All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:45
June 9, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings my friends and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh here, trying to say much more than I have time to say because I've been gone for so long.
I'm trying to squeeze a whole lot in here.
And as such, I am speaking faster.
No, my brain is outputting data faster than my oral cavity can keep up.
So, I appreciate your patience and tolerance in dealing with it today.
It's always this way, first day back after being gone over a week.
So much that you want to squeeze in, even in the first segment, you can't do it.
But anyway, I want to expand on something I was just making, a point I was just making.
Great to have you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushboybnet.com.
Substance over spin, substance over reality.
Now, I must say, I'm going to acknowledge I realize how seductive spin is to people.
I know how seductive buzz is.
I know plenty of people who would be totally satisfied if the buzz was that they were really profoundly successful when they weren't.
Because they would think people thought they were, and that's all that would matter.
One of the Republicans' big problems right now is that the Democrats define us.
Democrats tell us what they're about, and the Democrats tell everybody what we're about.
Buzz.
We don't have any reality to counter it.
We don't have any substance to counter it.
So what they say about us sticks.
Well, not us, but I mean Republicans in Washington.
What they say about them sticks.
is no substance.
All there is is an ongoing battle to win the PR bar, a battle, the buzz battle, the spin battle, if you will.
It seems like that's all anything is anymore.
That substance and reality never matter.
And some people think they never have.
But I want to reiterate, Ronald Reagan was a successfully, a hugely successful president, by anybody's definition, so much so that the history revisionists began even before he had concluded his first term.
But despite what they said, he was hugely successful.
He was successful on economic matters, foreign policy grounds.
Despite what the media tried and did, the people could see it.
The people lived it themselves.
And as quaint and as old-fashioned and maybe out of touch as it sounds, I believe that's how you neutralize the media.
You institute policies that grow the economy, that limit government, strengthen national security, have things that actually do this.
Reagan had to fight like hell for the Republican nomination.
He had to fight through the Republican establishment just to have a chance to appear on the ballot.
Remember what happened at the Republican convention in Kansas City in 1976?
It was not a cakewalk is the point.
It was an ongoing battle.
Republican establishment then as now was opposed to Reaganism, conservatism.
It was only after he won that they began to be a bunch of hangers-on.
And it was near the end of his term.
They couldn't wait to get rid of it and resume their normal posture.
Now, let me give you two examples.
A-B comparison, as I like to say.
I have been chronicling on this program for the past year The real substantive, overwhelming success of Scott Walker in Wisconsin.
Scott Walker is a conservative.
He is a Reaganite conservative.
He has beaten back every liberal attempt to destroy him.
How?
The media wasn't on his side.
He didn't have a PR firm doing his bidding.
There were Democrats and media and other leftists trying to intimidate him, threaten him and his family.
Today, Wisconsin, I've got the story somewhere here in the stack.
It's a profound story.
Should have found it during the break.
It is a story of how Wisconsin is on the way to becoming red.
Now, it isn't.
It isn't red.
But the dramatic change in Wisconsin is profound, and it's based on substance and based on reality.
And yet, and by the way, it is the antithesis.
What Scott Walker has done to revive that state, budget surplus, income tax cuts, income tax refunds and rebates.
What he has done gets no attention within the Republican Party per se, no attention in the mainstream media.
In fact, all the attention in the mainstream media when it comes to Republican governors right now happens to be in Governor Christie, whose state is a mess.
Chris Christie, however, remains loved and adored by the drive-by media in comparison.
They're still trying to take him out, I understand, but it is an amazing contrast or comparison, the states of Wisconsin and the states of New Jersey,
and a genuine conservative governor who has literally wrested that state from Democrat control with substance reality policies that have indeed changed for the better people's lives.
They have how many recall efforts on Scott Walker that have failed?
So my question is, how come the media wasn't able to destroy him?
Well, it's results.
It's exactly right.
Why haven't all of the dollars that have been spent to destroy Scott Walker succeeded?
Because the reality is he is a hugely successful governor.
And he has fixed a lot of things that were broken in that state.
And I've said, I don't know how many times, Scott Walker and his governorship ought to be the modern-day blueprint for the Republican Party on how to win.
How to win in other states, how to win the presidency.
And then after they do that, how to fix what's wrong with the country.
A conservative triumphing and winning in Wisconsin is huge.
That was one of the bluest of blue states.
It's home to some of the most fringe left-wing radical movements that there are in this country.
And they weren't able to beat Scott Walker, and two recall efforts failed miserably.
And yet, look where the buzz is.
Look where all of the happy talk is.
Look where all of the PR is.
Look where all the so-called action is.
Chris Christie, who went on the tonight show or is going to go on the tonight show.
