All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:26
November 2, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Engaged in a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
It's the excellence and broadcasting network and Rush Limboy here at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here, as always.
Telebound numbers 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rushbow at EAEIBNet.com.
Let me do just a little uh a quick.
This is bouncing off the income tax statement I just made.
And the income tax, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest obstacles to the acquiring of wealth, the amassing of wealth that we have.
The phrase robber barons.
Does it ring a bell?
Mr. Snertley.
And there's this this is not to determine who knows or doesn't know.
It's just a series of pop quiz questions leading to something.
Who were they?
Who were the robber barons?
Okay, very good.
That's right.
The industrial titans of the late 1800s and the 30s and the 1920s and 30s were the robber barons.
People like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Joseph Kennedy, who, well, but he may actually have been one.
And of course, John Pierpoint Morgan.
J.P. Morgan, he wasn't an industrialist.
J.P. Morgan at one time had more money than the United States Treasury.
At yes, before at one point, the United States Treasury actually borrowed money from John Pierpoint Morgan.
One of the best, if you want to read a quick relatively quick, the one of the greatest stories about JP Morgan, without having to read a book, is a cover story on the guy done by Cigar Aficionado about 10 years ago, I think.
It's one of the greatest pieces on John Pierpoint Morgan ever.
The man loved debt.
Everybody was indebted to him.
He lent money like crazy.
He wasn't worried about people not paying it back, because the vast majority of people always do.
And if they don't, you got goons to go get what they owe you.
But he amassed so much money.
At one point the federal government had to borrow some from him.
Now this is this is back in the 1800s.
Now the robber barons traditionally are taught about as a bunch of mean, selfish rich people who, when you ask people how'd the robber barons get their money, they're they're regarded as thieves.
Yes, they are robber barons?
What do you mean they're not regarded as thieves?
What?
Robber baron.
That means, so who did they steal their money from?
The whole mode of thinking is alive and well today.
The Democrat Party wants you to believe that everybody has wealth, stole it from today's middle class.
Or yesterday's middle class.
And the math has never worked out for me.
The idea that the poor used to be rich, but the rich stole the money from them.
I bet the poor don't even remember the days they were rich.
The math just doesn't work out, but it sells.
It just sells.
Like there's a the one of the lead items on Drudge right now.
There's some uh some guy who took his video camera out to the beach in California, one of these man on the street things, like Jay Leno used to do.
I mean, any number of people do them, and they started talking to Hillary Clinton supporters and telling them all that Hillary Clinton was an avid supporter of Sharia law, and they also, oh, that's great, so am I. Love Sharia law.
It's clear they don't even know what it is.
So it's just another way of illustrating how I don't think stupid, just how ignorant so many people are.
But the whole term robber baron is designed to denigrate that group of people.
But look at what they did.
Why is there Rockefeller Center, for example?
You know what Rockefeller Center is and what it consists of?
It's massive.
And it was all built by John D. Rock.
He had so damn much money.
He couldn't possibly have spent it on himself.
So he built this massive thing for New York City, not to mention the parks, not to mention the museums, many of which still stand today.
All of these old robber barons built much more than government has.
They were, they were the biggest philanthropists in the world, but they had enough left over to also be the most conspicuous of spenders.
I mean, the Vanderbilts, the railroad people.
I know John D. Rockefeller gave down to poor people, but that that's in addition to everything else.
But you look at the Vanderbilts, the Breakers, the mansion in Newport, Rhode Island.
They built that for basically four weeks a year.
And they would go in the summertime when the city got too hot, and go up to Rhode Island, and it took railroad cars to transport all the silver, all the plates, all the drinking glasses, and all that just for four weeks.
And the railroad cars took it back to wherever it went.
I mean, they just they they had this was pre-income tax, and they just had amassed incredible amounts of wealth.
And there have always been people around think like Democrats do.
We thought it was unfair and unjust, and so there were all kinds of policies put into play to begin the process of taking that money away from them.
And then what happened?
They all opened, started foundations.
The Fords, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, the Melons, foundation after foundation, and slowly and surely the left took over all of them.
