married in 84.
84?
Okay.
All right.
Cool.
Sorry about that.
No problem.
In 2007, I became unemployed, and he volunteered to be an activated Navy reservist.
He was with the Navy.
After that position ended after a year, he rolled into a State Department position in Iraq.
Yep.
So he got back from the Iraq position in 2011, tried to get a job here in the States with no success.
The man has a master's degree.
And the economy is what it is.
What's his degree in?
Business in NBA.
Wow, he's got an MBA.
A master's in business administration, yes.
Unable to find a job in Obamaville.
Yeah, pretty sad.
And I'm still unemployed myself, but that's another story.
So the job in Afghanistan.
No, it's not just another story.
It's unacceptable is what it is.
There's no excuse.
Because the reason that you and 23 million other Americans who want to work are unemployed is because of policies that have been put in place by this administration.
It's not another thing.
It's not another story.
It's something that ought not be the case.
Well, I think it's bad the way it is.
It ticks me off.
See, it's become the new norm.
Oh, I'm unemployed.
You don't want to tell me the story.
I understand why you don't want to go into details about it in this phone call.
But the fact of the matter remains that that's not what this country is.
People who want to work, the opportunity ought to be there.
And there are ways to fix the problems that we have.
And not one of these problems we have that you're discovering, that you're interacting with, is going to be solved with these current policies in place.
Isn't going to happen.
No.
But anyway, he was able to get a job with the Department of the Army as a contractor, and he's now in Afghanistan.
I'm able to Skype with him, thank goodness, so I can see him.
But obviously, as you know, they are continuously, on a daily basis, bombarded with rockets, IEDs, and obviously the blue-on-green attacks.
I've called our congressman.
I'm trying to get something working there.
But the bottom line is, based on the rules of engagement, our service members are not permitted to fire back.
Oh, we've heard about – let me tell you something, Cindy, it was last year, I think, time flies.
We heard that there were actually some places in the administration contemplating, I don't think they ever did it, but giving out a medal for courageous restraint, meaning not firing on a target where there might be civilians and so forth.
Actually, we're going to give medals to members of the military for not firing.
We've heard about these rules of engagement.
And that's another thing.
Obama's announced the exit date, so he's announced to the world when it is acceptable for us to lose the war in Afghanistan and get out.
Right.
Which is what a date means.
Well, this is what my husband told me.
They have cameras around the base, and they can actually see insurgents loading the tube to fire the rockets into the base.
Now, obviously, the individual who's loading the tube is not a civilian, is not an innocent civilian.
But is dressed like one, nevertheless, right?
But they can't, yeah, but I don't know how he's dressed, but they can't fire on this person who's loading the tubes to fire the rockets into the base.
Why?
Based on the rules of engagement.
Yeah, but what's the rule?
That basically they're not allowed to fire back.
There's got to be a reason, though.
And it's probably because the terrorist firing the thing is dressed like a civilian.
Well, pretty much, you know, because you know, I don't know if I can say this, but all hell breaks loose whenever, you know, an innocent civilian is killed.
Are you saying they can't return fire even after they've been fired upon?
No, not really.
That's the impression that I get.
Now, this last thing is the thing with the Army, the thing that happened on Saturday morning.
This was the actual Afghan Army, not Afghan police officers, who did the blue-on-green firing deal.
And we did.
We did fire back then.
But it's going to be an interesting thing to watch to see what happens as far as politics, the thing with Karzai.
You know, he's going to say, you know, we're shooting the Afghan army.
You know, what's going to go on with that?
I'm going to be watching that pretty close.
Well, there was a 60-minute segment on this last night.
Yeah, I watched that.
You did?
Did you?
What did you think of it?
Because I'm watching the anchorette was Lara Logan or Lara Logan, and she's asking the general, I forget his name.
Alan.
Yeah.
She says, you sound very mad about all this.
Oh, I am.
I'm very mad about it.
They went to talk to Karzai, and Karzai's dumping all over us, sounding bitter as he could be.
And I'm having to read the closed captioning to follow it, so I didn't get all of it.
But what was he saying he was mad about, the general?
He says he's mad that our troops are dying.
We're willing to fight, fight for our country and fight for these people, but we're not willing to be murdered.
And there's something that has to be done about it.
And I talked to my congressman, and they basically said that that is a, you know, that's something that's done in Washington on policy.
Let me tell you something.
There is no question that the hands of our military are tied.
We've heard about these rules of engagement many previous occasions in Afghanistan.
And it's what you got a pacifist as president when you have somebody who believes that the United States is to blame and, in fact, deserves some of this stuff.
And we can't display superpower status.
Can't project power.
That's not fair or that would give the wrong impression or what happened.
And then when you have a date certain for withdrawal, you just announce the date that you're going to lose.
So I just think, bring your husband home.
If these are going to be the rules of engagement, if these are the handcuffs we're going to make our military people worry, just bring them home.
There's no point in having over there be sitting ducks, which is, I know what bugs you.
It bugs everybody, believe me.
His 60 Minutes piece that I watched last night, General Allen, General John Allen, said he's mad as hell about the increasing number of insider attacks.
That's Afghan soldiers and police murdering Americans trying to protect them.
And he said, we're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it.
And I was thinking, this cannot be helpful to Obama.
This Obama policy everybody's talking about, whether Obama's name came up or not.
But we are in Afghanistan.
Here's the general saying we're not going to sit here and be murdered.
And I kept, you know, I'm coupling the 60 Minutes report with the Univision piece last night, and I'm thinking to myself, something is going on out there.
Normally, if you're going to have a story on Afghanistan on 60 Minutes, on September 30th, it's going to be pro-Obama.
And Karzai on there, and he was not—we're fighting the war in Afghanistan the way Obama wanted to fight it, and everybody's ticked off about it.
I don't know, folks.
I just found it interesting.
Jennifer Granholm told Piers Morgan on CNN that no matter what happens in Wednesday's debate, the media is going to say that Romney is the winner because the media doesn't like a lopsided race.
So she predicting that the media are going to declare Romney the winner of the first debate anyway, just so they can have an exciting race.
So what is that?
That means they really do expect Obama to do poorly.
And if he surprises everybody, they've got a story built in that way.
And if he does do poorly, they've already set the stage for it.
No big deal.
Won't get reported on.
That's what's expected.
No change here.
Nothing to see here, folks.
Don't look.
And we'll see you tomorrow, folks.
Great to be with you today.
And see you 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection