Posted on 10/20/2009 3:04:13 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
October 20, 2009
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
||||||||
"The United States has become Michigan in its trend lines now, and the United States is prepared to duplicate what Jennifer Granholm has done:
raise taxes again, foist new programs that cannot be paid for, and rack up more debt."
"Can you think of any other administration in this country where somebody would start praising Mao Tse-tung as a role model, as a philosopher to follow?
I'm not suggesting they're mass murderers in this administration; I'm just saying that they envy the total control Mao had."
"These incompetent boobs are destroying our country, and people on our side think that it's just the next news story:
'Oh, man, look! My website's going to go gangbusters! Oh, wow, what a great news story!' Our country is being dismantled right before our very eyes!"
"Unlike they did with Nixon's enemies list, which they despised and hated, the media will be happy to join the Obama
administration in going after those who are their list. Where are you now, 60 Minutes? Where are you now, Nightline?"
"Obama doesn't really think we're threatened by anything over in the Middle East.
He believes any threat to the United States will be reduced if we just say,
'Look, folks, we're going to go home and we're sorry for having screwed you in the past.'"
"Wage and price controls are by definition temporary.
What Obama is doing is completely different.
He's buying companies and then telling people in those companies what they can and can't earn.
It's the definition of fascism."
"Why don't you -- David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Anita Dunn, and all the rest of you socialists -- j
ust get together and rewrite the Constitution? You're doing it anyway!"
"Now we have Anita Dunn, who sings the praises of the great philosopher Mao Tse-tung, in the White House.
Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it, but, then again, I didn't think the government would have a pay czar
taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of."
"Obama's the public face of moderation, yet the people doing his dirty work are the same radicals that he is.
It's there for everyone to discover."
"Also in this story, it is mentioned that there is a new reluctance here to spend money among higher income families.
Now, why would that be? Because they're coming after us, that's why!"
"Story: 'Higher Jobless Rates Could Be New Normal'. Folks, they are telling you it's over.
Get used to it. We are Europeanizing ourselves right before our very eyes."
"I wonder if the administration's going to call Steve Jobs and say, 'This is not fair! You're doing too well during this recession!
It's not fair you're doing this well when other people aren't!'"
"Commander-in-chief Obama is in conflict with politician-in-chief Obama.
Commander-in-chief Obama knows we need more troops, but politician-in-chief
Obama knows that MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, and George Soros want no more troops."
"So we have two high-ranking White House officials citing their appreciation for Mao Tse-tung.
I'll tell you, what really amuses me is when people say, 'Does Obama know who these people are?'
Obama is Anita Dunn! Obama is Ron Bloom! Obama is Van Jones!"
"We are led by a man who believes that the world hates us.
He thinks that by cutting-and-running in Afghanistan we'll show the world we're no longer a threat."
"Have you ever read the letters to the editor in the New York Times?
Well, every damn one of them is far more radical, wacko, and leftist than even the people who work there!"
"I feel like I've been sent up to the Hale-Bopp comet; I actually don't think I'm on earth anymore.
This is not the earth I knew, much less the country I knew."
"See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they're always for everybody else.
Well, liberals, you go and limit the number of kids you have! You go drive a Yugo! You go get rid of your big house!"
"Obama, why don't you start serving ground chuck instead of serving Kobe beef at your parties?
Why don't you hire a karaoke machine instead of Earth, Wind and Fire? Nobody ever says that to him!"
"All mammals exhale carbon dioxide, but yet somehow only man's carbon dioxide is destroying the planet;
only man, particularly capitalist man. Now, why does the left think this?"
"The first thing they do in any communist country is wipe God and religion out of everybody's mind.
The left, in order to ultimately succeed, has to end our understanding of God's existence and purpose."
"This is Rush Limbaugh, utilizing talent on loan from God-d. You have to say, 'God-d.' 'Talent on loan from God' just doesn't cut it as much."
 |
Continually repeat ... It's not about me. I'm the President. |
Past editions of " RUSH IN A HURRY "
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
RUSH ARCHIVE: This is not about health care, it's about control, it's remaking the country, the economy, proof of my point here that the joblessness is on purpose. If your number one signature issue is health care, and his is, and if, which is true that health insurance is not portable when you lose your job, what's the best thing you could do for yourself? Create unemployment. The more people unemployed, the more people losing their health insurance, the more people scared to death, the more people clamoring for it, "Please save my health insurance, please give me health insurance." I'm scared because they've been drummed into the fact that there's something in this country killing them every day from coffee to nicotine to whatever it is, so all of this destruction is taking place, redistribution of wealth. He wants to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners.
RUSH: And I said that rightful owners meaning redistribute from the achievers to the non-achievers. And so here we are today, from the AP, approvingly: "'Higher Jobless Rates Could Be The New Normal.' -- Even with an economic revival --" which is not happening and isn't going to happen any time soon. "-- many U.S. jobs lost during the recession may be gone forever and a weak employment market could linger for years. That could add up to a 'new normal' of higher joblessness and lower standards of living for many Americans, some economists are suggesting," and the AP is approvingly reporting this. "The words 'it's different this time' are always suspect. But economists and policy makers say the job-creating dynamics of previous recoveries can't be counted on now. Here's why: The auto and construction industries helped lead the nation out of past recessions. But the carnage among Detroit's automakers and the surplus of new and foreclosed homes and empty commercial properties make it unlikely these two industries will be engines of growth anytime soon."
Well, who owns the auto business? Who's running the US car industry? Who destroyed the US housing industry? Who is running the US banking industry? Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, hmm. "The auto and construction industries helped lead the nation out of past recessions. But the carnage among Detroit's automakers and the surplus of new and foreclosed homes --" Who's running out of this? The administration of Barack Hussein Obama. Also in this story it is mentioned that there is a new reluctance here to spend money among higher income families. Now, why would that be? Why would higher income families suddenly be reluctant to spend? They're coming after us, that's why. They're coming after us and we are trying to hold onto what we've got for as long as we can before they find a way to take it from us, as Obama seeks to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners.
You go back to May of 2008 for some historical perspective. Here's some excerpts from an article, from an outraged AP. They're approving of this whole concept, higher jobless rates could be the new normal. In fact, the AP is furthering the Obama administration's line, "Hey get used to it, this is your new country, and most of you are going to be impoverished, lower middle class and out of work depending on us. This is your new country," and AP happily proffers that notion on you. But go back to May of 2008 when guess who was still in office: "Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, a better-than-expected showing that nonetheless reveals strains in the nation's labor market. For the fourth month in a row, the economy lost jobs, the Labor Department reported Friday. But in April the losses totaled 20,000, an improvement from the 81,000 reductions in payrolls logged in March. … The unemployment rate, derived from a different statistical survey than the payroll figures, fell to 5 percent from 5.1 percent in March. That survey showed more people finding employment than those who didn't."
Now, lest we forget, 5% unemployment was considered full employment during the salad days of the Clinton years. Yet in May of 2008, the AP tried to paint it as the harbinger of a second Great Depression and they spent two years trying to convince the American people that we were in the throes of a recession, that it was worse than we had ever seen in the last 50 years, the economy was plunging and it was Bush's fault, and it was the fault of the Iraq war. And unemployment when they were making this point was 5%. Today, it's approaching 10%, and the AP tells us, get used to it, you dupes, get used to it, you schlubs, get used to it, you serfs, because yo time is up. Right here I'm holding it in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, "Higher Jobless Rates Could Be New Normal." Folks, they are telling you it's over. Get used to it. They've accepted it in Europe, we've gotta learn to accept it here. We are Europeanizing ourselves right before our very eyes. They've accepted it there, we've gotta learn to accept it here.
Now, there's interesting juxtaposition of news stories with this AP headline: "Higher Jobless Rates Could Be New Normal." Right under it is this little headline: "Apple Profits Up 47% on iPhone Craze." Now, what positioning, on the one hand, an excuse for Obama, "Oh, jobless rate normal, gotta get used to this." Right below it the results of entrepreneurial nongovernment efforts during a recession! During a recession. Apple shares soar on earnings report. Mac and iPhone sales soar. I wonder if the administration's going to call Steve Jobs and say this is not fair, you're doing too well during this recession. We're going to have to penalize you, this is not right, it's not fair you're doing this well when other people aren't. They're doing increased sales in a recession, the evidence right before our eyes of how to come out of this, right before our eyes. And Apple, even though they're big libs, even though they're big contributors to Obama, Apple, before the day is over, it's got its cult-like fans, "How can this be happening? This is not right."
"Apple Inc. said Monday that record sales of Macintosh computers and iPhones lifted its quarterly profit and revenue, which trounced Wall Street's forecasts. Shares of Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) rose 7% after hours, at one point hitting an all-time trading high of $204. The previous high in regular trading was $202, set nearly two years ago. … IPhone sales climbed 7% to a record 7.4 million in Apple's fiscal fourth quarter. That rate could increase as Apple introduces the iPhone to China later this month. … 'We are thrilled to have sold more Macs and iPhones than in any previous quarter,' Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, said in a statement. 'We've got a very strong lineup for the holiday season and some really great new products in the pipeline for 2010.'"
Now, I'm a Mac guy, but I still love these stories not because I'm a Mac guy. Because the story is proof if you make a product that people want, and you make it better than anybody else, you can make a profit even in a recession. And you don't have to lay people off even in a recession. No unions, no cash for clunkers, no tax rebate for hybrids, no government intervention, no stimulus, just a good product that means big profits. I won't be surprised if it's somewhere leaked that Obama and the Democrats say this is evil and unfair and try to put a stop to this. This is the old economy on display. Apple Computer, even though they're a high-tech bunch, represents the, quote, unquote, old economy, the American exceptional economy on display, juxtapositioned right against a falling, flailing, failing, embarrassing Obama America and Obama economy. And then to add to it, we finally get the truth out of this administration. Yesterday at a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, Vice President Biden spoke.
BIDEN: My grandpop used to say -- there was a suburb of Scranton called Minooka. He said, "When the guy in Minooka's out of work, it's an economic slowdown. When your brother- in-law's out of work, it's a recession. When you're out of work, it's a depression," Well, it's a depression -- it's a depression for millions of Americans.
RUSH: All right, so they finally admit the truth, Joe Biden, "It's a depression." Now, he's telling the truth here, but I got a little chart here, ladies and gentlemen, that is just amazing, that shows job creation and job loss since the middle of 2004. The administration's running, wait, we've turned our backs, the recession's over, yeah, the recession's over and we're headed worse, we're into depression. And the vice president of the United States is out there saying so. New York Times headline, October 16th: "By Some Reliable Measures, Recession Is Over." Exactly right. Now we're into depression. Total nonfarm payrolls all employees, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, number of jobs in the US last five years through September '09, it starts in mid-2004, and it looks like 132 million people working in the middle of 2004. When you go to the peak right at the end of 2007 we are at 138 million Americans working. That's seven million jobs created between the middle of 2004 and the end of 2008. Today, we have lost every job that was created from the summer of 2004 through the end of 2007. We have lost every job in just a year-and-a-half. This is Michigan.
The United States has become Michigan in its trend lines, and the United States is prepared to duplicate what Jennifer Granholm has done: raise taxes again, foist new programs that cannot be paid for, rack up more debt. It can't be because these people don't get it. It can't be because these people don't understand what they're doing. It can't be because they have good intentions. None of those things are true. It is happening because we have people running this country who think it's about time we got ours and live like the rest of the world does because we have been stealing from the rest of the world for our lifestyles and our living standards. It's about time we got cut down to size and get used to it because these unemployment levels, according to the Associated Press, very approvingly, are the new norms.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, this next story is equally as infuriating as the AP story. It sounds complicated but it's really not. Let me see if I can once again (as I always do) make the complex understandable here. Here's the headline from the Washington Times: "Justice Department Concludes that Black Voters Need the Democrat Party." The story is it from North Carolina, a little town called Kinston. "Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year..." By the way Kinston is two-thirds black. Keep that in mind as I run through the details here. "Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections," It's two-thirds black, one-third white, they voted 65% to do away with party affiliation to local elections. In other words, they have no Democrats or Republican identification on the ballot.
Just the candidates' names. That's not good enough for the Obama administration. The Obama administration and the attorney general, Eric Holder, have "recently overruled the electorate" in Kinston, North Carolina, "and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party." They are worried that whites will not vote for blacks unless it is said that they are Democrats in this county. This is what this all can get boiled down to. "The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their 'candidates of choice' -- identified by the department as those who are Democrats..."
They are essentially saying at the Justice Department that black voters don't have the sense to understand who they're voting for, don't have any idea how to identify people they want to support unless the word "Democrat" is attached to their name. "The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want." So the Obama Justice Department has decided to insult nationally and brazenly the black population of Kinston, North Carolina. They are in effect saying, "No, no, no! You guys down there you cannot do this. Even though you voted 65% to get rid of party affiliation in local elections, you can't do it. You're going to have to identify who the Democrats are otherwise the black people won't know who to vote for."
That's what the Obama Justice Department is saying. And it was Eric Holder said, wait a minute. We need to have a conversation about race. We're still "cowards about race" in this country. So you have here a 65% African-American district, a little town, Kinston, North Carolina, which voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, this same electorate passed a nonpartisanship provision by a two to one margin, yet the civil rights division of the Holder Justice Department decided it knew better and using an unconstitutional law "dictated its terms," like our moralizing attorney general likes to say. In things racial, we have always been and continue to be in too many ways essentially a nation of cowards. If that's true, then Eric Holder's own civil rights division is cowardice central. It shouldn't have taken much courage to let Kinston be Kinston.
I don't know how else to say this. According to the Department of Justice, Barack Obama's Department of Justice, a majority black district has a right to have the candidates of its choice elected and would of course only ever choose Democrats but the district is one third white, and sometimes the vote of that one-third is decisive. And if you don't tell the white voters who the Democrats are, they might mistakenly vote for her Republicans. And if you don't tell the black voters who the Democrats are, they might mistakenly vote for Republicans. That would deny the black majority, the Democrats, the DOJ now say they are entitled to under the Constitution to win elections. So, here's the bottom line, folks.
The bottom line: The Constitution compels the election of Democrats. The Constitution compels socialism. Remember, Obama's earlier lament from back in his days in Chicago, he was on some FM station. I think it was an FM radio station. I'm not sure, there were so many of them. We've played the audio. Cookie, you don't need to get me the audio. I'll just recite it. You people remember having heard it, his lament that the Warren Court did not go far enough in matters of redistribution of wealth. The Warren Court did not go far enough. So now they're simply ruling by fiat, here: Constitution compels the election of Democrats. The Constitution compels socialism. And even if black Democrats -- remember, they are 65% of the population in Kinston, North Carolina. Even if black Democrats in a small town want to run nonpartisan elections, Obama will not allow it. They don't know what's best for them. They must run as Democrats and get elected as Democrats. We're not going to have to any of this nonpartisan stuff. The bottom line is: It's an insult to their intelligence. No way will the black voters in Kinston, North Carolina, have any idea they're voting for Democrats unless it says "Democrat" next to their name.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I have an idea. I know that the Obama administration is listening to this show. Rather than do this stuff piecemeal -- like tell the people in Kinston, North Carolina, the way they vote is not allowable under your rule -- why don't you, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, and Anita Dunn, and all the rest of you socialists, why don't you just get together and just outlaw the Republican Party? Just make it official? Just outlaw the Republican Party. Just rewrite the Constitution to require redistribution of wealth and group rights over individual liberty. Just convene a convention amongst yourselves and rewrite the Constitution. You're doing it anyway. Why not just make illegal aliens citizens!
Just snap your fingers and make it so and just shut down the "sewer" that the Internet is. Shut it down! Shut down talk radio. Shut down Fox News. Then we could all have the kind of society Obama and his fellow anti-liberty, anti-private property, anti-constitutionalists want. Why go through all this angst? Why put everybody through this? Just do it. I mean, for crying out loud you're snapping your fingers and owning car companies and Wall Street and setting pay scales for everybody. Why not just outlaw the Republican Party? Rewrite the Constitution, require redistribution of wealth get rid of talk radio. Get rid of it. Just do it. It's where you're headed anyway. Make it official. Show everybody.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: John in Buford, North Carolina, hello and welcome, sir.
CALLER: Rush, mega Goldwater barbecue-loving dittos from up here in North Carolina.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much great to have you here, what's up.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. My question is about this Kinston case, at what point -- (garbled) I'm not picking on Kinston. I'm originally from Winston-Salem, so I have roots there, but at what point are some people in the states where the know-it-alls on high are dictating from the federal level, you know, these dictates like we had today you're talking about earlier on the voting issue down there. At what point is a municipality just going to say to the federal government, "Thanks but no thanks. This is our electoral privilege. We've taken the vote that we want and we're just going to ignore what you have to say. Thank you very much"?
RUSH: Well, to update you on the Kinston situation, the local people in Kinston have decided not to fight the federal ruling from the Department of Justice, and so the way they voted is now inconsequential and irrelevant. To review this story very quickly, I saw it first in the Washington Times today. Kinston, North Carolina, small community, and in local elections -- mayor, city council -- they voted overwhelmingly to party labels next to candidates' names on the ballots. They wanted everybody to just go nonpartisan, and the makeup of the community there is two-thirds black and one-third white, and the overwhelming majority said, "Okay, fine, we'll get rid of party affiliation. We'll just have everybody go nonpartisan. No party ID on the ballot or when they campaign."
The Obama Justice Department said, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! That violates the voting rights act. These people down there have to know who the Democrats are or they won't vote for them." They said specifically: Black people in Kinston, North Carolina, won't know who the Democrats are, therefore they won't vote for them so the Obama Justice Department basically said the Constitution mandates that people vote for the Democrat Party. This is now a requirement. So the bottom line is that Kinston, North Carolina, has now refused or said, "Well, we're not going to fight it." It's a sixty-five percent African-American district voted that overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. They passed a nonpartisan provision by a two-to-one margin. The civil rights division decided it knew better, used an unconstitutional law and dictated its terms. So they essentially said to the people of Kinston, North Carolina, "Sorry, we don't think you're smart enough to know what you're doing. We know that you will not vote Democrat unless the word 'Democrat' appears. We don't want you voting Republican." That's not stated but that's what this means. And so his question is: When are these states going to stand up and oppose this?" I don't know. They're getting too much federal money. Where do you think all the bailout money has gone? The states have gotten all the bailout money so far, plus the District of Columbia. So the latest news is that Kinston will not fight this ruling, they will not stand for their own sovereignty, if you will. They are bowing to the Obama Justice Department.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • Washington Times: Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party • American Thinker: DOJ Forces Town to Put Party Labels on Candidates for Racial Reasons |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Obama's out there playing a daisy game. He's having a meeting right now with Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, and Obama's leftists are not going to be happy with what they heard Obama say. He reiterated to al-Maliki our commitment to Iraq. Now, while this is going on, Obama is playing a daisy game with Afghanistan. More troops... You know, you pick there "He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me..." You do it with a piece of clover or a daisy. You pick the petals off, sort of like eeny, meeny, miny, mo. "More troops; no more troops. More troops; no more troops," whatever it is. Don't you find it curious? All of a sudden the election in Afghanistan is now in dispute, giving Obama a reason to vacillate on sending troops to Afghanistan, although he did call Hamid Karzai today and congratulate him on his victory.
Now, somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this, but wasn't it James Carville that went over to Afghanistan and ran the campaign of Karzai's opponent? So even with Carville involved in running the campaign of the opponent somehow we got a flawed result? But that's just a smoke screen, and it's irrelevant. Generals McChrystal and Petraeus are calling for troop reinforcements in Afghanistan. Commander-in-Chief Obama has been in conflict with Politician-in-Chief Obama. Commander-in-chief Obama knows we need more troops. Politician-in-chief Obama knows that MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, George Soros say no more troops. With almost three months of dithering, both Obamas have finally discovered an Afghanistan escape clause, but not for our troops, but for him.
The election was tainted. "Oh, yippee, the election was tainted!" What everyone knew all along is now official, Rahm Emanuel sent out the trial balloon over the weekend. It went something like: No more troops until Afghanistan has a legitimate government, we get this stuff behind us, whatever. Whoever is or is not the titular head of Afghanistan tomorrow, our 60,000 troops need 40,000 reinforcements now. Our troops are waiting, our allies are waiting. If Obama says, "No mas," will NATO say, "More troops"? But can you imagine any commander-in-chief in our history deciding not to press on until the postwar leader was chosen? Meanwhile, our troops are waiting and our commander-in-chief is voting "present." He's dithering. It might be good politics. It sure isn't good leadership. But then again, some of us know that.
Oh, and this from the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. "The United States cannot wait for problems surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government to be resolved before making a decision on troops, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said. Gates, speaking to reporters on board a plane traveling to Tokyo, described the situation in Afghanistan as an evolutionary process that would not improve dramatically overnight, regardless of what course is taken following the country's flawed August election." August election! We are using an August election and dithering over the outcome of that, here it is the middle of October. "'I see this as a process, not something that's going to happen all of the sudden,' Gates said." So you have... John Bolton has a great column today, I forget where. It's Real Clear Politics or somewhere. Obama's foreign policy is diplomacy. But Bolton points out that diplomacy is not a "policy." It's a technique; it's a tactic. We don't have a foreign policy. We do not have a foreign policy, except to the extent that it is defeat.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: President Obama this afternoon at the White House with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
OBAMA: I had the opportunity to speak with President Karzai this morning and I wanted to congratulate him on accepting the certification of the recent election. I also want to commend Senator John Kerry, who was in the region, traveling, and ended up working extensively with Ambassador Eikenberry and was extraordinarily constructive and very helpful, so --
RUSH: Jeez.