And all of these people, if there was a politics of the day, they would have, they would have all been vastly more conservative, especially the way they live their lives, than liberal.
But the left saw these foundations, and they just gradually, as the founders died, and as the progeny became worthless, which always happens.
I mean, at some point, third or fourth generation is just a bunch of worthless duds and left to their own devices, they'll lose everything.
By that time, the left moves in and takes over the foundations, and that's how liberalism spreads its tentacles and encroaches.
But who did they steal from?
They didn't steal anything.
They provided discovered oil, any number of the railroads.
They were all said to be people exploited, people and used them and were mean and didn't, and their achievements are always impugned and glossed over.
And now we've reached the point where people like Barack Obama, who couldn't do one-tenth of one percent what any of the truly great in this country have done are considered to be such because they've found a way to get their hands on the United States Treasury and treat the money as their own.
Take a look at Obamacare.
It has never enjoyed the support of anywhere near a majority of people.
It can honestly be said that Obamacare has never been supported by even a narrow majority of the people of this country.
The latest investors' business daily poll has found that 52% of the public opposes Obamacare.
That's up from when the question was last asked in August.
According to the poll, 52% of independents oppose the law, as do 92% of Republicans.
Among Democrats, fewer than one in five oppose it.
The Obamacare polls are far worse among the middle class and less educated who are supposed to be its main beneficiaries.
58% of those making between 50 and 75,000 a year say they oppose the law.
That's the highest of any income bracket.
And why?
Why is that?
As the story says, they're supposedly the beneficiaries, because they're the ones getting creamed.
They're the ones who see their premiums doubling and tripling.
The same thing with the deductibles.
The deductibles are so high you never get to use them.
Meaning you're paying a good percentage of your treatment, which you thought you weren't going to be paying much of anything before Obamacare became law.
Now the Obamacare third open enrollment period started essentially today, it's November 1, which was yesterday's Sunday.
And people are just they're not signing up, they're wary, they are confused, they're unhappy about it.
And now this from the Daily Caller, Obamacare premium costs are going to rise 20% on average in 2016, instead of the 7.5% increase claimed by CBO and the Obama administration.
The discrepancy is because the government excluded price data for three of the four Obamacare health insurance plans when the officials issued their recent forecast claiming enrollees would face only a 7.5% increase in 2016.
When data for all four plans are included, the premium costs rise an average of 20% next year.
That's on top of what they've already risen, and people can't afford, they couldn't afford the first cost.
Now, there are four Obamacare insurance plans, silver, bronze, gold, and platinum.
When announcing the 2016 increases for these plans, Obamacare propagandists only calculated and communicated the price increase of one plan, the silver plan, and they said it's going to go up 7.5%.
They made it sound like the silver plan increase was the same across the board.
They were lying.
One plan goes up 7.5%, the silver plan.
They purposely didn't factor in the other three, the bronze gold and platinum, and when taken together, all four Obamacare plans explode the premium increase up to 20%.
And this is why it's unpopular.
You look at the way this was sold.
And by the way, people heard this.
They heard Obama say their premiums were going to go down $2,500.
Many people thought it wasn't going to cost them anything.
Many people thought Obamacare was going to give them health insurance for nothing.
Many people thought that Obamacare was only going to ensure the uninsured.
Many people thought that it was going to be cheaper, easier, because that's how it was sold.
They were lied to from top to bottom on this.
Now they find out they can't afford it.
Now they find out that some of the co-ops in the exchanges are insolvent.
Now they find out that premiums are doubling and tripling.
And the only option they have is to pay the fine, which still, for a few short more years is less expensive than having the policy.
It's an absolute total mess.
And it does need to be totally scrapped.
And it's something that ought to be part of the 20,016, 2016 presidential race.
The problem there is that the Republicans since 2010 have been promising to repeal it.
And they have not kept the promise.
They have made mere efforts.
All they've done is say that they're going to repeal it, and they've had a couple of votes, but there's never really been any impetus behind it because it's an entitlement.
Republicans are afraid what the Democrats and the media will say if they're accused of taking an entitlement away from people.
