All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
December 12, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, here we are, ladies and gentlemen.
We are in the twelfth hour of the twelfth day of the twelfth month of the twelfth year of the century.
This is uh this is happy twelve day.
Did you know that?
Before I mentioned it to you, you didn't know that?
It's a waste of time then.
No, no, no, no.
The Vatican says that the Mayan stuff is all wrong.
Pope says that the Mayan stuff is all wrong.
The world's not gonna end.
Some people think the world has ended.
Uh anyway, greetings, folks.
Happy to have you here.
It's L Rushbow and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800 28282, and the uh email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
From the Huffing and Puffington Post.
We could end homelessness, ladies and gentlemen, with the money we use to buy Christmas decorations.
That's all we would have to do.
And there are people in support of this.
It would cost about 20 billion dollars for the government to effectively eliminate homelessness in this country for all time.
According to a housing and well, I don't know about all time.
I maybe 20 because once you I don't know how you end it.
I don't know why I don't know why how they spend the 20, uh the 20 billion.
But according to a housing and urban development official who made the comment to the New York Times, we could we could spend 20 billion dollars and effectively eliminate homelessness in this country, and that's just slightly less money than Americans spend on Christmas decorations, according to an analysis from Think Progress, which is a far left Obama Clinton Democrat think tank.
Nearly 634,000 people were homeless last year, according to HUD.
Now, when there are Republicans in the White House, it's two to three million homeless.
When a Democrat is in the White House, it's six hundred and thirty-four thousand who are homeless.
And note the comparison here.
Twenty billion dollars is twenty million dollars.
You know what we ought to do is run the number, which we've done.
We've run the numbers.
How much would it cost to insure the 30 so-called actually the real number of people that don't have health insurance who want it is sixteen million.
That number has been run.
I mean, there are a lot of young people uninsured that don't want to spend the money in a free market, no longer their choice, of course, now, but back in the days of freedom.
And I I realize I'm dating myself as a as an old foggy talking about freedom.
I know it's old-fashioned, but it it means a lot to me.
And it's gonna be a tough thing for me to let go of.
I just I want you to know.
Um, but that the real number is sixteen million.
You realize how little it would cost to provide health insurance.
Even just let's use 30 million people compared to what we're spending on Obamacare.
And of course, the reason for pointing this out is to illustrate that Obamacare is not about health care.
And by the way, unions are not about jobs.
Unions are not about wages.
You all see what's happening in maybe you haven't seen what's happening.
If you don't watch Fox News, you don't know that the union thugs beat up a guy yesterday.
Because none of the networks are covering it.
None of the networks and none of the newspapers are talking about what happened.
But a Fox News producer got creamed yesterday.
Actually had a bunch of people using the F-bomb on him, and a couple guys took roundhouse haymaker swings at the guy.
And he was dragged away from one confrontation by the collar.
I mean, these union people are fit to be tight.
This is gonna go on through 2014.
I think it's time for me maybe to revisit something about this this union fight.
Um, because in the real world, if you're talking about real statistics that matter, such as how many jobs are created in states that are right to work.
And by the way, right to work simply means one thing.
You get a job without being forced to join a union.
You can get a job without being forced to pay union dues.
That is the real problem as far as the unions are concerned.
It's the dues.
The dues, ladies and gentlemen, are nothing more than a money laundering operation.
That is all union doers are.
And I want to I've explained this many times in the past, but I want to go through this again to help put what's happening in Michigan, what did happen in Wisconsin and Indiana in perspective.
It's not about jobs.
It isn't about wages.
It's not about benefits.
Those are the things that get all the attention.
Those are the things that are said will be taken away from people with right to work, but that's not at all what this is about.
To explain this, let me first tell you what the Democrat Party is.
The Democrat Party is made up of a bunch of coalitions.
There are the feminists, there's labor, the civil rights groups, the militant gay community, militant politically active gay activists, and a number of disparate offshoots of each of those.