OBAMA: -- I think he deserves great congratulations, however this election turns out --
RUSH: What?
OBAMA: -- to ensure that we can move the Afghan -- that we can move Afghanistan towards peace and security and prosperity and that the will of the Afghan people is ultimately done.
RUSH: What the hell is he talking about? Why did he call Karzai and congratulate him on accepting the certification of the recent election and then go on to say however the election turns out we could all move -- (interruption) the certification for a runoff? Well, okay, so Hamid Karzai is going to stand for reelection again. And while all this dithering goes on, "Well, we can't send the troops in there, we can't ramp up the troop levels because we don't know who the new leader is going to be." John Kerry, the swift boat king in there, John Kerry happens to show up and settle this and do great work? I don't know where Hillary is. I don't care where Hillary is. I'm in such a foul mood today I couldn't care less where Hillary Clinton is. It doesn't bother me a whit. These people are sitting here systematically -- these incompetent boobs and these competent fascists are destroying the United States of America, and people on our side think every day is just the next news story. "Wow, this is a great news story, wow, they're going to get a lot of hits on this story. Oh, man, look, my website's going to go gangbusters, oh, wow, what a great news story."
Our country is being dismantled right before our very eyes. People on our side want to play like this is just politics as usual. Yeah, Democrats won the election, yeah, they had the right implement their policies. Have you looked at what the policies are? Have you looked at what the ultimate objective of the policies is? I don't see any opposition to this in the Republican Party. I look at this and I just feel powerless to stop any of this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Mark in Salt Lake City. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Am I the only one bothered by what's shaping up to be a betrayal of all these people in Pakistan and Afghanistan who sided with us and helped us to fight the Taliban when we asked them to? Is this how this administration is reaching out to the Muslim world by stabbing them in the back? Really have we no shame? I think that's probably why so many people in this part of the world don't like us. They can't trust us; they think we'll cut-and-run. That's probably one of the reasons the counterinsurgency worked in Iraq is because they started to figure out we were not going to cut-and-run. But I'm sure people in Pakistan and a lot of them in Afghanistan can say this coming.
RUSH: Obama -- look --
CALLER: They can see this coming and this whole thing is going to start looking bad when they start thinking we are going to cut-and-run and it's being telegraphed to them right now.
RUSH: Obama doesn't care. Obama doesn't care.
CALLER: It's just shameful in terms -- even more than with respect to just this administration, just as a nation how people look at us around the world and how we look at ourselves when we can't be trusted and we ask these people --
RUSH: No, no, no. (chuckles) You're looking at this the way we used to look at the world say ten, five, three years ago. You have to understand that we are led by a man who believes the world hates us, who believes the world has hated us since our founding. He believes Central America, Latin America, South American countries hate us; that European countries hate us; that the Muslims hate us -- and that they're all justified in hating us. He thinks by cut-and-running and pulling out we are showing the world we are no longer a threat and that we will be willing to admit our guilt for whatever he considers our transgressions of the past to be. Now, your point of view is America has always stood with those seeking their own freedom and liberty.
We have fought for them. We have stood up for them. We have stood by them. In the process, they have trusted that we would be there when the going got tough. Your point is one that's very valid, I mean, don't misunderstand, your point is very valid. The thing not being said here, if we cut-and-run out of Afghanistan, if we don't send the additional troops the commanders say we need, the locals, the natives in Pakistan that have been helping us are going to be the first to be slaughtered. And what I'm telling you is Obama doesn't care. This is a political event for him. He's gotta figure out in his mind how he can politically salvage health care in the midst of all this.
What can he do that will disappoint his fringe base the least, where Afghanistan is concerned. This is just a sideshow. It's a little distraction. Obama doesn't really think we're threatened by anything over there. He believes that the threat to the United States will be reduced if we just say, "Look, folks, you know, we're going home and we're going to mind our own business and we're sorry for having screwed you in the past. Now I'm going to see to it that we get screwed ourselves, and we're going to live like the rest of you do. You're going to love us again." That's the operating philosophy, foreign policy for Barack Obama right there. Your question was valid back when we had a president who believed in American exceptionalism.
CALLER: Well, it's a shame because even if the threat is not even on... Without regard to the threats, these are real people. These are real people in Pakistan. They're real people in Afghanistan. These are real human beings. If we're going to... You know, this just shows our true regard for them, or lack of regard for them, and our true contempt for them, actually, by just, you know, saying, "Well, never mind. Here, let the Taliban overrun you and cut off your heads."
RUSH: (sighs)
CALLER: And, you know, "We don't care. You're just... You're less than human. We don't care." That's essentially what we're telling the world and they know it. They're not stupid. They can see this. They know exactly how we feel about everybody else, and this is, I think, a lot of the problems we have in a lot of the world, many parts of the world, especially the Muslim world, and it's shameful. It's shameful. That's all I got to say, Rush, it's shameful.
RUSH: Well, in parts of the Muslim world. Remember, now, the militant Islamists, it's religious fanaticism, too. There are a lot of factors here. But your point is valid in that we have sought allies amongst people from all countries and populations. And once we bring 'em in to make 'em allies and we engage in activities to support the causes and their countries they believe and once we cut-and-run you're right, you know: We're finished. Nobody is going to join us ever again in such excursions.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The runoff election in Afghanistan is November the 7th. It will probably take several weeks to count the ballots in Afghanistan -- we're dealing with a Seventh Century country over there -- and then after that for Karzai to form a government. The point is all of this had give Obama time to have pushed through his health care reform which is scheduled to be before Thanksgiving. So it looks more and more like he's afraid-of-ticking off his lunatic base on the left, who he needs to push it through. Anyway, McChrystal first asked for troops when, the end of August if not sooner? And he's not going to get an answer on this until it's too late.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • AFP: Obama Not Yet Sure of Afghanistan Troop Decision Timing • AFP: Afghanistan to Hold Election Run-Off Nov 7 • Reuters: Obama Hearing Range of Views on Afghanistan |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Another tape has surfaced of another Obama official praising Mao Tse-tung. Let's first go back to June the 5th. We had this for you last Friday. This is Anita Dunn, White House communications director at a high school graduation at the Washington National Cathedral.
DUNN: The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other. In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse-tung said, "You fight your war and I'll fight mine," and think about that for a second.
RUSH: I've seen this clip aired on television, and I've seen the noted pundit class commenting on this, and they're saying, "Well, uh, umm, Anita Dunn, she is what she is, but certainly she's not endorsing the policies of Mao Tse-tung! I mean, he killed 30 million Chinese in his revolution, certainly... I mean we -- we -- Certainly she doesn't -- she doesn't mean it." Let me just put it to you this way. Can you think of any other administration in this country where a president or a communications specialist or anybody else would run around and start praising Mao Tse-tung as a role model, as a philosopher to follow? Can you think of any administration who would have previously cited Stalin or Lenin or Castro? This administration idolizes all these people! I'm not suggesting they're mass murderers. I'm saying they envy the total control, the tyrannical control that Mao Tse-tung had. "You fight your battles and I'll fight mine." We've got another one to add to the list now. This is the manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom. He was the car czar but he's moved over to manufacturing now. He called the free market "nonsense." This is February 2008 in New York City, the sixth annual Distressed Investing Forum, and he was special assistant on the president of the United Steelworkers Union at the time. He's now the White House manufacturing czar, Ron Bloom.