Meanwhile, over here is a ready-made, and it has been since 2010, a ready-made majority coalition for the Republican Party to attach itself to.
And that is a majority in opposition to Obamacare.
Something the vast majority of the people in this country want No part of.
And yet both parties in Washington seem joined at the hip on forcing it on people anyway.
Another story, this is from World Net Daily.
United Nations is planning on a court to judge the United States for violations of climate justice.
Kid you not, the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an international tribunal of climate justice, giving third world countries the power to haul America into a global court with enforcement powers.
Congress would be bypassed.
Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to United Nations body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit, which is scheduled for November 30th through December 11th, according to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty.
And in this, by the way, we find out why the hoax of global warming will not die.
Because all it is is yet another technique opportunity for the United Nations to fleece the United States after proclaiming the United States guilty of immorality and injustice, the result of which was being a superpower.
It's time to cut the United States down to size.
The difference this time is that we have elected a president who agrees that the United States is guilty of injustice and immorality and has been since its founding, has not been deserving of its superpower status.
We have a president of Democrat Party which believes that the United States of America and its capitalist economy is the greatest contributor to destructive climate change.
We have elected a Democrat president and a supporting Democrat Party which believes the United States needs to be cut down to size for all the transgressions it has committed since its founding.
And the global warming hoax is a mechanism by which the United Nations and the rest of the world can point to America and say guilty.
It's time to pay up.
The rest of the world is poor and impoverished because of you.
You are not a superpower because there's anything great about you.
You are a superpower because you are a robber baron.
You have stolen what you have from indigenous peoples all over the world, and it's time now for them to get it back.
And so they're going to set up a court based on page 19, page 19 of a 34-page document.
An international tribunal of climate justice is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed countries, parties on mitigation, adaptation.
It's a way to find us guilty of crimes.
climate change.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network in the afternoon in the eastern and central time zones in the morning.
In the mountain Well, no, it's his afternoon and mountain time zone as well.
Barely.
Here's Robert in Greenville, South Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Rice, thanks.
Uh good news.
Bill Gates is going to be at Clemson University this afternoon.
Uh I guess spilling is drevel to the uh students there, so at least he'll be spreading the uh Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Clinton University.
No, no, I was gonna say Clinton I meant Bill Gates, I'm sorry.
Clemson, I thought you said Clemson.
Yeah, Clinton at Clemson University, yeah, he's gonna be there this afternoon.
Yeah, yeah.
I thought you said Clinton University.
What did I miss?
Well, no, although they could change it, it wouldn't surprise me a lot.
Hey, anyway, the reason I called.
Yes.
Um, if I'm not mistaken, isn't the current RNC debate system the one they fixed from 2012?
Didn't they come out after the Candy Crowley thing and the uh George Stephanopoulos deal, the where they said, you know, we're gonna fix this.
Because obviously it was, you know, slanted too heavily to the left.
And yet this is what we wound up with again.
I I think that's that you can do.
Your memory on this may be better than mine.
I don't remember that.
What I remember them saying was that they were going to restructure the way the debates looked, like who got into them, because there were too many people on stage.
Whatever they said they were going to fix, they didn't.
Whatever, whatever it was.
I I don't remember them saying they were going to let the left uh have such a strong hand in moderating.
If you remember that, then I that's well no, I thought they were going to do the opposite, that they were going to try and fix it to where they had a more receptive uh host to the uh debates as opposed to the ones that were so where are they gonna do that?
Where are they gonna find those?
Yeah, well, I think Fox is about as close as they're gonna get, and that's just another Well, they thought they did.
In fact, uh that uh I'm sure they thought the Fox debate was gonna be a fix.
I heard someone suggest that you, Michael Medv, and who was there was a third that they were saying should host the debate.
Maybe it was Cruz or somebody said that, and I thought, well, that's an idea.
Uh that that would be a ratings boost uh buster if ever there was one.
You think so?
Why don't you guys get together and do it?
I don't know.
Right.
Come on, man.
You can find one evening.
You don't need to be a little bit more than a few.