They each have their own separate agendas, but the one thing that unites them is socialism or big government.
Command and control government authority, ever expanding government is the one thing.
That's the glue that holds them all together.
The Democrat Party allows various leaders from each group to sit at its table of power as long as those people hold up their end of the deal.
Now, in the case of the uh Reverend Dax or the Reverend Sharpton, they get a seat at the Democrat Party table of power as long as they deliver 93 to 95% of the black vote every presidential year.
The union leaders of all the different unions.
There are unions that are uh have they're not all equal in the Democrat Party.
Some have more power within the party than others, some have a greater status.
For example, with Obama, it's SEIU.
The SEIU union is the number one union.
That's the union Obama's closest to, they're the largest.
The auto workers are a second, very close second.
It's it's it's not a wide gap, but not all unions are equal, and not all civil rights groups are equal within the Democrat Party.
Not everybody running a union, for example, gets a seat at the table of power, the Democrat Party.
The reason the unions get a seat at the table of power at the Democrat Party, and what this is all about in Michigan and what it was all about in Wisconsin, what it was all about in Indiana is money.
It has nothing to do with jobs for the members, has nothing to do with benefits or wages or those are all the public things used to uh arouse public support and sympathy for the supposed downtrodden union members.
But that's not what it's about as far as the leaders of the Democrat Party and the leaders of the union are concerned.
It is a money laundering operation.
Barack Obama or any Democrat president cannot simply write himself a check from the U.S. Treasury.
But they still want the money.
They want the money for perpetual, never-ending campaigns.
Uh, or whatever other reason they need money for.
Now, the way it works with unions, the unions are exclusively tied to the Democrat Party.
You ever wondered why?
Well, the popular reason stated is that the unions are made up of working people.
And the Democrat Party, of course, is for the working man.
And that translates to the little guy, the downtrodden, the put upon, the taken advantage of.
The worker who exists in sweatshop slave labor circumstances.
The Republicans own the sweatshop.
This is the public persona.
This is this is not the way it is.
This is the perception.
This is what the American people have been told for decades.
The Republicans are the slave masters.
They are the sweatshop owners.
They are the evil big Mr. Potters who are making sure that the little guys are spending the Night in the snow, along with the homeless.
And so the Union and Democrat Party alliance exists publicly as far as perception is concerned for fairness.
The Democrat Party defending the little guy.
The Democrat Party defending and protecting the worker, the slave, the oppressed blue-collar worker against the mean spirited, extremist, rotten, low-wage paying Republican businessman.
Now none of that is true anymore.
But that, as far as you go ask an average American, and that's what he or she will think.
So Obama can't write himself a check from the Treasury.
No Democrat can just write a check to the Obama's getting close, though to being able to do that.
So what happens is this.
The Democrat Party works in concert with unions to help them secure major, major lucrative contracts.
And notice, by the way, that more and more union workers are government employees.
And note that more and more government employees make sometimes twice as much as the people in the private sector whose taxes are paying their salaries and their benefits and their lifetime health care and their lifetime pensions.
In exchange for the Democrat Party securing contracts, pressuring businesses, doing everything they can to support the unions in these fights.
The unions collect dues from their members.
The dues are then 90% spent on Democrats.
And that's the money laundering.
And that's why there is hell to pay now in Michigan.
It's that that is being upset.
It is the money laundering operation that's being blown up.
Because if you make it possible for somebody to get a job in Michigan in a union and they don't have to join the union and they don't have to pay the dues, then that's money the Democrat Party is not getting.
And that means that job doesn't matter to the union or the Democrat Party.
They say they're interested in employment.
They couldn't care less.
They want the dues.
The dues end up where?
The dues are spent in advertising for Democrat candidates.
The dues end up as donations to Democrat candidates.
And that's the money laundering.
The union contracts are made.
Union labor, the money is paid by the business, the employer.
Those funds largely end up back in the Democrat Party.
It's a circuitous roundabout way for money to end up in the Democrat Party that nobody can really trace or follow, and everybody accepts it's part of the political process.
You're free to donate to whoever you wish within the bounds of the law.
But when right to work comes up, and somebody's allowed to get a job in a state in a union without joining the union, and therefore there are no dues, that means no money will be transferred to the Democrat Party either by way of donations or money spent in advertising for Democrat candidates.
And that's what this is all about.
At the leadership level, that's all this is about.
It isn't about poor downtrodden workers.
That's what it's said to be about, so that sympathy and compassion are aroused among the low information average Americans watching this.
But that isn't what's going on.
The unions couldn't care less.
The Democrat Party couldn't care less.
If you go to states, the numbers have been run and they're all over the place.
Right to work states have higher employment and higher wages.
People make more money on average in right-to-work states than people who work in you must Join the union states.
Employment is higher and wages are higher, state after state after state.
And so that's what's at stake here.
What's at stake is the Democrat Party having its money laundering operation blown smithereens.
It is a roadblock.
Actually, not a roadblock.
It's an actual end to the union's funding of the Democrat Party.
And it's that funding which keeps them at the party of power, the table of power, don't forget.
The union deal, the union leaders, they get a seat at the Democrat Party table of power because they facilitate this flow of money back to the party from union members.
When that's interrupted, when that doesn't happen, the union leader ceases to be of value to the Democrat Party.
And the union leader is thus denied a seat.
Theoretically now hadn't happened yet, but it's this is what will happen.
Because the Democrat Party's coalition are made up of these various disparate groups, and they must come through.
They must perform.
And the union leaders' job is to make sure that all of that dues money, the vast majority of it, ends up back in the hands of the Democrat Party or spent on advertising to elect Democrats.
And the denial of that money by virtue of no longer requiring them to pay dues is a direct threat to the finances of the Democrat Party, and the union leaders cease to have any value to the Democrat Party.
And that's why they are willing to engage in bloodletting and violence.
It's not to defend their rank and file.
It's not in defensive wages and health care.
That's just what they say.
It's not about oppression and the evil business owners, not about that at all, folks.
This purely and simply about a source of funding to the Democrat Party being interrupted or blockaded or denied.
I got to take quick timeout.
Sit tight.
We'll be back with much more right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
Don't go anywhere.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, L. Rushbow and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Let me give you a perhaps the best example of the money laundering operation I can think of, and that would be Obama's stimulus.
$787 billion.
And by the time it ended up, it was close to a trillion dollars.
Now do you remember how that was sold?
That was pitched as money for shovel-ready jobs.
Repairs of bridges and roads and schools.
And do you remember that none of that happened?
Do you recall where that money went?
The Lion Share, for example, in Michigan, 90% of the money.
Now take it back, Wisconsin, 90%, probably Michigan too.
90% of the stimulus money in Wisconsin went to unions.
Public sector unions, 90% of it, went to teachers unions and government workers.
That's the money laundering.
Obama can't write himself a check from the Treasury, but he came up with $787 billion.
And all over this country, it went to union members.
It went to maintain union employment.
Teachers didn't lose their jobs while everybody else did.
Government workers did not lose their jobs while everybody else did.
And since they kept their jobs, they continued to pay dues.
And the dues are what end up being donated back to the Democrat Party or used by the union to fund advertising to elect Democrats.
So essentially, a large percentage of $787 billion from the Federal Treasury was sent to the unions across this country, keeping union workers employed, keeping them paying their dues, the dues then come back to Obama and the Democrats.
And that's the money laundering operation.
And that's what the stimulus was about.
It's that simple.
It isn't complicated.
It's not really a conspiracy.
It's not new.
It's the way it has always happened.
And that's what's at stake when a state goes right to work.
Music By the way, folks, I read Paul Tagley Abu's 22-page statement on the bounty system in the NFL in which he vacated the punishment against the players.
