All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:01
November 30, 2012, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
He's campaigning.
He's still campaigning.
As Obama is at the Tinker Toy Factory in Hatfield, Pennsylvania.
He's not talking to people about what kind of country we want to be, what kind of country we want to leave to our kids, our grandkids, our great grandkids, and the immigrants.
What kind of country do we want to leave?
He's still campaigning for this debt deal.
You know, somebody needs it to the election's over.
He won.
Anyway, folks, great to have you.
It's Friday, so let's hit it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Here we are in Realville, open line Friday to one day of the week when the mayor of Realville will entertain alternative realities.
And that is whatever you want to talk about fine and dandy.
That's not the case Monday through Thursday.
But I, as a benevolent dictator and magnanimous host, open up the subject matter on Fridays to pretty much anything anybody wants to talk about.
Yeah, I don't have to care about it on Friday.
On Monday through Thursday, I do.
If I don't care about it, you don't get on.
On Friday, we broom that.
It's a golden opportunity for you.
Tell me what you think should be discussed at question or comment about anything.
Uh it's your day.
Hang on, just a second.
By the way, I I don't slurp.
I just do that because it's it's it's radio, and if I don't, you won't know why I took the brief pause there.
So it's it's um it's theater of the mind.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, and the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Folks, if we ever needed any proof of what I have been saying for the last couple of days that is true.
We got it yesterday.
That ridiculous opening bid.
It's it's uh it was presented by Timothy Geitner, and it's definitive proof that Obama actually wants to go over the financial cliff.
As we were told, his offer has twice the tax increases that he ran on.
He ran for re-election on a tax plan that would raise $800 billion.
He proposed via Geitner one point, by the way, you know you probably you might have heard about this.
Geitner would have presented the plan to Mitch McConnell, and Mitch McConnell just started laughing.
And and I I talked to Senator McConnell today, and he was still laughing.
I pick up the phone, so hi Rush Limbaugh, and there's this guy laughing on the other end of the line.
He's still laughing about about the about the proposal.
1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes, he wants a new stimulus, and they want a permanent debt limit that they control.
The White House, the regime wants to be able to raise the debt limit to whatever they want without Congress being involved.
And they can't understand why there's any opposition to this.
So here's the thing.
He does not have the votes for this.
The Senate was barely able to pass a bill with $800 billion in new tax revenue a few months ago.
I think it passed the Senate by 51 votes.
It died in the House.
There are no votes.
There are no votes in the Senate for 1.6 trillion dollars in higher taxes.
I mean, he's not even negotiating with his own party on this.
Not that he would have to, because his own party is actually on board, but but they don't see.
I I talked to Senator McConnell today about this whole legacy business about the the inside the beltway group think that Obama cares about a legacy in the same way that inside the beltway people think that all presidents care about a legacy.
I don't think he does.
But they all do.
They think that, oh yeah, he doesn't want a recession in a second.
He doesn't want massive new unemployment a second.
Really?
When you look at this abomination that he proposed, he wants to go over to Cliff.
He wants to go over to Cliff.
He he he he desperately wants a second term legacy, but I don't think people inside the beltway have the guts to face what kind he really wants.
I don't think they're I don't think they're facing up to it yet.
See, runs here on a uh so-called balanced approach.
His so-called spending cuts are one-fourth the size of his tax increases.
400 billion dollars.
But the spending cuts, and this is par for the course, don't come until ten or twenty years down the road, which means they don't come.
Even those future cuts are now off the table.
Geithner did not mention any cuts yesterday.
This is strictly 1.6 trillion in new taxes.
No debt limit ever, or we set it whenever we want it, and whatever we want to raise it, we do it.
He does not have the votes for that.
He's out campaigning for it even as we speak.
Now, as I say, if if if we ever needed any proof, what I've been saying for the last couple days is true.
We got it yesterday with this ridiculous opening bid.
From the Washington Examiner.
The regime is funding $100,000 study of pregnant and at risk 14 to 17-year-old girls on probation in Houston to determine ways to help them choose safer lifestyles and avoid pregnancy, including wait for it.
Better condom negotiating tactics.