Chris Christie, who once spoke to Bruce Springsteen.
Take your pick.
I mean, throw your own example or story into the mix, and you have the contrast.
Now, my point is, you might say, Scott Walker, nobody cares about Scott Walker.
Well, the people of Wisconsin know about Scott Walker, and the people living there have elected him and have fought against efforts to recall him.
He's had a fight like hell.
It has not been easy, but it's the blueprint.
It's evident.
And I've been interviewing him for the Limball Letter.
I've been chronicling this.
I have been pointing this out to people.
When he survived the most recent recall and when he announced the latest budget, which included tax cuts, a budget surplus, I said this should be the biggest story in the Republican Party today.
And it was right before the Republican governor's convention.
And you still, if you didn't hear about it on this program, you didn't hear about it.
Now, what's this here?
Sawan.com.
Chris Christie quietly implodes why his big accomplishments, quote unquote, have fallen to pieces.
Distracted by Bridgegate, the national press has missed the unraveling of the entire Chris Christie myth.
What is the Chris Christie myth?
No, no, that's a policy.
Christie brought taxes on it.
What's the myth?
Let me get John Kennedy said it best.
John Kennedy said the greatest enemy of truth is often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest.
No, the biggest, greatest enemy of truth is the myth.
Persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Now, I think it's uncanny that Kennedy said that, given he is the greatest beneficiary of one of the biggest political myths in this nation's history, and that is what?
Camelot.
There is no lie about the Kennedy administration that is going to ever overcome the myth of the Kennedy administration.
So what is the Christie myth?
I mean, there is one.
The Christie myth is that he's a conservative.
Well, the media does.
The media still believes that he's a conservative.
The media believes he's a conservative Republican.
Why is the media hyping him?
Because they love him.
They're hoping he gets a nomination.
They think he's going to be another Northeastern Republican that gets a nomination that can lose.
Now, just like we had a caller mere moments ago who made the point that Obama would not have been possible were it not for Bush.
That Bush screwed up so bad, that Bush made so many mistakes that ended up being so hated and reviled that all Obama had to do was show up and be the first black wanting to be president, and that's all he had to do.
And anything else he did was a bonus.
He could act like a messiah.
He could figure to fix this.
He's going to lower the sea level.
He's going to heal the planet.
And Bush was so bad that Obama just by existing was 1,000% better.
Okay?
Well, let's fast forward to 2016.
And the Democrats in the media are already trying to force the next Alinskyite on us, and that would be Hillary, who is no different than Obama, who will be just like Obama.
Her attitudes on things, be it the military, be it foreign policy, be it ambassadors, whatever.
She is an Alinskyite.
She wrote her thesis at whatever, Wellesley on Alinsky.
She is Obama, and Obama is Hillary.
They are interchangeable.
She's even going to be the first of something, the first woman, if she's elected.
Now, the caller said that it was Bush that made Obama possible.
Okay.
Well, is it going to be Obama that makes Hillary possible?
I mean, let's face it.
Hillary is going to be seeking the presidency, bouncing not off of a horrible Republican regime, but rather the Obama administration.
So we can't say that Obama is going to make Hillary possible, like the caller said that Bush made Obama possible.
So what's Hillary going to say in her campaign?
Like, Obama could easily say, I'm not Bush, and that's all it took.
Because apparently Bush was so hated, so reviled, people were so disgusted that that's all it took.
Okay.
Don't forget Hillary has previously been vanquished by Obama.
The black guy beat the pantsuit.
Okay, so now it'll be the pantsuit by herself against who?
What?
All they can do is try to scare people about who the Republican nominee is going to be.
And once there is that nominee, all they can do is run around and scare the hell out of people about what the Republican will do.
Well, nobody wants any more of what Obama has brought.
Can we agree with that?
Nobody wants anymore this job situation.
Nobody wants anymore this death.
So how does Hillary differentiate herself?
And how do they blame the Republicans for this?
How does Hillary go out and say, elect me to keep the Obama myth or the Obama legend or Obama whatever alive?
Can't.
Nobody wants that.
So what does Hillary run on?
She can't run on I'm not Obama.
She can't run on I'm going to fix it because that's acknowledging that she's part of what broke it.
So she's got to run on history.
First female.
My turn, and it's bring Bill Clinton back to Washington.
They think that will be a winner.
And you combine that with whatever they're going to say about whoever the Republican nominee is.
And if it's Christie, it sets him up even better.
So how do we counter that?
Well, I don't.
I'm just, you know.
Substance, reality, conservatism, blueprint of what's worked, blah, blah, it's all there.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks.
You sit tight.