And I have to tell you, and I will, I will splain this in further detail as the program unfolds.
But the former commissioner, Paul Tagliaboo, really, really slapped Roger Goodell.
I mean, this was that statement vacating the players was I don't know if Tagley Abu and Goodell got together and that Goodell knew what was coming and signed off on it for the good of whatever the game would have.
But I but if but if he didn't, if if Tagley About released that without Goodell knowing specifically what it was going to say, he is privately angry as he can because he was he had his knees cut out from under him.
I'll explain that as the program unfolds because I've got I got a couple of sound bites here from Demoris Smith, who runs a players' union in the NFL.
He's announcing a new lawsuit against the NFL, declaring solidarity with unions under attack.
So again, I just I want people to understand this because it's it's it's key to understanding what's going on with the right to work.
And the stimulus is the greatest example, and from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, here are the real numbers.
State public sector jobs benefited the most from the stimulus, the Obama stimulus.
The date of this story is October 13th, 2009.
75% of 8,000 stimulus-related jobs accounted for so far back on October 13, 2009, were public sector jobs protected by the federal infusion by the stimulus into state and local government coffers, and that number comes from the governor's office.
The jobs protected included teachers, cops, and other government workers.
Of the remaining 25%, it's not clear how many were private sector jobs.
It could the net that 75% number could be even higher.
So here's how it works.
And this is key to understand it.
Obama just can't go to the Treasury and write himself a check.
Obama took the occasion, took the opportunity of an economic downturn, took advantage of his honeymoon period, uh, first black president, the karma, the aura, the excitement of a new presidency to basically defraud the American people.
We're gonna stimulate the economy.
We're gonna grow jobs, we're gonna create jobs, shovel ready jobs, repair schools, roads, bridges, all that gunk, and everybody was all gung-ho.
I mean, back everybody loved Obama, couldn't do anything wrong.
He was the Messiah, whatever you wanted him to be, he was.
And all he was doing was giving money to himself and his party.
That's what the stimulus was.
I don't say this with animus.
I'm simply pointing it out.
It's exactly what happened.
Wisconsin's just one state.
Minimum 75% of the stimulus went to protect existing union jobs.
And all of those union jobs are dues paying.
And it's crucial to remember where the dues go.
The dues end up, that's the money laundering, money from the treasury to save jobs, to create jobs, whatever the sales pitch was, ends up protecting existing private and public sector union jobs, not creating new ones, as we know there weren't any new ones created.
Those dues paying union members were not laid off in this down economy.
They were not fired, their jobs weren't eliminated, they were saved.
They were protected.
In fact, there was a second stimulus, if you recall, for California.
25 or 30 billion dollars.
The stated purpose was to hire more teachers.
That's not what they did with the money.
They took that stimulus money and they put it into the pension and health care funds of existing teacher employees.
Keeping them employed, keeping their pensions solid or as close to solid as they could.
But as they were kept employed, they continued to pay dues, and the dues either end up back at the Democrat Party or used in advertising to elect Democrats.
So at the end of the day, what you had was $787 billion from the Federal Treasury dispersed all across America, minimum 75% of it spent on maintaining existing union jobs.
That's the money laundering.
That's how the Democrats are able to appropriate money to themselves.
The Republicans don't get any of that.
Unions don't donate to Republicans.
So here comes right to work.
Right to work in Indiana, modified right to work in Wisconsin, now full-time right to work in Michigan.
Well, very simply, what it does is allow people to get jobs, including union jobs, but not require them to join the union.
And if they don't have to join the union, they don't have to pay dues.
And that's all that matters when when a when a union member or when it when a job in a union isn't paying any dues, the Democrat Party doesn't get any of the money, and they don't care about.
that's why this fight.
And the union leaders in Michigan know that their influence with the Democrat Party is threatened here.
This is why Clarence Thomas was so opposed at Not just the ideology, not just the politics.