Better condom negotiation tactics.
The National Institutes of Health is providing a University of Houston researcher the money because of the lack of study of female teen juveniles in trouble with the law.
The school said the study, which is entitled Choices, Teen, a bundled risk reduction intervention for juvenile justice females, will include 30 at-risk girls between 14 and 17 on intensive probation with the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department.
The goal?
To determine if intervention programs will help the kids make better better life decisions.
And according to Danielle Parrish, the assistant professor at uh at this school's graduate college of social work for crying out.
The graduate college of social work.
She's conducting the National Institutes of Health funded effort.
She said one of the big problems that young girls need to learn is how to talk their boyfriends into using condoms.
Now now I know here's the thing.
Here's the this is this is something I as a civilized male, I learned this early on.
Women have the Trump card in these talks.
Women have the Trump card.
What do you mean condom negotiation?
What?
How does one work?
Women having the Trump card.
I don't know how a condom negotiation works, Snergley.
Do you think I know about this?
This is part of the new school effort.
This woman is going to teach young women 14 to 17 by condom negotiation.
Not going to teach them to say no.
Not going to teach them to say, you know, you have no business here at 14 getting involved in this.
We're not going to do anything that might actually be good for them.
We're going to go ahead and indulge them in what they want to do, because of course we can't stop it.
Kids are going to have sex.
We can't stop that.
Kids are going to do dope.
Can't stop that.
I mean, they're going to smoke.
We can stop that.
They're going to eat.
We can stop that.
Maybe what this study ought to do is teach these 14-year-old girls not to have sex.
But instead, what they're doing.
Do you realize how old fashioned that makes me sound?
I just I'm just throwing the younger demographics away here, Sturdley.
I you know what my attitude ought to be on this.
I'd say my attitude on the fully support condom negotiation, learn what it is, and conduct my own seminar on it on this program.
And go out and get the young demographics.
Go ahead and concede the fact 14-year-old girls are going to have sex.
Just do it.
New slogan for the school.
Just do it, but learn condom negotiations.
I I am I am I just this it's amazing me.
No thought here.
Government, National Institute of Health, no thought in suggesting that a 14 to 17-year-old maybe abstain.
No, no.
A hundred thousand dollars is going to be spent to teach teenage girls condom negotiation.
Well, you know, when you start talking negotiation, that's right, you've got arbitration.
You need a third party mediator in something like this.
I mean, we start talking this kind of stuff.
I want to go to the audio sound bites.
I want to show you.
I want you to hear what ungrateful sounds like.
I want you to hear what a lack of gratitude sounds like.
I want you to hear self-centered selfishness.
I want you to hear what it sounds like when a citizen of this country does not appreciate this regime.
Last night in Staten Island at a town hall meeting about the uh Hurricane Sandy, the victims and the repair, the cleanup, and the putting everything back together.
Unidentified guy stood up and said this.
We are the people, we're the middle class, and we're getting the finger.
You were there when I met Obama, and I told President Obama, you told us you were gonna cut the red tape.
And I told them the middle class is getting the royal finger.
And what did he say?
FEMA works for me.
FEMA ain't doing nothing still.
They keep going around in a circle.
And they go, denied, Denise, denied.
Oh, but you close them up while still looking at your thing.
It's a joke.
You need to take action and be real.
Millerfield's government property.
Yet the trailers there so every one of us can be there.
How ungrateful can you get?
Here is a hurricane victim, Staten Island, New York.
The president's promise to take care of them.
The prep the president promised to cut the red tape.
The president promised to fix everything for him and listen to him.
Man oh man, I the the lack of appreciation for the president on this is striking to me.
That's that's I mean, that's ungrateful right there.
Right there is selfishness.
You heard it just as well as I heard it.
He talked to the president.
And he and the president says he's gonna have FEMA cut the red tape.
And what?
How long has it been?
Three weeks?
What does he expect?
Miracles.
You people, I tell you, what?
You you you've you if if you don't learn fast to appreciate this government that you elected.
If you don't learn fast to show your love, devotion, and appreciation, I shudder to think what's gonna happen.
I mean, after all, what more do you want?