We will continue right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
By the way, moments ago, ladies and gentlemen, President Obama announced that he's doing another executive order that's going to cap student loans at 10% of a person's income.
The people in the side of glass go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what does that mean?
Well, how does that work?
How does that work?
Well, it's real simple.
The president just decides that he's going to throw out thousands of years of contract law.
And he's going to rewrite the law himself with an executive order.
He makes the law.
It doesn't matter what contract a student and a bank have made.
Obama knows best.
And he needs to buy more votes.
And this is a way to do that using the bank's money.
They run the student loan program anyway.
Look, this is a prelude.
Mark my words today.
June the 9th, 2014.
This is a prelude to forgiving some student loans to start with.
Don't you remember the regime took over the student loan program from the bank, from the private sector, way back in the first term?
You have, you do remember that, right?
Okay, so now he's basically just saying that student loans are going to be capped at 10% of a person's income.
You say, how does that work?
You're not supposed to ask how it works.
It's just what is.
Anybody, a student, the maximum loan they can take out is 10% of their income.
Now, if they're unemployed, I don't know what you do.
If they don't have an income, 10% of nothing is what?
Nothing.
Exactly.
Here's Jim in Andover, Massachusetts.
Hi, Jim.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yes, thank you for taking the call, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you today.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
Yes, I was just wondering, my comment was to delve into the spin of the jobs numbers or the report that you had that we've regained all the jobs since the recession started.
That's right, yeah.
Well, how is a definition of a recession?
How is the recession defined?
Basically, we know that it's two years of negative growth.
Two quarters.
Oh, I'm sorry, two quarters.
Yeah, I'm spoke there a little nervous.
Well, but that's, see, no, no, no, no.
The recession cannot include one quarter of the negative growth was because of global warming.
Ah, okay.
Well, after this last winter, I don't think we have that problem.
No, they said that the first quarter negative growth was because of global warming, because of the cold weather.
Okay.
Well, the two quarters of the negative growth, let's assume that both quarters have lost of 2 million jobs.
Now, that would mean that we're already down 4 million jobs since the recession has been declared to have started.
And I was going to say that that's the best case scenario.
Exactly like you said, that if we have a quarter following the first quarter, that we have a slight increase in growth.
That's just another way of saying that things are really bad, folks.
What?
iOS 8?
You want me to tell people what I think about iOS 8 today?
There would be a revolt in this audience if I were to tell people what I think of iOS 8 today.
Yeah, well, literally, I can't believe you.
With all that's going on, people don't want to give an iOS 8 today.
Well, maybe some do.
I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.
I don't know anything about the iWatch.
I don't even know that there's going to be an iWatch.
See, once again, you are totally believing, speculate, as Apple said there's going to be an iWatch.
All right.
Has Apple said there's going to be an iOS 8?
Yes.
Have they said there's going to be an OS-10 Yosemite?
Yes.
Have they said there's going to be a bigger iPhone 6?
No.
But, but, well, yeah, there will be one.
They actually have said so in that trial with Samsung, but it was cast in another way.
I don't know anything about an eye watch.
Other than if it's related to health, I'm not interested.
Washington Post had a story while I was away.
Headline, female-named hurricanes kill more than male-named hurricanes.
Did you see that while I was going?
But you heard.
OK, let's take that headline and let's ask ourselves, why in the world might this be?
No, it's true.
Why would they assert that this is true?
That hurricanes named after women kill more people than hurricanes named after men?
Well, here's the answer.
And it's shrouded, rooted in feminazism.
You see, people don't take hurricanes as seriously if they have a feminine name.
And the consequences are deadly.
This is a new groundbreaking study.
Female-named hurricanes have historically killed more people because neither consider them as risky nor take the same precautions.
If Hurricane Helen is headed here, Helen wouldn't hurt me?
Helen?
Are you kidding?
But Hurricane Richard, you better look out because Richard will come and savage you, will destroy you, will do horrible things to you.
Helen would never think of hurting you.
This is what they want us to believe.
Researchers at the University of Illinois and Arizona State University examined six decades of hurricane death rates according to gender.
The years covered 1950 to 2012, and of the 47 most damaging hurricanes, the female-named hurricanes produced an average of 45 deaths compared to 23 deaths in male-named storms, or almost double the number of fatalities.
The difference in death rates between genders was even more pronounced when comparing strongly masculine names versus strongly feminine names.
Yes, they said our models suggest that changing a severe hurricane's name from Charlie to Eloise could nearly triple its death toll.
Sharon Shavit, study co-author, professor of marketing, University of Illinois, says the results imply an implicit sexism.
I wonder if they factored in the time of the month that the female hurricanes hit.
You know, if a female hurricane is, well, in its cycle, it can make it even worse.