Clarence Thomas, confirmed to the Supreme Court, becomes the most powerful black man in America.
And as such, Clarence Thomas illustrates that you can reach the pinnacle of your position without going through the civil rights coalition.
You don't have to do affirmative action.
You don't have to have the blessing of Jesse Jackson.
You don't have to do any.
You don't have to have the Democrat Party behind you.
You can get there.
You realize what a threat that is to the Civil Rights Coalition.
You realize what a threat that is to the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party wants minorities thinking that they don't have a chance unless the Democrats are their champions.
And here's Clarence Thomas lapping everybody.
That's why he had to be stopped.
It's no different than what's happening with the fiscal cliff argument.
Just different terms.
What's going on in the fiscal cliff argument is very simple.
Barack Obama wants the Republican Party to essentially destroy itself.
What does the Republican Party of all things that when you think of Republican Party, what do you think of in terms of it stands for?
Tax cuts.
For everybody.
The Republican Party stands for you keeping more of what you earn.
Republican Party stands for, well, at least it used to, but I mean the image of the Republican Party's tax cuts, certainly not tax increases.
What Obama is attempting in the fiscal cliff deal is to get John Boehner and therefore all Republicans to confess.
If he can get the Republicans to raise taxes on the rich, then Obama feels he is helping the Republicans destroy their brand.
Destroy how it is that they're known and understood.
And in the process, what are we talking about?
We're talking about the fiscal cliff.
What's that?
Well, we're trying to save the country.
What Obama wants is for the Republicans to agree that tax cuts from Reagan forward to Bush created the current claimant.
The recession is because the rich didn't pay their fair share.
In fact, the entire situation of economic inequality is because the rich haven't paid their fair share.
They want the Republicans by agreeing to raise taxes on the rich to essentially confess that it's been tax cuts, low taxes on the rich that explain the economic calamity.
Not liberalism, not wanton federal spending, not socialism, not Obama, not the Democrats, not entitlements, not spending.
No, none of that's to blame.
Those are all the fixes, you see.
All the Democrat policies are how we save America from what the Republicans believe in, tax cuts for the rich.
At the end of this, if Obama gets his dream fulfilled, the Republicans again, I uh Boehner's not going to call a press conversation.
I give in, I confess we're guilty.
That's not what nobody's gonna have that happen.
Obama's gonna be able to say it.
The media will be able to say it.
Republicans acknowledge tax cuts are to blame for your home value being underwater.
Tax cuts are the reason you don't have a job, tax cuts for the rich are why we have such income inequality.
Tax cuts for the rich are the reason for everything wrong that's wrong economically.
That's what Obama wants.
It's just politics.
It's about destroying the Republican Party.
You look at Obama's modus operandi from the time he was in the Senate in Illinois all the way forward, the way he runs is to clear the playing field.
This talk about leveling the plane, he doesn't want any opposition.
And that's what the fiscal cliff is about.
Eliminating any credible opposition.
So if Obama succeeds at this, let's play it out.
If Obama succeeds and ends up getting a confession from Republicans that tax cuts are the problem.
Tax cuts are the cause.
What happens to the next Republican who campaigns on tax cuts?
The guy doesn't have a prayer.
Look how easy.
It's taken a long time.
Liberalism has been built brick by brick over many decades.
They didn't just wave a magic wand and have this country become what it is overnight.
It took them a long time.
Although we can destroy it much faster than it took them to build it, but if they're able to secure this confession, if they're able to secure, look how easy it has been for Obama and the Democrats and the public education system to totally distort what the American people think about their own history, about the founding of their country, about freedom.
No, not liberty.
So if they succeed in getting Republicans to confess, to acknowledge that there haven't been enough taxes on the rich, and that's why there's all this economic problem.
The next Republican that runs for office on tax cuts is going to be laughed off the stage.
That's what Obama wants.
That's what the Democrat Party.
They're playing for lifetime keeps.
Not just winning the next two years or winning the next four years.