The president came to see you for a half hour.
He paled around with the governor of New Jersey, he told you he's gonna fix it.
Don't you realize that's good enough for 53% of the country?
Why is it not good enough for you?
In greats, here, let's go back and listen to the president, November 15th, New York City.
During difficult times like this, we're reminded that we're bound together, and we have to look out for each other.
And a lot of the things that seem important, the petty differences melt away, and we focus on what binds us together, and that we as Americans uh are gonna stand with each other uh in their hour of need.
We are gonna make sure that we stay here as long as people need that immediate help.
That's FEMA's primary task.
See?
It's fixed.
Now, if you still got a problem at your house, it's your problem, it's not his, because he's done it.
This this this wanton show of of unappreciation is unamerican.
Uh this this selfishness, this ungrateful attitude.
I mean, go to a town hall meeting and the president promised he's gonna fix it.
I mean, take a look at New Jersey.
People in New Jersey are fine.
The governor there, Chris Christie hugged Obama, the storm damage was healed instantly.
And then the governor of New York, he's already thanked the president for saving the city.
I mean, what more can he do?
Mr. President, thank you to you.
Because you have exemplified the spirit of partnership and the spirit of community.
I was personally amazed and touched by your phone calls and attention, even during times that were very, very busy.
You were there for us.
You were there for New York, And we thank you, Mr. President.
So if you're on Staten Island and your home hasn't fixed, uh hasn't been fixed, and you're still you have to be a Republican.
But regardless, you're ungrateful, and it's unbecoming.
It's unbecoming.
I uh I don't know what to think anymore about this country.
Condom negotiation where the rubber hits the road.
That will be the title of the study that they're working on down in Houston.
And you people in Staten Island.
Um do you think you are?
Do you think you're Haiti?
You think you're New Jersey.
Remember all the millions of dollars Obama immediately sent to Haiti?
I mean, even sent Bill Clinton to Haiti.
And when it's all said and done, United States sent more than a billion dollars to Haiti.
How much has gone to Staten Island?
And by the way, this town hall meeting last night, and there was a lot of unhappiness because there hasn't been anything done in Staten Island.
Do you know the national media didn't cover it?
Nobody from the drive-by's was there.
Strictly local media.
You contrast that with the way Hurricane Katrina was covered.
The national media lived in New Orleans.
The national media shed tears in New Orleans.
Part of the flooding was Anderson Cooper's tears.
And Shep, what's his name?
Smith's Tears.
Crying all day and all night on television.
And you can't find the national media in Staten Island.
And even the local media.
I've got a story of Staten Island, New York, Channel 11, WPIX in New York.
They've got a four-page study you printed out here with accompanying video, and Obama's name is not in the story.
And these people are upset at Obama.
That sounded like we played is just one little excerpt.
People, they believed Obama.
He came in, he told them he's gonna cut the red tape.
FEMA gonna be here.
They're gonna get your phone call answered in 15 minutes.
Nothing's happened.
Meanwhile, the governor has praised Obama for saving New York.
And if you're outside the region, you don't know a thing about this because the drive-by's are not there.
They're not covering it.
They are wherever Obama is, and he's at a tinker toy factory, the Rodon group.
This in uh in Hatfield, and we've got a little excerpt.
Now, you know, he sent Geitner up yesterday to present the deal, 1.6 trillion in new taxes on on everybody.
By the way, liberal Democrats, this from the Hill.com, Liberal Democrats, higher rates for the wealthy are just the beginning.
They want to raise taxes on everybody.
So Obama sends Geithner up, massive debt limit increase, up to them, how big and when.
No spending cuts, and yet, in spite of that, he's out campaigning for tax increases.
Listen to this.
It's what he told the people at the Tinker Toy Factory just moments ago.
The story of generations starting businesses, hiring folks, making sure that if you work hard, you can get ahead.
That's what America's all about.
And that's at the heart of the plan that I've been talking about all year.
I want to reward manufacturers like this one and small businesses that create jobs here in the United States, not overseas.
Folks, I mean, it's just this flat out BS.
I mean, there's not one aspect of this cliff deal that he's proposed.