Well, are they factoring that?
Look, you may be laughing in there.
That makes as much sense as any of the rest of this.
Hurricane Charlie is more threatening than Hurricane Eloise, and so people prepare themselves more for it.
And Hurricane Katrina, assuming it's true, what are we supposed to do?
We're supposed to eliminate female names.
That's not the way to look at this, though.
The way to look at it is exactly as the headline says, female-named hurricanes are deadlier.
Period.
Who cares why?
Female-named hurricanes are deadlier.
That's all we need to know.
And I give you Katrina.
Period.
Here is Jim in Saratoga Springs in New York.
Welcome, sir, to the program.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Rush, all your points are valid as to why we are in the situation we are right now.
I mean, definitely everyone can agree to that.
I think what you have to look back to, I mean, I had to modify my train of thought a little bit during the break, but I think because of George Bush Sr., who I digitally respect, we got eight years of Bill Clinton.
You know, we have no new taxes, read my reps.
We had, I'm a compassionate conservative.
I mean, those two phrases were famous.
I mean, why would you even have to define conservatives as compassionate?
I mean, that's the first problem.
Then we had eight years of Bill Clinton.
We had the 94th sweep for the majority in the House.
And then we had Republicans that went squeaky meat.
And then they decided, okay, the media said, okay, Bill Clinton is the greatest man.
He's the first black president.
But yet they never told the truth that it was because of Republicans in the House that controlled Bill Clinton's spending, that we had a balanced budget.
You never hear that from the media.
And then after eight years of Bill Clinton, then we had George Bush, George W. Bush, which was, you know, I respect deeply, and we had pretty successful years, but then he started spending towards the latter end of his second term.
Let the media, and Tyler Rowe did not fight back.
They did not let the media, they let him get away with murder.
They let him define Republicans.
They let him get away with all the lies about the Iraq war.
None of that was fought back with.
And I think the media has had over a dozen years, and not only the media, but Hollywood, academia, to mold the generation that was coming up to say that Republicans are evil, conservatives are evil.
There's nothing good about conservatism.
They never articulated.
I became a conservative because of Ronald Reagan.
I was a college liberal, and he planted the seed for me to become a conservative.
And over the years, it's because of people like you and Mark Levin and many others that have enlightened me in how conservatism works, and liberalism is a failure.
And I've had to tell people all the time that I love my family, friends, that liberalism is the wrong path for this country.
And I show them example after example.
And once you show them, and they can't look at the truth and turn their head, they have to look in their mind to say, okay.
Jim, let me interrupt.
Let me take you back to the beginning of your call.
When you cited George H.W. Bush, Read My Lips, No New Taxes, and then W with compassionate conservatism.
Is your point that those two guys were trying to pass themselves off as conservatives and gave it a bad name and helped the Democrats tar and feather conservatism?
Is that your point?
Yes.
They kind of like said, well, I'm not really a, I'm a little embedded to be a conservative because they're left the media.
And even some Republicans say, well, we're not really like, you know, pro-life.
We can't be pro-life and be a conservative.
You know, that's just the whole thought where you were talking about years ago, about how you had that meeting with some Republican women.
And they said, you can't bring that up.
It's just the whole concept of establishing Republicans.
Oh, yeah, that was Ann Stone.
That was a mess.
I remember that was the Houston convention in 92.
Oh, man, was that.
Oh, yes, sir, Rebob.
I remember that.
Republican women for choice or some such thing.
Jim, you've got, there's some validity to what you say.
Look, it all boils down to.
He's a Reaganite.
Reaganite because it worked.
He's not a conservative for conservative sake.
He's a conservative because it works.
It worked.
It's kind of like abstinence.
It does every time it's tried.
That is one of the profound, frustrating things about it.
There is one thing.
I'll just be, there's one thing that Apple has done with iOS 8 that I am just ecstatic about.
And it's the one thing I've hoped would happen.
And I'm probably one of five people in the country who care about it.
But nevertheless, it's just, it is, to me, it's amazing.
The tech is astounding.
It is an adult Christmas for me.
And it's already implemented here in the first beta.
It's an existing feature that I wished were something this past year that it wasn't.
And they've made it exactly what I want it to be.
Exactly.
So I'll give you details tomorrow.
I had so much that there was just no way I was going to get to today.
I mean, that stack of stuff was five days worth of stuff.
And I had 44 audio soundbites.
And I didn't get to any of them.
And it was either do all that stuff and not take any phone calls the other way around.
So anyway, there's a lot yet to come is the point.
And it's only Monday.
So thanks for being with us, folks.
It's great to be back.
As always, thanks for your time.
And we'll see you back in 21 hours right here.
▲
Export Selection