BLOOM: We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is large anted about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."
RUSH: Now, he's speaking as a union guy there but he's now the manufacturing czar at the White House. So you got two high-ranking White House officials citing their appreciation for and respect for the philosophies of Mao Tse-tung. It is happening! And I'll tell you what really amuses me at times is people, when they hear about this. "Does Obama know who these people are?" (snorts) Obama is Anita Dunn! Obama is Ron Bloom! Obama is Van Jones! Obama is Mark Lloyd! Obama is ACORN! You think these people just accidentally got chosen to serve in this administration. Obama is these people! He gets to go out there and portray himself as Mr. Perfect. He always smiles. He never ever does anything wrong. He never commits one faux pas. He never loses his cool. He never says radical things. He's the public face of centrism and moderation, and yet the people doing his dirty work are the same radicals that he is.
He is a radical. It's there for everyone to discover. Some people just don't want to believe it. So Anita Dunn, praising Mao Tse-tung, is telling us that since Obama now has the army in the cities, we should act like Mao to overtake them? Is that what she's saying? I mean, if we followed Mao, what would we be doing now, Ms. Dunn? If you believed in Mao Tse-tung, "You fight your war, I'll fight mine," okay. You guys have the cities, and you have the guns, so does the rest of what you believe in Mao Tse-tung now follow? You roll into these cities with the guns and you just finally take over? Why don't you just outlaw the Republican Party? Why not just rewrite the Constitution and require redistribution of wealth? Just shut down Fox News and talk radio. Just shut it down like Hugo Chavez is doing! Shut it down. You'd have a lot of people standing up and applauding for you. National Football League would be happy if you did it. Afghan elections, fraudulent? Does that mean that Carville took an ACORN representative with him over there in August to run that campaign?
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • Gateway Pundit: Good Grief? ANOTHER Mao-Praising Obama Czar Caught on Tape • Hot Air: Video: Fox-bashing WH Mouthpiece Names Chairman Mao as Her Favorite Philosopher |
WOHLSCHLEGEL: I'm with the US Chamber of Commerce. This is not an official US Chamber of Commerce event, so I don't know what pretenses you're here. I know some of you in the press world, but this is a fraudulent press activity and a stunt.
Unidentified Man: Who are you really, sir?
WOHLSCHLEGEL: So, if you have any questions, you're welcome to direct them to me at the US Chamber of Commerce. This guy does not represent the US Chamber of Commerce.
Unidentified Reporter: Can we finish?
WOHLSCHLEGEL: No. This is not an official Chamber of Commerce -- this is not --
Unidentified Reporter: I'm on a deadline.
WOHLSCHLEGEL: Yeah. Got it. So they're misrepresenting the US Chamber of Commerce.
SEMBRA: Sir, if you want to have a --
WOHLSCHLEGEL: If anyone has any questions, you want to talk to the real Chamber of Commerce, they can direct -- direct your questions to me.
RUSH: Can I translate this for you here? There's a fake press conference from somebody claiming to be from the US Chamber of Commerce and they're not. The real Chamber of Commerce communications director shows up and says, "This guy is not who he is, he doesn't represent the Chamber, I do." The reporter says, "Shut up, we got a deadline, I need to finish asking this guy questions." Unidentified reporters wanted to continue talking to the hoaxer. Unidentified reporters wanted proof from the Chamber of Commerce guy that he was the real Chamber of Commerce guy. This is amazing. They're in the middle of being hoaxed and they want to continue to fall for the hoax because the hoaxer is telling them what they want to hear. The hoaxer is saying, "I'm from the Chamber and we have turned around, we're going to support cap and trade." That's what the media wanted to hear in the press conference. The real Chamber of Commerce guy, "This is a fraud, this guy is not speaking for the Chamber of Commerce. If you want to know anything about it, talk to me." "Well, wait a minute, shut up, I'm on a deadline here, I want to finish my questions to the guy."
Once again words escape me. Words escape me. I know this is funny, and I know it's hilarious, but it has horrible portends. In just a matter of a week we have seen mainstream media accept total lies, total fabricated quotes made up about me. Now we see mainstream media preferring to talk to a hoax leader of the Chamber of Commerce, a hoaxer, rather than talk to the real communications director of the Chamber of Commerce. And this is in the midst of Len Downie saying, "Oh, we're in trouble here in the news business," and the New York Times laying off a hundred more people in the newsroom -- that's 200 people, by the way, in the last year -- "oh, we're in big trouble here in the news business, we need to go nonprofit, we can't earn a profit." I wonder why the hell that might be, Mr. Downie. It's because your business is now populated with a bunch of idiot boob fools. Oh smokes, folks, it's just mind-blowing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Doug in Tucson, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Rush, it's an absolute honor.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: You betcha. Hey, this whole bit about the news and why the news is losing money these days? It's not news; it's propaganda. Outright government propaganda and people just simply aren't going to pay for the lies, misrepresentation, and fraud. The whole thing --
RUSH: Let me ask you a question, then. Let's use the New York Times as an example. The New York Times has eight million people, about 7.9 million of them liberal. How in the world can the New York Times' journalism be disappointing the liberal Mecca of this country? I'm not... It's just a think piece. I just want your thoughts on this. I can understand where you live in Tucson you're going to have a much greater cross section of conservatives and liberals and so if the conservatives get fed up with the liberalism of the Tucson papers, bam! You're going to and so are a lot of other people. But I don't know that people are not buying the New York Times because it's an liberal enough or because it's too liberal or because it's not anti-conservative enough. I don't know. You tell me.
CALLER: I'll tell you easily. It's a matter of slant. Slant is a way and perspective of seeing things, and it is a matter of them being able to listen to the propaganda they want to hear.
RUSH: Have you ever read the letters...?
CALLER: (unintelligible)
RUSH: Have you ever...?
CALLER: (unintelligible)
RUSH: Wait a minute. Have you ever read letters to the editor of the New York Times?
CALLER: Oh, yes, definitely.
RUSH: Well, every damn one of them is far more radical, wacko, and leftist than the people who work there!
CALLER: Heh, heh. Absolutely.
RUSH: They love the slant of the New York Times, whatever it is -- editorial page front page, no difference any more -- and yet the New York Times is losing circulation. And the New York Times is losing advertising revenue. Now, also this Little Pinch went out and spent a lot of New York Times money building a monument to himself, the new Times building. They've got some debt problems there and they invested in the Boston Red Sox a little bit and they bottom the Boston Globe. But I don't know that the Times is in trouble because of its content because 99% of its market loves its content. So there's gotta be something else going on with the Times: Bad business decisions, operating decisions and so forth.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: From TIME Magazine: "The White House Readies a Stealth Stimulus -- White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was adamant on Sunday, when asked if President Obama was considering a so-called second stimulus to deal with the rising unemployment rate. 'I think it's too soon. It's premature to say, "Is a second stimulus needed?"' she told David Gregory, the host of NBC's Meet the Press. But a moment later she said the White House was already looking at tax credits and other measures to further stimulate the economy. 'There are a range of suggestions that are being considered right now by his economic team, and we'll see what we come forward with,' she added. On its face, the two comments sounded like a contradiction. But at the White House, there is no confusion. More stimulus is coming, but it just won't be called stimulus.