There's there's not one aspect of any deal that he's proposed that is going to reward hard work.
He's going to punish it with tight high taxes.
He's not doing anything to create jobs.
This is all just amazing.
That's just totally untrue.
And welcome back.
It's open line Friday.
We're going to get to your phone calls in this busy broadcast segment.
That commitment I make to you.
But I want to address something.
Um what must be the umpteenth gazillionth time?
No matter where I go, no matter when I open an email, no matter who I'm talking to, I can be guaranteed of being asked, what should the Republicans do?
Or why don't the Republicans do?
X, why are the Republicans doing why?
What do you think they ought to do?
And for 25 years, I have been the uh recipient of this question.
And of course, the answer changes based on the specifics of the moment.
Now, one of the big arguments, one of the you could say it is a big argument.
One of the things that is being discussed is what does Obama's victory mean?
To what do you chalk it up?
And there are many who say that Obama's election was a mandate to continue spending, more stimulus, raise taxes.
Other people say, but no, no, that he didn't campaign on any of that.
If Obama had campaigned on 1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes, he wouldn't have won.
Rush, he didn't campaign on that stuff.
That's that's all true.
However, the people on the side of Obama having a mandate to do all this say, but you guys ran against it and you lost.
Romney ran against tax increases.
Romney ran against all of this spending.
Romney ran against all of this wasteful expansion of the debt.
Romney ran on creating jobs.
Romney ran on reinvigorating the private sector, and he lost.
And so the pro-Obama IS are saying Obama might not have campaigned for big tax increases, but Romney campaigned against them, and so they're claiming this mandate for Obama.
And many people are running around assuming that that mandate exists.
And a lot of people believe that the people who voted in this country, and by the way, a couple hundred million people did not vote for Obama.
The turnout was down 212 to 28.
I should better say 2008-2012 turnout was down.
Romney and McCain, basically the same number of votes.
Obama's vote totals were down, but it was where Obama got his vote out that secured the election victory, and it was with these demographic groups in large part turnout was.
You look at Ohio.
In Ohio, Obama got over a hundred thousand additional black votes over 2008 in 212.
So he increased the black turn.
And this nobody thought that was going to happen.
I said nobody, but the conventional wisdom on our side was that Obama was not going to be able to replicate his 2008 turnout.
Totally he didn't, but demographic group by demographic group in certain states, he did.
He beat his turnout, and to the wizards of SMART analyze this stuff, it was the electoral difference.
But I think you could intellectually say, honestly and correctly say, that Obama did not win this election based on massive tax increases, even more massive spending increases.
He didn't run on that.
And had he, he would have lost.
They never, the left can never run on their real record, and they can never run on what their real promises are, what their real intentions are.
They would lose hands down.
So in that sense, we haven't lost the country.
In that sense, we haven't hit this tipping point.
On the other hand, don't forget that the pro-Obama mandate crowd say, well, you guys ran against it and you didn't win.
You guys talked about it.
Maybe Obama didn't, but you guys did.
And you couldn't persuade people to join you in cutting taxes, in cutting spending, in reducing the size of government, and creating new jobs.
You couldn't convince enough people to vote for your guy.
So they're running around claiming a mandate on that basis.
What did Obama really win this election on?
In one part he won this election based on free contraceptives.
That's his mandate if he's got one.
Contrary to what the pro-Obama forces want to believe, this was not a grand philosophical election.
It was not an election based on Obama's record.
And I know what some of you were saying, Rush, it was.
It was because everybody knew what his record was, and and and it shouldn't have been this close.
Some people say the fact that it was this close means that there are enough people that want the government to be Santa Claus.
It just represents uh uh aspects of the ongoing battle that that we face.
But the one thing that Obama is known for, that he really did this war on women.
They want to claim a mandate, I guess they could on that, but that giving away free contraception.
Do you know that that uh you probably have heard this Time Magazine?
Certainly, have you heard this?
Time magazine puts out their short list for person of the year.
And among the people on it is Sandra F uh w uh what a fluck.
It's it's not fluke, right?
It's fluck.
Now not something I'm proud of here, folks.