They're playing for lifetime keeps.
And I'll tell you, folks, it's getting pretty desperate out there.
Bloomberg has a poll.
And here's what it says.
Obama has won the public argument over taxes so decisively that almost half of Republicans now say that he has a mandate to raise rates on the rich.
Majorities of about two to one also read the election results as an endorsement of Obama's pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare.
So Republicans, over 50%, almost 50%, not quite, but almost 50% of Republicans say Obama won a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.
And almost 50% of Americans say that Obama's election means no cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or entitlements.
Republicans think this.
This is not a poll of Democrats.
This is a poll of Republicans.
Almost 50% believe Obama has a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.
How has that happened?
Isn't the answer pretty easy?
The Republicans have not had the guts to campaign for tax cuts.
They have well, they haven't had the guts to explain the value.
They haven't had the courage, or well, I don't know.
They just haven't.
I'm not going to make it a question of courage, or I don't know.
They just haven't explained to people, A, who Obama is and what he is, where he comes from and what he wants.
And they have not explained the economic value of lowering taxes to raise revenue and grow the economy, which is good for everybody.
The End Look at what Obama's been saying for five or six years now.
We tried it their way.
Their way gave us the recession.
Their way destroyed the economy.
And now he wants the Republicans to confirm that he's been right.
We've tried it their way, meaning tax cuts for the rich and for everybody.
We've tried it their way.
And look at where it led us.
There's no doubt that's what this fiscal cliff stuff is about.
None at all.
He wants the Republicans to finally concur that their policies, not his, not the Democrat Party's, their policies have created this economic mess.
National Journal story yesterday.
Poll shows Americans fear entitlement cuts the most in Cliff Talks.
Majority of Americans are scared that Santa Claus will be downsized.
That's the greatest fear, according to National Journal.
They did a poll.
The American people's greatest fear in the fiscal cliff is not that their taxes will go up, but that entitlements will be cut.
A majority of Americans' greatest fear is that government will get smaller.
There's a reason Obama won this election, folks.
There's a reason.
Among the people who voted, this is what they think.
Their greatest fear is having stuff taken away from them.
Their greatest fear is the source of all their stuff getting smaller, and the source is not themselves.
Here's Doug as we start on the phones.
Great Falls, Montana.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Great to talk to you again, Russ.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I get a laugh every time I hear these people say, oh, the unions were great when they started.
The unions weren't great when they started.
They were nothing but a bunch of communists who teamed up with Tammany Hall, the most corrupt organization that ever came along, and then eventually were taken over by the American Mafia.
Yeah, which saw a golden goose that would lay a never-ending stream of golden eggs.
And uh the American Mafia, I think, controlled the unions until the second coming of the American Mafia being the Democratic Party took them over completely in the you know the 80s and the 90s.
Right, and there was an uh internacene warfare between the two mob groups, and there were some people who got wiped out.
Yeah, exactly.
And I think that the uh true cream has risen to the top in for in terms of who's the most corrupt.
I think what we've got now, I don't think Lepke Buckhalter and Charlie Luciano would could be prouder of the criminal organization that runs this thing right now.
And Rush, if there's time, I'd love to ask you a question that's bugged me for you.
Quickly, what's the question?
Uh what, a hundred and twenty million people voted in this election approximately, correct?
I think I don't know.
I'll take your number.
Okay, where are what did the other 80 million eligible voters do?
And who are they?
Well, I'll tell you this.
Uh here's one stat.
Four million white people who voted in 2008 didn't vote in 2012 in a supposed racist country.
Four million white voters that voted in 08 didn't vote in 2012.
Back.
Back.
The End Sixty million Americans voted against Barack Obama.
Sixty plus million voted for him.
But there were a lot of people.
The turnout from uh 2008-2012 was down somewhat.
It was Obama's was down three or four million votes, but so was Romney's.
Four million white voters didn't vote from 08 to 2012.
▲
Export Selection