Economic advisers, in concert with senior Democrats in the House and Senate, are planning additional piecemeal benefit extensions, tax breaks and other spending that could eventually add up to as much as $100 billion... 'The fact is that this is a word game. It isn't a discussion of the "second stimulus,"' says Jennifer Psaki, a White House spokeswoman. 'This needs to be an ongoing discussion between the President and his economic team about new ideas and ways to get people back to work.'" Now, I've read this whole TIME Magazine story. They're saying thinks, like, "Well, the White House has so far declined to spell out its wishes." You go through this whole story in TIME Magazine, and you will not read that the first stimulus didn't work. You will not read that the first stimulus is a bomb! You will not read that the first stimulus is an abject failure. But get this. Last night on Charlie Rose, he interviewed the New York Times chief mergers and acquisitions reporter, Andrew Ross Sorkin. Charlie Rose said, "How do they measure the stimulus's effectiveness, both the administration and the people who know about the application of this money?"
SORKIN: I talked to a CEO last week who said, when you look at... To the extent the economy has recovered, you can't ascribe any of it for the stimulus program. You really have you had ascribe it to inventories which are low which people now have to replenish; you know, the economy coming back just on its own.
ROSE: The stimulus program has not been a genius creation to create jobs for the American people?
SORKIN: Not at the moment.
RUSH: Well, this is... I'm sitting here watching two eggheads think that they're the smartest guy in the room. I remember Charlie Rose talking to Brokaw, "We don't really know who Obama is. I don't know who he admires, Charlie. I don't know who he's read, Tom. We don't know really what he believes over there." This is like a week before the election! And now these two dunces are up there, "Well, the stimulus... ACEO told me the stimulus hasn't had any major effect on anything," and Charlie Rose pipes in, "The stimulus program has not been a genius creation, to create jobs for the American people." "Not at the moment." Yet there's a second one on the way, folks. This ain't by accident.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Juan in Huntsville, Alabama. Hi, Juan, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks for taking my call, Rush. I just want to know how many more mistakes is this government going to keep on continuing to make before they realize that the stimulus package is not working? 'Cause, you know, correct me if I'm wrong but is this not the third stimulus package?
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: The first one under Bush --
RUSH: Well there's been many more than that. A year ago Bush and Pelosi got together with a stimulus, sent everybody a check except people like you and me one.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: And then we had the TARP bailout. And then we had more bank bailouts and we had stimulus, the Porkulus bill. What are we up to, four? Oh, yeah, cash for clunkers, that didn't work. So the point is that we've tried the governmental side of this, the public side, we know it doesn't work, it's time to go to the private sector. Therefore, Juan, your question, when are they going to realize that it's not working -- it is working, as far as Obama wants it to work. This is exactly what he intended all along. Never said so, but this is exactly what he intended. Juan, you're a smart guy. You're a smart guy. Your question is, at what point are they going to wake up and realize it ain't working?
CALLER: Correct.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: That's basically it. I mean I don't know, maybe I'm on the wrong planet, but it just seems to me that it's not working, why continue to go down that road. I mean there's only so much money --
RUSH: I'll tell you, Juan, we're not on the wrong planet. I feel like I've been sent up to the Hale-Bopp comet. I actually don't think I'm on earth anymore. This is not the earth I knew, much less the country I knew. You're asking the great question, when are these people gonna realize? You gotta conclude, Juan, they're smarter than you are, they went to Harvard and Yale, they got Ph.D.s and all this worthless stuff and yet they keep throwing good money after bad. You gotta consider at some point, my man, that it's on purpose.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • TIME: The White House Readies a Stealth Stimulus • CNNMoney: Yet Another Housing Bailout On the Way |
REID: Republicans will do everything in their power to stop reform this time because for many on the other side there will never be a good time to reform health insurance. As former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said a few days ago, and I quote, "Sometimes people fight you just to fight you," end quote. That might be true but it won't be tolerated. Congress will not be sidetracked by those who devise strategies only to trip up progress rather than contribute in good faith. This country has no place for those who hope for failure.
RUSH: I think he's threatening me, again. Well, Dingy Harry, I think you better move, because the last time I looked at it you wanted us to fail in Iraq and you had proclaimed it a failure. You wanted George W. Bush to fail all over the place, Pelosi did, too. The last I looked you people ought not be living here, if the country has no place for people who hope for failure, you are a walking personification of it. And they've got their fist clenched out there, folks. They come after me either by name or not by name.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • Heritage Foundation: Taxing the Sick to Subsidize the Healthy • Wall Street Journal: Health Costs and History |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "An environmental writer mainstreams an idea floating around the green fringe -- save the earth by population control and give carbon credits to one-child families. Are we threatened by the patter of little carbon footprints? It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing -- carbon dioxide -- has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant. Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.
"Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it. New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled 'Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?' People who need people they are not. Participating via Web cam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, 'if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?' He went on to say that 'probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children.'
"'More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,' [the New York Times environmental writer] blogged, wondering 'whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.'" There is a country that has such a policy, the one child policy and vigorously endorses it. That's the ChiComs. And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Tse-tung her favorite philosopher? "This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource," on the planet, "as we do," the rest of us do.
This is an editorial here from the Investor's Business Daily: "Cap-and-Trade for Babies." It's coming, folks. They're going to offer young couples carbon credits for only having one child. The theory is that human beings are polluting and destroying the planet. Now, Paul Ehrlich wrote about this back in the seventies in The Population Bomb. It's been totally disapproved, discredited. This has been part of the militant environmental extreme for years, and here now the people who can make it a reality are running the country. They are in the White House. They want a one-child-per-family policy. Now, this is still a fringe movement. But so at one time was the movement to get rid of SUVs.
But like everything else in the militant environmentalist wacko community, I believe this is going to happen someday. Once they get these ideas, they don't give them up. They've been working on this since 1976, and now we got Anita Dunn, who sings the praises of the great "philosopher" Mao Tse-tung in the White House. Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it, but I didn't think the government would tell me what kind of food I could and couldn't eat or what kind of car I could drive, either. Nor did I believe that we would ever someday have a "pay czar" taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of. But all these things have happen. So now they're floating the idea, " Cap-and-Trade for Babies," a New York Times environmental writer in a panel constitution about this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to go back to this editorial in the Investors Business Daily in which the New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in a panel six days ago, panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits, and it was called "Covering Climate: What's Population Got to Do With It?" The lefties have been positing the notion -- I first heard it in the seventies when Paul Ehrlich came out with The Population Bomb that too many people, not enough resources, not enough food, we're all going to die, we gotta limit population. It's now gotten to the point that what we exhale, carbon dioxide, is the biggest pollutant on the planet and is destroying the planet and we're going to be in trouble, and they believe that humanity is the greatest scourge on the earth anyway, it's destroying other species, it's destroying resources, and now it's destroying the planet.
So the purpose of this panel discussion was to eventually come up with a plan to limit the number of children American couples can have by offering them carbon credits for children not had. Revkin said, in allocating carbon credits for not having kids as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, he said, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?" He went on to say that "probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children." More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions. Now, I've been thinking about this during the commercial break because I take these people seriously. They are lunatics but they are dangerous. I take these people seriously.