I must I must be blatantly honest.
Nobody would know who she is if it weren't for me.
If anybody is gonna be named person of the year on that basis, it ought to be me.
It's not an honor that I would appreciate because it represents a little bit of a screw up, but the fact of the matter is that she's even on the list.
You go back and you look at some of the Time magazine people of the year from way back long on they were really substantive, serious people.
You look at the the short list, and what's happened is that that Time magazine, the rest of the media, the world now revolves around them, and their potential people of the year all happen to be media types, one way or the other.
It is the most narcissistic bunch of people that you can run into outside of Obama and his acolytes.
Yeah, John Stewart's on the short list, too.
Well, it's the pop culture.
It's what I'm telling you.
If there's one area where we don't exist, it's there.
And that's why I keep saying that that our comeback is not going to be just political, it's gonna have to be cultural as well.
But anyway, I mean, for for that to be the case, um you'd have to say that Obama's mandate, if anything, was free contraceptives.
So if he runs around handing out free condoms, I think we can probably say he's got a mandate to do that.
And if he wants to run around passing out birth control pills, he's got a mandate to do that.
And if he wants to run around and say the Catholic church has got to pass those things out too, then he's got a mandate to do that.
And if the National Institutes for Health wants to spend a hundred grand to teach 14-year-old girls how to condom negotiate.
Condum negotiations where the rubber hits the road, then he's got a mandate to do that.
But did he campaign on 1.6 trillion dollars in tax increases?
Nope.
Did he campaign on substituting socialism for capitalism?
Well, some people see that you but we're back now to this gray area.
Of course he didn't.
In an affirmative sense, Obama never once said that he wants to replace capitalism with socialism.
Have you seen the latest Gallup poll asking people how they identify?
55% of people say that they are comfortable being called socialists.
So I would say next time you want to call a liberal democrat a socialist, go right ahead.
They're proud of it.
But he didn't campaign on that.
But you could say that Romney did campaign on saving capitalism and he lost.
Then you'd have to get into, well, is that why he lost, or did he lose for other reasons?
My only point is that Obama doesn't have a mandate to wipe out capitalism.
He does not have a mandate for redistribution, but I don't think it matters to Obama.
He doesn't care.
And this is why I went through this long-drawn out analysis yesterday of the Republicans just walking away from these debt limit talks or the fiscal cliff talks because Obama's really running around now in a dictatorial fashion.
He has an air about him and an attitude.
Uh, and he's gonna claim whatever mandate he wants and make no Mistake about the fact that he is going and is in the process of and has been for four years, transforming this country from capitalism to socialism.
About that, there is no doubt.
You can argue whether he's got a mandate to do it or not.
You can argue about whether or not the country actually voted for him because he's Santa Claus.
And the proof that that they're not comfortable with that is out there each and every day.
When you accuse him of it, the Democrats go baby.
When you accuse them of winning this election on Santa Claus, they go nuts.
So they don't yet want to be thought of that way, even though, not in mass, even though they're happy for their voters to look at them that way.
Okay, so what do Republicans do?
Well, I think the Republicans ought to shut up and stop playing the game that Obama and the Democrats are playing with all of this fiscal cliff talk.
It's the same old, same old.
It's the same same format, same formula.
For as long as I've been doing this show and longer.
The Democrats create a fiscal crisis.
They take us to the brink, and then it's all blamed on the Republicans, and then the pressure to stop it is placed on the Republicans.
And every two years the Republicans play ball with this.
Every two years they accept their assigned role in this little play.
And I think it's time that they stop talking like bureaucrats and robots.
Stop using the typical Washington government speak.
And just come out and boldly bluntly say we're not going to support Obama bankrupting the country.
Now the Republicans in Washington, though, are among those who think, not all of them, but some of them are among those who think that Obama does have a mandate.
They do.
You look at what they think they've got to do to win elections.
They've got to relax on immigration.
They got to relax on abortion.
They got to relax on all other social issues.
The Republicans in Washington are making it clear they think Obama did win on the Santa Claus stuff.
They think Obama did win as a big liberal, legalizing illegal immigrants and legal and amnesty and all of that sort of stuff.
You listen to them.
I mean, that's what they're talking about, and their consultants are saying, yeah, the Republicans are going to really change.
I still think there's so much to be gained by continuing to draw the contrast.
Just go out there and say, look, we're not playing the game anymore.
We're not playing ball like this.
Look, Obama, you don't have the votes here.
You don't have the votes in the Senate for 1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes.
You don't have the votes in the House, you don't have the votes for this.
Okay, so you lose an election.
Stop running around with your tail between your legs, stop acting all defeatist and down on the dump, stand up for what you believe.
I know it's easy to say from behind a microphone.
I do.
But it's it shouldn't be very hard to say that you're just not going to stand idly by and support Obama bankrupting the country.
You're not going to stand idly by, watch him nationalize businesses through the back door.
You're not going to stand idly by, watch him replace our capitalist system with socialism.
You say this.
There's a big market for this.
Now they're going to nationalize our 401ks and IRAs.
What the hell is with that?
Stand up and say you're not going to let that happen.
Obama doesn't have the votes to make that happen, folks.
Now, sometimes the votes don't matter to Obama.
He'll just sign his name to an executive order.
And now they're talking about eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, wiping out private charities by eliminating deductions to churches and homeless shelters.
He promised he was going to do that, by the way, back in the first year of the first term.
He promised that.
He wants government being the sole provider for all of these places.
He doesn't want charitable donations from individuals.
If he gets everything he wants, he destroys our future.
How hard is it to stand up and say we're not going to participate in the destruction of our future?
The electorate did elect a Republican House, and the Senate stayed mostly the same.
So you Democrats, you can have this wishful thinking all you want about your mandate out there the way you want to concoct it, but it really doesn't exist.
There's no great landslide here.
Gotta take a break.
Way long.
Next segment, I'm barely going to have enough time to say.
Folks, we'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, folks, it's open line Friday, and I promised.
I said we're gonna go to the phones, and here we are.
Dan in Houston.
We start with you.
Thank you for waiting.
Great to have you up first on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Thank you, Rush.
I have a quick comment on yesterday's show, and then I have a question for you.
Yeah.
Yesterday, you and again today you mentioned Republicans should basically walk out of negotiations, and you were exactly correct.
I'm a negotiator for a software company in Houston, and a key principle of negotiations is he who cares the least wins.
Yeah, and that's so hard to pull off, isn't it?
You have to have a when you really want something when you really care about it, and acting like you don't is a really hard thing to do.
You have to have a backbone.
Well, you do.
You have to be willing to walk away from it.
Because that's the ultimate display of not caring.
That's correct.
Anyway, moving on to my question.
Uh I have this question I've been wondering about.
Do you think that the smart liberals, though that may be the perfect oxymoron, who should know better really believe in socialism and redistribution?
Or do you think they're just practical enough to abandon what they know is right in order to be able to be the engineer in front of the socialism liberal train?
No, I I think that the vast majority of the Democrat Party today has gone over the cliff, so to speak.
And I I think they believe it.
I think they're full-fledged.
You could go back some years and you could find what um what I would call an adult Democrat who would look at what's happened to the party and I would say, even though they might have won this election, we are horribly set up for the future, and we are harming this country.
You know, somebody, but even then, I don't know if people would argue with me about that.
He was a big LBJ guy.
And LBJ probably happy as hell with what's happening now.
I I I don't think there are any smart or adult Democrats.
I I think I think they've all drank the Kool-Aid, and I think they're all full-fledged progressive now.
Whatever term they want.
But your your question is, are some of them just adopting this because it wins elections and keeps them on uh on good terms with Obama and so forth?
I don't think so.
I mean, there may be some.
Uh, but I've been looking for them for a long time, thinking that they would pop up.
There have been plenty of times where people that want to save the Democrat Party pop up, but that hasn't happened.
It is in fact just the opposite.
They seem to be loving everything that's happening with the Democrat Party now and where it's headed.
That's just the way it is.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Another exciting, busy broadcast hour is completed and on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, virtual version at Rushlimbaugh.com.
But sit tight.
▲
Export Selection