No, no, no.
That's not it.
No, no.
I think if I moderate a debate, it ought to be a Democrat debate.
Well, that'd be nice too.
That's right.
I mean, if you're gonna even this out, and we're gonna make this fair, you let me moderate the next debate with Hillary and the socialist and the abs.
And uh, we'll be back.
Saga continues.
I love that.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
I'm kind of in a good mood, and my one of my favorite TV shows resumes tonight.
Major crimes.
Fall season.
It's the uh the spin-off of the closer.
It's on TNT.
I just love the show.
I don't know, it's it just it.
There's uh eight shows.
Eight of my favorite shows are on Monday night.
And when I saw that major crimes resumes today, I say, hey, I was gonna be disappointed there are any more World Series games.
But we got major crimes tonight, plus Monday Night Football.
And look at this.
Christian Science Monitor, Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA.
Is global warming over?
No, no, of course not.
We're not supposed to assume that.
We only assume when the ice is melting that there is global warming.
But when the ice is expanding, no, no, no, no, no.
That does not mean there isn't any global warming.
See how this works.
A new NASA study found that Antarctica, the South Pole, for those of you in Rio Linda, has been adding more ice than it has been losing, challenging other research, including that of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that concludes the Earth's southern continent is losing land ice overall.
In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, you have your subscription.
Who do you think subscribes to this?
And are they paid subscribers or are they just gifted this thing?
Who in the world well anyway?
The Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, because all the space flights that go to the South Pole.
The engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 11 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001.
Over a 10-year period, 112 billion tons of new ice every year.
That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
Remember those stupid explorers that thought the ice was melting and they started an expedition down there and they got stuck in the ice.
It took two icebreakers.
Chicoms even had one that got stuck in the ice.
Okay, So Antarctica is gaining ice.
Is global warming over?
Not quite, scientists say.
Not quite.
No, no, no, no.
You shouldn't think that.
Only when the ice is melting can we conclude that global warming is happening.
The new study results show the fallibility of current climate change measuring tools and challenges current theories about the cause of sea level rise, which there isn't any.
Now this is not a conservative site reported.
This is the Christian Science Monitor, which is every bit and every part member of the left wing media and anything else is.
Jeremy in the wilds of East Texas.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Just fine.
Thank you very much for calling, sir.
Listen, I've got a lot to say, and so I'm just gonna launch right into the Do that.
That's exactly what you should do.
Just launch.
Just get in, get it, and get out.
Go for it.
Uh I was going to talk about the Cruz electability.
Um I've heard people talk and I've seen on social media where people say I'm not sure Cruz can win in the general, and they the news media has been promoting Rubio and some of these other candidates.
And I just want to say, you know, Cruz started out in the state of Texas when he ran for the Senate at two percent in the polls.
The margin of error was three percent.
And he went on to beat David Dewhurst, the lieutenant governor of Texas by double digits, and then turn around and won the general election by double digits.
So, you know, this it's a frustrating that part is a frustration to me that people keep, you know, they can't seem to to take this, even they make excuses even after the debate that Marco Rubio or this candidate's gonna win the nomination.
That's the first point.
My second point is what you just talked about uh about the climate change court.
This goes to the issue of what Cruz will do when he's in office.
When he was the solicitor general of the state of Texas, uh he actually fought in a case called Medi Medien versus the state of Texas, where he fought the world court in the Supreme Court uh and and won that case where George Bush was trying to tell the state of Texas that we had to stop that the Texas had to stop an etching execution because the world court said so, and because of international law and that we had to abide by international law.
And Cruz shut it down and basically uh litigated that and won.
So there's two examples right there of why we need Ted Cruz to be our next president.
Number three is you know, Obama has done uh Cruz has actually said he's going to be to conservatives, what Obama has been to uh liberals, and he's going to govern like that.
He's already said that when he takes office, he's gonna uh overturn all of the illegal executive orders.
What other candidate has said that?
I don't think I've heard a single one of them.
He's the only one talking about trying to undo you know, they speak in general terms about fixing Washington and all this kind of stuff, but he has actually come out and said, I'm gonna do this.