If we're going to do this, and this is going to happen, just like you thought I was off my rocker back in 1997 when I told you they were going to come after your SUV, I've warned you every aspect of this leftist agenda is coming. "Rush, that will never happen." I never thought there would be a pay czar, but it's happened. I never thought that we'd have governments telling us what we can and can't eat. I never thought any of this stuff would happen, but it's happening. This is going to happen. It's still a fringe movement, but it's going to happen. But two things about this: What defines a couple? Is it marriage? I mean a lot of people have kids today that are not married. Do you realize the scheme that is waiting here? Do you realize all women, regardless of age from about 13 on could argue that they should be paid every nine months for not having a baby because they're saving the planet. Well, whatever puberty is, 13 on, once puberty hits and you can have a baby every nine months, and you don't do it, can you get a carbon credit, can you get an allowance, can you get whatever they're going to pay you for not doing this?
We don't even have to talk about getting married. We don't even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean. So would a man have any way of benefiting from the carbon credit? A man cannot give birth, women can give birth without a man around, many of them prefer to do so, they work in the Obama administration, too, but that's another thing. The second aspect -- seriously, you gotta think this way because this is where these people are coming from. And as I said, what about homosexuals? They never have babies. No wonder the New York Times is all for this. Think of the financial windfall the homosexuals, who never have babies, they can say we are single-handedly doing more than anybody to save the planet. We should be paid whatever mass sum. The militant gay community, "Tax the breeders. We are saving the planet." Where does this stop?
But here's another observation. I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab their three-year-old, grab your four-year-old, grab your six-year-old, and we're going to strap explosives on, and then we're going to send you on a bus or we're going to send you into a shopping center and we're going to tell you when to pull the trigger and you're going to blow up and you're going to blow up everybody around you and you're going to head up to wherever you're going, the 73 virgins are going to be there, the little three or four-year-old doesn't have the presence of mind to say, "Well what about you? If it's so great up there why don't you go? Why don't you strap explosives on?" And their parents don't have the guts to tell the jihad guys, "You do it. Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?" The jihad guys will just shoot 'em because the jihad guys have to maintain control.
The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying? Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left? See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they're always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I'm going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I'm going to bring in Earth, Wind and Fire, I'm going to bring in Charlie Pride. This is happening. They're having gigs at the White House. Drudge has a story, Earth, Wind and Fire, a bunch of people coming in they're having big parties, Obama's playing basketball. I saw a picture today Obama's basketballs are logoed with his logo on them. I kid you not. Yes, they are. Yes, they are. I got a picture of that circle with the three red lines, the rip-off of the Pepsi logo, his basketballs are logoed.
Somebody who's made basketballs has made up a bunch with Obama's logo on them. It's no big deal. I have the EIB logo on my golf balls. No big deal, but anyway, he's out there playing basketball while everything is going to hell in a handbasket because of his policies and he's still living high on the hog with $100 a pound Kobe beef, throwing all these parties, flying off to Paris, New York, London, for dates with Michelle (My Belle) and, meanwhile, you can't find a job and you're told your unemployment is now going to be normal, this level of unemployment is now normal, AP put the news out today. So they come up with all these policies but they're for everybody else but them. Same as the jihad guys, the jihad guys never strap explosives on themselves, the jihad leaders never get on a bus, blow themselves up along with everybody else on it and then seek the 73 virgins or whatever the come-on is. But they have three and four, five, six-year-olds do it.
It's not just the environmentalists that have a lot in common with the jihad guys. And just as the families in these Palestinian and Hezbollah carps and so forth never say to the jihad guys, "Why don't you do it? If it's so damn good, if this is how we advance our movement, if this is how we get rid of the Jews, if this is how we get freedom, if this is how we get our state, why don't you blow yourself up?" By the same token, nobody in this country says, "Obama, why don't you park Air Force One and drive where you're going? Why don't you start serving ground chuck instead of serving Kobe beef at your parties? Why don't you hire a karaoke machine instead of Earth, Wind and Fire?" Nobody ever says that. Nobody says to any of these liberals conjuring up all these policies, "Show us leadership, you do it first. You put some thermostat in your house where the power company gets to control it, you do it." Just like the jihad guys. Because what do they have in common? They're all tyrannical, power hungry mobsters in one way or another.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: If I may get serious with you for a moment. The left, if you believe them, believes that there's one species on the planet destroying it. Now, all mammals exhale carbon dioxide. But somehow only man, only human beings' carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. It's only man in all of his endeavors, particularly Capitalist Man, Western Culture man. Those are the culprits! We are the real culprits. We are destroying the planet. We are the one species on the planet that's destroying it. Why does the left think this? I'll tell you what I think. We, human beings, are the only species who have the capacity to know and understand the concept of God. No other species has the slightest clue. A fish doesn't even know it's in water. A dog doesn't know it's a dog.
And who the hell knows what cockroaches think. I don't even want to contemplate it. To know God is something unique for all species on the planet. It's us. We're the only ones who know God, who can conceive God and all that that means. Therefore, to the left, to know God is the single most destructive part of the human mind. That's what has to be destroyed. Faith in God, belief in God, that's the real enemy -- and there are many enemies of the left, but that's the first. You go to any communist country and the first thing they do is wipe God and religion out of everybody's mind. The State becomes God and whoever is running it at the time becomes The Messiah. There is no God other than The State. See, God put us here to procreate, to experience his gifts. The left, in order to ultimately succeed, has to end our understanding of God's existence and purpose.
Therefore, we're not going to fix this economic mess until we fix or moral mess. Our country is in a moral shambles, and until we fix the moral destruction that has crept over our culture we're not going to be able to really fix anything else -- and when you start talking about fixing the moral mess, then you really cause the left to rise up and come after you. So the strip all this stuff away and what's at the root of it is: A belief in too many people in something other than The State, something other than the government. If you strip away God... 'Cause a human being has to believe in something, a higher power. Even atheists, they've got something that has a higher power. It's a tree or whatever. It could be another human being. It could be institution that human beings put together but there's gotta be something. If you strip God out it has to be The State. So that's what's happening. That's really at the root of this.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Neil, Charlotte, North Carolina. Welcome, sir. Glad you waited. You're on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, I heard you talking a while ago about never hearing about a pay czar, and I hadn't either until I was talking to my father-in-law, and he told me about a man named Leon Henderson back in FDR's time. An executive order by FDR created what was called the Office of Price Administration. Leon Henderson, my father-in-law's friend, became the head of that division of the OPA and he was dubbed the price czar by the media. And the interesting thing was the OPA was actually used to help control and regulate resources during wartime trying to stave off inflation, but it actually morphed into what government normally does, an overreaching arm. And in 1942, October 2nd, the Office of Economic Stabilization was responsible for, get this, controlling wage levels and regulating food prices and basically generally stabilizing the cost of living. But the problem that stemmed from that was the government outreach, talk about Big Brother, in 1943 alone, 650,000 investigations into private citizens for noncompliance and 618,000 violations in 1943 and '44. So the government chased these people down.
RUSH: You know, I didn't know all of that. I'm not surprised, 'cause it didn't work. And we came out of it, and a lot of those policies were repudiated. And it's true that we've had wage and price controls tried a couple of times. I remember Nixon did it. Nixon did it when inflation was 3%, wage and price controls. And they never work. They never work. Look, this guy does fashion himself as a modern-day FDR, there's no question about that, and those are interesting facts that you cited. But I'll tell you something. What Obama is doing with all of these czars, particularly the pay czar, is a little different than wage and price controls. Wage and price controls are slapped all over the country, and they are by definition temporary. They are to control an emergency at the moment, ostensibly. What Obama is doing is buying companies. Obama is nationalizing companies and then telling people in those companies what they can and can't earn, it's a pure definition of fascism.
But I agree with you, there are a lot of similarities, which, by the way, offers a lot of reasons for hope because we came out of that, and of course it took a world war to get us out of that kind of stuff, but the country did not fall into dictatorship. The country did not fall into tyrannical control. FDR tried, but it didn't fall to that. I know we're still living with it but we haven't succumbed to it is the point, and we're not going to succumb to this. I've gotten some e-mails, "Rush, you're really depressing me today. I feel like just checking out." Let me tell you something, folks. I happen to be depressed. I happen to be in a foul mood today, and I'm not one of these people that come in here and go, "Hey, hey, everything's wonderful, ah, great." Normally I'm up and ebullient, but today I'm just in a foul mood. All this stuff is getting to me, but I don't think they're going to win. My frustration centers around the lack of organized opposition to it and that's going to have to happen at some point in time. The future of this country will be determined in November of 2010 and we've already learned today, given what they've done to Kinston, North Carolina, they are counting on election fraud big time.
They know at the White House that they are in big trouble. They can read the poll numbers. They know what the mood of this country is. That's why there is a sprint to get all of this stuff done before 2010 but it won't be enacted until after 2010 and some of it not until after 2012, after Obama runs for reelection. That's why 2010 is a crucially important time. That's where ultimately this is going to be stopped. But, no, the tea parties weren't for naught. The town hall meetings, they were not for naught, they weren't worthless. Let's play this sound bite number nine. This is Eric Massa. He's on a liberal talk show. And, let's see, there's a fill-in host, I never heard of the fill-in host, so I'm not going to mention the name. "Senator Kent Conrad is still pushing the idea of co-ops. Is that dead in the water? What's the point of talking about it?"
MASSA: The Senate bill and the House bill are on different planets. And they're on different planets because as much as I want this administration to succeed they did not present a piece of legislation to the United States Congress. We still don't have a piece of paper that says what his plan is. We're kind of like pilots flying blind.
RUSH: Now, this is again Eric Massa who's a Democrat from New York, a member of the House of Representatives. So it indicates there's some frustration out there and I'll tell you what the frustration is. These guys are going to go stand for reelection next November, a year from now, and they're the ones having to put their names and their reputations on these myriad plans. Meanwhile, the great emancipator -- sorry -- The Messiah, Barack Obama, sits up there and gets to play Mr. Perfect all day long and bring in Earth, Wind and Fire, grab Air Force One and take the family up for dinner and for dates and so forth, and be treated like there's never been a human being like him and he gets to escape all the heat for it. So there's no question some Democrats are a little, "Eh, where's his plan? We got five plans, these two plans are on different planets."
Meanwhile, we're all on the Hale-Bopp comet while the health care plans are on two different planets and he's saying, "I don't know where we're going to come to any agreement here and we're not going to come to an agreement on these two different plans unless Obama tells us what he wants." And he's not going to do that. Not now with his poll numbers shrinking, it's just not going to happen. So these guys are starting to say, wait a minute, we don't want to sink or swim on this when he's going to get the credit for it and we're going to get the blame? So, look, these guys are playing defense, they're playing defense. None of this was supposed to happen. Obama was supposed to get health care in August, before August. There was supposed to be universal acclamation, "Whatever you want, Barack, it's yours," from everybody in the country. There was not supposed to be this opposition. And now look what they're doing, going after me, going after Fox News, talk radio. Their colors are showing and they are not pretty.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, here's installment two of the CNN stalker, Carol Costello. She's the beat reporter assigned to me. A portion of her report on "anger on the air."
STALKER: President Obama said this back in January: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." He was talking as if talk radio wields power over politician. Well, does any talk show host have that kind of power? No one wields that political club more effectively than Rush Limbaugh. Influential, sure. But powerful? Some say even with Limbaugh's vast audience...no! According to Talkers magazine, 56% of those who listen to talk radio identify themselves as "independent."
GERGEN: Limbaugh endorsing a candidate for president is not sufficient to get that person nominated by the Republican Party.
STALKER: Case in point?
RUSH ARCHIVE: If Huckabee and McCain get the nomination, there's a good chance this party is finished.
STALKER: But McCain did win the GOP nomination in 2008, and despite Limbaugh's anti-Obama talk, Barack Obama became president.
RUSH: All right. So I'm not influential, I have no real power, I didn't like McCain or Obama and they both won. So why has CNN assigned Carol Costello it stalk me? What are they so afraid of? And, you know, Carol, if you'd have watched the Today show interview last Monday and Tuesday you would have seen me talk about this whole concept of "power" that you have assigned to me. As I listen to this, I said, "If Huckabee and McCain get the nomination, a good chance the party is finished." It is finished! The party's in deep trouble. Obama became president. Yeah, but there was nobody to vote for. Anyway, that's the latest in their installment of "anger on the air" with their stalker reporter Carol Costello.
RUSH: El Cajon, California, John you are on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey first-time caller, Rush. Hey, if you went away they'd be out of work, all these news organizations that have people going after you.
RUSH: It would be their worst nightmare.
CALLER: Yeah, I had a quick comment on --
RUSH: They'd lose. They'd lose half their own audiences talking about it. If I didn't exist, they'd have to invent me.
CALLER: (laughing) Yeah, I was going to say as far as the stimulus goes I think it's doing great because yesterday the White House says they created or "saved" thousands of teaching jobs in our colleges and schools and I'm just wondering if Jennings was in charge of the hiring or how that all went about. They couldn't say what kind of new jobs were creates or anything. It was just, you know, a dog-and-pony show.
RUSH: Look, the bottom line is that 30,000 jobs were "saved" and we've lost seven million. Big whoop! By the way, CNN I want you to hear this. Charles Krauthammer. I want to thank Charles Krauthammer. This on Fox News last night he's talking about CNN.
KRAUTHAMMER: CNN is an organization that a few weeks ago had a fact-checking on a Saturday Night Live skit that was mildly critical of Obama; but did no fact checking on wildly, grotesquely, libelous racist statements allegedly made by Rush Limbaugh which were not made by Rush Limbaugh. It gives you an idea of the difference in how they treat things, and that's not a matter of sloppiness. That's a matter of ideology.
RUSH: Thank you, Charles, very much. That's twice he's commented on this. Last Friday night (I didn't know this until recently) he said the NFL owes me an apology which I think they do, but it's a pipe dream. Carol Costello, you need to fact check your own reports and you need to investigate your own network. I mean, you have a sewer there, and until you guys investigate yourselves, nothing is going to change.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
|
| • National Review: Krauthammer's Take |
Why doesn’t Rush run for president? He’s the only one that can save us now.
We kind of agree with Mao that political “power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
Thank you, Mr. Bloom, for making the position of the Obama Administration clearly beyond any doubt.
Bump to catch up with you & Rush later in the week. This week is crazy-busy! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