Well, Ted Cruz scares them all.
Ted Cruz scares a lot of people because they're not they're not conservative.
Ted t Ted Cruz means it when he says he's gonna try to get government out of people's lives when he's gonna try to reduce the size of government, where he's gonna try to reduce the financial take that comes to government.
He means it.
And most everybody makes their living off government.
Republican, Democrat, whatever, they make their living off of it.
They make their living governing it, expanding it, writing laws for it or what have you.
Ted Cruz is a serious about wanting to de-emphasize it.
I love this argument that he's not electable, he can't win.
Mitt Romney was, right?
John McCain, there's somebody could win.
Right, right.
All these people they tell us that can't win, they singularly set out and try to destroy.
Um Ted Cruz has overcome odds as you described in Texas.
If he can't win, how did he become senator?
But it's it's um it's I don't know.
It's it's uh uh a fascinating thing to watch when you for the longest time conservatives thought the Republican Party was their home and uh where their beliefs resonated and echoed, and it's really a slap in the face whenever you as a conservative,
whatever it is, whenever that time, when you realize the Republican Party actually is not for the things you're for.
That that is a that is a uh an interesting day for whoever whenever the day happens, and it happens to every conservative when they realize that the Republican Party's actually not you.
And if you've had if you've never had any doubts, all you have to do is take a look at the way they all react to Ted Cruz.
It's with palpable anger and fear, and it's irrational.
Here, give you an example.
This is Boehner.
This is uh Grab Sunbite 13, CNN State of the Union yesterday.
And this is just a small example.
The DC establishment despises Ted Cruz.
Without, if Ted Cruz weren't around, they could sell this budget deal as they want.
They're trying to tell people it reforms entitlements and it reduces spending and it does all this.
The thing is that Ted Cruz is running around calling them out on it.
No, it doesn't do that.
And that makes them mad.
So Boehner's on State of the Union yesterday with Dana Bash, who said the budget deal that you struck just this week calls for an increase of $80 billion in federal spending over two years.
That's caca.
It's much more than that.
In exchange for a variety of cuts, Ted Cruz said it's a complete and utter surrender.
John Boehner's golden parachute will certainly cement his legacy, but it's a slap in the face to conservatives.
That's just total nonsense.
We've got uh a big group of members who need more money for our national defense.
And uh all the increases on spending are offset with spending reductions elsewhere in the government.
How does that I folks?
The numbers don't add up that way.
The net spending increases are significant.
There isn't any entitlement reform.
The national debt by the time this deal is one year old is going to be 20 trillion dollars.
Where in the world is anything being cut?
Entitlements or anything else.
Nothing is.
You know why this budget was done?
And Politico has a story.
They're just smiling ear to ear on this door behind the secret budget deal that drove conservatives mad.
And they're just so happy at the political...
That's one of the biggest days they ever have is when they can write a story detailing how angry conservatives are or how big a shaft a conservatives got.
And that's one that this is one of these stories.
A potential national default, John Boehner's resignation, and a resolute Barack Obama aligned at temporarily halt Washington's dysfunction.
There isn't any dysfunction.
Washington Democrats and Republicans are working together just fine, folks.
I'm watching TV.
I'm not watching it.
TV's on, and there's a story on a tiger up there.
You and I read something over the weekend, somebody studied a bunch of cats.
You know, I have a little cat, a little Abyssinian.
And whoever did the study said cats, if they could kill their their human masters, they would.
They're just they're too small.
But they're constantly sizing you up, trying to figure out what it would take to take you out.
And I've I look at my cat in a whole different way now.
When it's staring at me.
You know, I'm thinking of renaming the cat to Predator.
Just found it cute and funny as it could be anyway.
And I love it when we when we kick off a brand new broadcast week with a grand slam home run.
And we have done it.
I just have um a couple things I didn't get to today.
But that's what tomorrow is for.
A couple of them involved that World Series game last night, too.
So anyway, got to take a brief break here of 21 hours, it'll go by fast, and we'll be back here revved and ready to do it all over again tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection