All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
August 27, 2010, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is I, a paying member of Rush 24-7, filling in for Rush.
It's open line Friday, and the phone number, as you know, is 1-800-282-2882.
I've mentioned this once before, that when I fill in on this show, I keep on the broadcast table in front of me a copy of Saul Olinski's Rules for Radicals.
And I do that deliberately.
I think it's a brilliant book, by the way, a demented book, but a brilliant book.
One day we'll talk more about it.
But I keep that book around deliberately, hoping that it will just make Saul Olinski roll over in his grave that it's here on America's number one conservative, America's number one, the world's number one show.
What are we talking about here?
In a moment, we're going to have David Limbaugh is going to join us, the brother of Rush.
As you know, he's an accomplished writer in his own right.
He's a lawyer, and he's written a very, very important book.
Now, I debate with liberals a lot in my real life.
In my real life profession, I'm in Hollywood, as you know.
So I have no choice.
I have to encounter them.
I can't avoid them.
And one of the topics, I'll give you an example that often will come up, is global warming, climate change, whatever they're calling it this month.
Every time I get into a debate with someone or a conversation, I make a very simple offer.
If you are so entrenched in your view, even though you've read nothing about it, you've only heard what Al Gore has to say, you've only heard what a few have to say, I make the offer.
I say, why don't you join me?
And together, we will follow the trail of information and research to exactly where it leads.
And let us not have a preconceived idea.
Let's just follow the research together and learn the truth of the issue.
And it's not surprising for you to learn that to date, no liberal has ever taken me up on the challenge.
And you can do this little conversation with them about almost any topic where liberalism versus conservatism.
They will not take you up on the challenge of where the facts lead.
They don't want to know the facts.
And if you end up in a factual conversation with them, what you need is David Limbaugh's book.
David Limbaugh's book reads, first off, it's a very, very, very well-researched book.
There's almost 100 pages of indexed notes that cite all of the facts referred to.
Now, just because it's a well-researched and very full of information, scholarly book does not mean that it reads like a dense book that you should avoid.
Hardly.
It's a page turner.
And you need to be armed with it.
You need to be armed with it going into this midterm election cycle.
And you need to be armed with it henceforth forward from here.
David Limbaugh tells it like it is.
It is a must-reading for anyone if you want to have a real conversation that is full of hard, cold evidence of Obama's dangerous agenda for America.
That's what the book is.
The name of it is Crimes Against Liberty.
And these enemies will be enemies of freedom at every single turn.
David Limbaugh tells it like it is.
He talks about President Obama and how he tramples the Constitution, how he mocks its founders.
He talks about him being a bully.
He talks about this president doing everything he can do to turn this once great nation into a shell of its former self.
It's a great read.
Page turner, as I've said.
If you've had enough of this destructive narcissism and you're sick to death of hearing it and watching it and living through it day by day, get this book.
It's well researched.
It's footnoted, documented.
Tell your friends that don't buy just one copy.
Get three copies.
You will need them.
And make the challenge to your liberal friends with whom you will be getting into conversations and debates.
Say, let us follow the truth where it leads and go there together.
Robert Reagan used to say that facts are stubborn things.
So, the challenge is for anyone who reads this book and evaluates this book to examine the meticulous way, the comprehensive way that David Limbaugh documents his case.
Crimes Against Liberty.
Now, it's one thing to make the charge if you don't have facts to back them up.
But this book, the facts that Mr. Limbaugh presents, they're pretty undeniable.
Pretty undeniable.
Anyway, I'm drinking in this book and enjoying it, as is my wife.
And we had to go through hoops to get a copy out here.
David Limbaugh joins us on his brother's show with a mere guest host.
Welcome, David Limbaugh, the Russell Limbaugh Show.
Thank you so much for that incredible introduction.
I'm indebted.
I do have to pay you, and we'll just have to figure out an amount.
Not true, sir.
You have paid by writing the book.
I'm going to ask some basic questions.
I have a lot of questions for you, David, if you don't mind.
Yes, sir.
What was the first motivating factor in writing this book?
My motivation was that I have five young kids, and my parents' grandparents, your parents' grandparents, bequeathed to us a nation that was robust in liberty, proud, strongest nation in the history of the world, most prosperous, freest.
And we have been creeping towards socialism, but now we're in hyperspeed.
And Obama is driving us over a financial cliff into bankruptcy inside of 10, 12 years.
If we keep going at the rate we're going, our national debt, our deficit, I mean, our national debt is going to be 104% possibly of the GDP.
It's unsustainable.
And while I won't say it's irreversible because I'm an eternal optimist, we will be saddled with this and a second-tier nation for a generation if we continue.
No country can continue at this reckless pace, not to mention the fact that he has imposed socialized medicine.
Now, he'll deny that, and he'll infuse it with euphemisms and say that he's not about a single-payer plan, even though he's on record as saying he advocates it.
He might have to transition it in 15 to 20 years.
He says the public option is not a Trojan horse for a single-payer plan.
It is.
But the point is, he's crowding out private insurance companies.
The studies that have occurred since he lied, cheated, and stealed to impose, to cram Obamacare down our throats and then bragged that he was acting on behalf of the people in doing it have revealed all kinds of cost underestimates, underestimations, manipulations of the CBO, garbage in, garbage out.
They reported that it actually scored neutral, deficit neutral.
Actually, they said it was a positive, and it's been an outrageous underestimation, and it was actually crooked in the way it's done.
So we've got a systemic problem with Obamacare because even if we reverse this debt and we don't repeal Obamacare, that alone will be a metastatic cancer on our system.
I know people might think I'm engaging in hyperbole.
I don't think I am because it will affect, as Russia said so many times, all aspects of our lives.
It will allow the government to reach into all aspects of our life, not to mention that it will radically decrease the quality of our health care as it has in every other nation that has tried it.
And it will also, notwithstanding what the Libs say, will lead to rationing, and it will lead to decisions, end-of-life decisions, being made by government.
It's inevitable.
It happens because it has to happen.
Oh, no, the use of the phrase death panels ends up being quite accurate.
And there's story after story already coming out about this with the breast cancer drugs and all the rest of it.
David, a lot of us knew about Barack Obama, and certainly your brother talked about him in the weeks and months, in fact, the year leading up to the election.
And a lot of us are not surprised.
I remember election night very clearly when Barack Obama accepted his calling, and he said he wanted to fulfill the American dream for all Americans.
And I said to my wife, I'd like to know what the heck this guy's idea of the American dream is, because I have a hunch it's different from mine.
Why have the media, and in large part, why were the public fooled along on this whole story?
Well, he had this, the media was portraying him as a messianic figure.
Obama was portraying himself as a messianic figure.
He presented himself as a uniter, post-partisan, post-racial, post-grievance, conciliator, and a guy who would usher in a new kind of politics.
I mean, all those statements are almost attributable to him directly.
And he was anything but.
He has become the most divisive president in history.
He polarizes so much.
He's not bipartisan.
In fact, he's hyper-partisan.
Peter Beinert said that for a while, he's a liberal writer, an intellectually honest liberal writer.
Excuse the oxymoron, but it's true.
He's an intellectually honest liberal writer.
And he said for a while there was some ambiguity between whether Obama would be a Howard Dean or a Joe Lieberman.
Would he be a moderate or a radical extremist?
But after he slammed health care through against the will of the people, henceforth he would be known as a super jumbo Democrat.
You know, David, I never refer to it as healthcare.
I'm going to keep referring to it as Obamacare.
Me too, usually.
Yeah, I've made the dedication to continually refer to him as the unpopular and controversial Barack Obama.
And I'm going to keep putting all the words that they love to do when it's our side.
We're going to put them all quite accurately with him.
Does it not make you long for the good old days of triangulation?
Well, yeah, and I've mentioned this.
You know, Clinton was a narcissist, to be sure, in the sense that he wanted to be adored and loved by the people.
But he mainly would subordinate his ideology as strongly as he believed in it.
He would subordinate his ideology.
Because he liked being popular, don't you?
He liked being popular and he wanted to be re-elected.
Barack Obama has grandiose visions.
You know, a true narcissist has visions of grandeur.
Obama thinks he can subside, cause the seas to subside.
He's the one we've been waiting for.
He can bring fundamental change to America, and that means radical change from a capitalist system to a status socialist.
And I actually think the guy's a Marxist because we're talking radical redistribution.
Well, you know, I was warned, don't, you know, over the past several years, don't use the word Marxist.
Don't use the word.
My goodness, the words apply, don't they?
Well, they completely apply.
He has this dogged, blind faith in Keynesian redistributionist economic theory.
He thinks he can continue to prime the pump with borrowed money and cause there to be a multiple.
Well, he talks about economic justice.
I'm waiting for an example of exactly what economic injustice is.
I have not yet seen that.
Well, economic justice is a euphemism for judicially active courts to redistribute wealth.
David, you know, I have to mind the shop here for a few moments.
Do you know that?
Do you mind staying with us?
I'd love to keep you as long as possible because the aim here is to have as many people have as many books that they can give as gifts as possible.
So it's Dugabanski filling in for Rush.
We'll be right back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Rush Limbaugh is not here, but we do have David Limbaugh with us.
And I'm going to try and persuade David to stay with us after the break at the bottom of the hour and maybe take some calls from you.
The phone number is 1-800-282-2882.
If you want to get in line, top experts are waiting to field your calls for David.
David, if we do manage to convince you to stay.
Your chapters in this book are laid out in the most dramatic and simple to follow and very inflammatory way even.
You have a chapter here called The Liar.
Crimes Against Good Government, Governance.
You have a chapter here called The Dictator, The Bully.
What was in your mind when you wrote these chapters?
I think the words are accurately used, but I'd like to know what was in your mind.
In my mind is that we've been candy coating his character and his nature throughout the last 19 months.
At least the mainstream media has.
Rush hasn't.
Hannity and Levin haven't.
But I mean, this guy is not what he held himself out to be.
It's important to understand how dishonest he was.
I mean, I could go through the litany.
Just real quickly, he lied about his transparency, lobbyists, earmarks, the $250,000 tax increase.
He wouldn't increase taxes on families of four making $250,000 or less.
On down the line, he's lied on essential issues.
He's been a bully.
Now, let me tell you on this bully thing.
Can you imagine how unpresidential it is?
And he does this every time he's got a big ticket agenda item.
He calls bankers fat cat bankers.
That is so pedestrian, juvenile, street thuggish.
It's unbecoming of a president.
He says insurance companies are making obscene profits when they are making mainstream profits.
If you look at the evidence, they're not even in the top 10.
They're not in the top 20 of profits at the time he said it.
And when I say dictator, I mean he acts outside the rule of law, outside the Constitution.
Let me just give you a few quick examples that are so outrageous that will make your blood boil.
He pledged $140 billion to the International Monetary Fund for redistribution to third world countries.
We're talking about Glorify Dave.
It's bad enough that he radically redistributes wealth in the United States, but to give it to third world countries with no constitutional authority as chief executive to do it.
And on top of that, the Congress has expressly prohibited him from doing it without their authority.
He snubbed his nose at him, did it anyway.
When he was challenged on it, he says, I have nearly plenary authority over foreign policy matters, which is completely Orwellian because this is a matter of foreign aid, not foreign.
I mean, yeah, foreign aid and not foreign policy.
It's not about diplomacy or international relations.
And it was Ronald Reagan.
Would there be an investigation?
Oh, without question.
But how about this, Doug?
When Senator Kyle sent a gentle letter to him suggesting that the stimulus money that had been spent heretofore had not stimulated anything, so please consider invoking a freeze, imposing a freeze on the remainder of the stimulus money.
And Obama then, we don't know, he did it, but four of his cabinet members, this is all coincidental, sent separate letters simultaneously, virtually, to Kyle threatening to withhold Arizona's portion of the stimulus money.
Now, can you imagine a president who doesn't have the authority to be allocating this money in the first place saying he's going to withhold the portion of a state as if he has the authority to do it as if it's his money, just because Senator Kyle raised a reasonable question and made a reasonable suggestion, he did it the same thing to California.
But David, David, at least he had his cabinet members, who we know who they are, write these letters.
At least they didn't come from the czars.
No, no, no, and that's exactly right.
There's a measure, a pinch of accountability in theory, because it didn't happen.
In fact, in California, California trying to tighten its belt.
Amazingly, cut millions of dollars out of one of its programs for the elderly, elderly, disabled, or whatever.
And Obama didn't like it because some of his union buddy employees were going to be cut out if some of this program.
So he's threatened to withhold billions of dollars because Democratic senator legislators in California were trying to cut their belts.
I mean, this guy is tyrannical.
He summons people up to the White House.
David, you don't want to get me started on legislators here in California, though.
No, I know, I know.
But that shows you how far he'll go.
He's to the left of these guys.
Let me ask you something because you've looked into this very deeply from a number of points of view.
Does it not bother him how unpopular he is?
Thank you for asking that because I think that he's willing to sacrifice his second term if he can afford in the process.
You see, David, I think he may be willing to sacrifice his third term.
Well, you know, he's got – he seriously is willing to sacrifice himself politically if he sees himself having a short window within which to get anything done.
He obviously has to know, as tone deaf as he is, that the people did not ultimately support what he did with Obamacare, even though – Yes, but he walks through it, David, with a sort of numb, a smile.
I would be mortified to be that unpopular.
I may experience that myself at the end of another hour here, but how does someone do that?
No, he's a mixture between oblivious and tyrannical.
Because on the one hand, I think he's tone deaf.
On the other hand, I think he's Machiavelli.
And I actually think he's both.
Because after he finished cramming health care through, he said, I'm going to continue to fight for the American people.
This was a triumph for the American people.
What portion, what small fragment of the population does he figure constitutes the American people?
No, the part in his mind that knows best.
Yeah, there you go.
And, you know, what we need to do is buck up and fight him and quit being feckless as conservatives and saying we've got to pick and choose our battles because we only have so much.
I'm struck by this concept, David, that conservatives keep talking about political capital.
They seem to have, so-called conservatives, Republicans, they seem to have an exact opposite understanding of what political capital is and how they should use it.
That's exactly right, because if you're doing the right thing for the national interest, you're not on borrowed time.
You're not on borrowed capital.
You're doing the right thing.
So that if I properly oppose Obamacare, I should not only be expending capital, but enhancing my position and operating on that momentum, taking that momentum to fight tooth and nail on cap and trade or amnesty or whatever other atrocities he's trying to impose on the American public.
Ladies and gentlemen, the guest is David Limbaugh.
He's going to stay with us, I hope, after this break and take your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
The book is called Crimes Against Liberty.
You must go on Amazon and get it.
It is a must-read for the election season and buy some of his gifts as well.
Be right back.
We're talking with David Limbaugh.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Your calls are welcome.
David is going to take calls from you in a moment.
1-800-282-2882 is the number to call in on.
David, have you ever come across this phrase?
I came across it recently, an old Fabian socialist phrase where instead of calling something profit, they called it the overcharge.
No, but I've heard of surplus value in Marxian.
Yeah, well, there you are, the overcharge.
I love that because these people have the idea.
You mentioned a few moments ago, big corporations and fat cats now.
He declares war on them.
Yeah.
I think we can't really drop the ball on our side at all by explaining to people that corporations are a legal construct of people, people who have people's money, employees' money, dividend money.
Exactly right.
These are false ideas.
These things don't exist other than on a piece of paper as a construct.
Nor, that's well said, nor do any utopian schemes ever work.
Have they ever worked in the history of the world, or have they ever worked in America?
And we've been sprinkled with those kind of projects throughout American history.
So, David, answer me this question.
If you and I know that those things don't work, and I'm a mere guest host, if we know that those things don't work, what is in the brains of the people who believe that they do?
Well, I think they have this undying faith in the human condition.
I think the Judeo-Christian worldview recognizes a different fallen nature of man and that we cannot, we're not on a linear path to enlightenment, and we're not going to be made perfect by the agency of government.
Man, left to his own devices, will be creative, entrepreneurial, will create profits.
And finally, America, our framers who are students of history and students of politics and government, finally devised a system that would keep government in check.
They would create a government, establish a government powerful enough to allow it to be protected from other external and internal threats, but at the same time would put the government in check with a system of separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances, and it would maximize our freedoms.
These libs don't understand that that freedom is necessary.
They don't understand the connection between the government's.
Well, this may seem a very odd comment that I'm about to make.
But this is one of the reasons I believe that they desperately want to remove always God from the conversation.
Because if you don't have man answerable to man under their construct, their entire construct crumbles.
No, that's exactly right.
But we never, when you redistribute wealth on the grand scale that they do, you destroy wealth.
You destroy any incentive to create.
And all the experience in human history shows that when these kind of plans are put into place, you have no productivity.
You have a shrinkage of the pie.
Everyone gets less.
And we know Obama is a faithful believer in this because Charlie Gibson asked him the question about capital gains tax increases, why he would be in favor of increasing capital gains tax rates when history shows invariably that it reduces revenues overall.
And he said, Charlie, it's a matter of fairness.
So his idea of fairness is spreading the misery, as Rush often says.
Spreading the misery just in order to punish the government.
Well, in order to have this view of fairness, you must also bring to the table an idea that you are somehow superior in your ability to see these things and to implement them.
Yeah, and yet there is a blind faith and inability to recognize empirical data that demonstrates your policies or failures.
So that when he has this stimulus package that manifestly fails and falls short of his promised not to increase unemployment by more than 8% and we're hovering between 9 and 10, he says, oh, I underestimated the crisis.
Well, we have him on the record.
Or overestimating.
Or worse yet, they say it's going the right direction.
Well, that's so delusional.
Now, we really do need a psychiatrist to analyze that one.
Would you like to take some calls, David?
Absolutely.
My pleasure.
We're going to take a call from Dwayne.
Duane, you're on with David Limbaugh with your question, sir.
Yes.
Mr. Limbaugh.
Yes, sir.
Yes.
I've always wondered: is President Obama the first president not to be awed by the office?
You know, that's an interesting question.
I don't know if he's the first one, and I don't know that that matters.
I think he definitely thinks the office ought to be awed by him.
And I mean it.
I think the guy has a God complex, and I think that pretends very badly for the nation, and I think it's playing out.
I mean, the guy thinks he was serious when he talked about subsiding the ocean levels.
So, yeah, I don't think he has any reverence for the presidency of the United States nor his powers under the Constitution.
And we've seen it.
And I could go through another litany, but you don't want to hear me just reciting facts.
You could be nice if you'd get the book, if I may humbly say, and there's more than I can state in a short period of time.
Thank you, Duane, for calling Bob in Western New York.
Welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Show.
You're on with David Limbaugh.
Thank you, Doug and Davis, for taking my cause.
I'm grateful to be on the call.
I was, David, curious to get your thoughts on the bill that Joe Lieberman had introduced in June of this year regarding protecting cyberspace as a national asset act of 2010, which really starts a new committee on cyberspace policy, cyberspace security.
And it does talk about in a national cyber emergency, in general, the president would be able to declare some type of cyber emergency.
And, you know, I think about, you know, just the catastrophe in the Gulf where, you know, a rig blew up, which was terrible.
But, you know, each rig was, you know, every rig now has been shut down.
And I know that some of our national secrets with...
And, Bob, your question specifically is what?
What are your thoughts with regard to that bill being sponsored by Mr. Lieberman protecting cyberspace as well?
I don't know the particulars of the bill, but I do think there's civil liberties dangers.
I'm all for beefing up national security.
And Lieberman, the one issue he's been good on, is national security.
But I am concerned about liberals and they're chomping at the bit to regulate the Internet.
We talk about net neutrality rules.
They want to regulate content.
We have just confirmed a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who believes philosophically that it's okay to skew speech.
No, no, she said to unskew it.
To unskew speech.
To unskew it.
It's a matter of who's skewing and who's unskewing.
Yes, I love the word.
To unskew it.
In other words, if there's too much conservative talk, if there's too much opinions that we don't like, we're just going to intervene with government for the higher good.
Cass Sunstein, the regulatory czar, believes that there should be cognitive infiltration, that the government ought to proactively monitor websites and deceitfully pretend to be just casual citizens as they advocate politically.
We've got a blog squad in the Justice Department on the public dime going around surfing websites and posting comments supportive of Obama's agenda.
I mean, these people are tyrannical and they're manipulative.
And if this were the Bush White House, we would have a nuclear war domestically here.
Well, we almost did, if you remember, about the Bush White House and the secrets and the Patriot Act and the financial disclosures in the New York Times.
They didn't like any secrets then.
They seem to love them now.
No, and now they've raised Kane because we've got this new rating system, which is more accurate, but it reflects that talk show, conservative talk shows, are getting higher ratings than the manual system, which could be manipulated before.
So now they're having a diversity investigation about it.
I mean, you just, these people will not allow the system, any system to work.
They will intimidate voters in Philadelphia.
And then when the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department investigates and wins by default a clear-cut case of voter intimidation, the Obama administration dismisses the case because of what an insider of the Justice Department said, basically, and I don't want to quote him verbatim, but he said basically there is now an unwritten policy in the Justice Department that whites cannot be victims of black civil rights abuses and voter intimidation.
We have a race-conscious administration instead of a colorblind administration in the name of being post-racial.
I mean, there are so many things going on that are corrupt and they're so hostile to what you and I understand does the tradition of freedom.
David, again, stay with us for the next segment, take some calls because we can wrap it up.
And also, we want to excite you folks about this book.
It's a page turner.
And I was up very late looking at this book and very early this morning as well.
I only just got my copy.
Had a hard time finding it in California, I was disturbed to say.
But they said they would special order it.
You must go to Amazon and get it anyway if you can't find it in your local bookstore.
Doug Gerbanski, filling in for Russia.
We'll be right back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Today, Rush Limbaugh takes the second biggest risk in broadcasting by allowing me to be here and interview his brother.
We are talking to David Limbaugh.
And David, I'm a very, you know, I don't have the same responsibilities that the President of the United States has, but I would sure like to have the amount of free time he has.
Yes.
Wouldn't you?
Yeah, I mean, it's kind of surprising as much as the Bush haters went after Bush for recreating.
And Obama just seems to be oblivious, like What Me Worry, the Alfred E. Newman guy out of Mad Magazine, as Obamacare was going through the final throes of Obamacare, which Obama cared about with his life, and yet he was gallivanting about just in foreign countries and not worrying.
Finally, he had to come back.
They dragged him back.
But I mean, he seems to be oblivious.
And yet, let's not mistakenly think that's because he doesn't care deeply about getting these things passed.
But he's a big policy guy.
He doesn't want to be bothered with the details.
He really doesn't.
He just wants to order that it be done, dictate that it be done, and then yell at people inside his administration and out in the process, demonizing people, bullying them, and forcing his way, his will, against the will of the American people.
Let's take some calls quickly before we have to go there.
David Ray in San Francisco has a question for you.
Ray, welcome to the show.
Yes, David, thank you for your work and thank you for the work that your brother does.
You guys are nothing less than a national treasure.
Dennis Miller had a line that says that Obama seems to have a war room for everything except for war.
And that leads to my question, which is, doesn't he operate, he seems to operate on issues that have nothing to do with the president, more like a city councilman or even an acorn lawyer rather than the president of the United States.
Yeah, I mean, he didn't want to be bothered with foreign policy, and he was unconnected.
He actually wants to wish away this war.
I think he thinks that we provoked al-Qaeda into attacking us.
Why else would he go around apologizing to the entire Muslim world for all the sins we've committed when, by the way, we are all claiming, and George Bush always said Islam is a peaceful religion.
It's only al-Qaeda, it's only the terrorists and the terrorist-sponsoring regimes that we are going after.
And yet Obama thinks that we've got to go apologize to the entire Muslim world, even though we've liberated other peoples, including Muslims, in our history, even though we've taken over, we've defeated other nations in war, and instead of subjugating them, paid them to rebuild themselves.
But I think Obama does do these meals-on-wheels things, these kind of projects that don't merit the attention of a chief executive.
I couldn't agree more.
Thank you for the call, sir.
Joe in Detroit, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Ditto.
I'm the last caller with David's book and research, and also Rush Limbaugh, his brother, for being National Treasure Ditto.
My question is.
Well, sir, I am not qualified to accept a Ditto for the show, but I think David might be.
And I will accept it.
Yes.
My question is: Was Michelle's trip to Spain, was that government-sponsored or her own monies?
And I doubt that.
So why not the transparency there in the monies?
And how come this question hasn't been raised?
Either show it was your personal money or show it with government money.
Which was it?
Well, you know, there's some disagreement about that.
They claim they spent a lot of their personal money.
They reimburse and they foot the bill for the personal stuff.
But David, isn't this less about money than it is about choices?
And arrogance.
But what I was going to say is this whole issue doesn't interest me except as a matter of some slight interest.
But I think we've got grave matters going on here.
And what I was talking about in the book, and this is no disrespect to the caller, but this is the kind of thing that might be in People magazine or something about Michelle Obama going and arrogantly spending money, the people's money, and all that kind of thing.
I'm more concerned with things like Obama having his health and human services secretary summoning insurance executives to the White House with no authority at all and demanding they justify their rate increases.
And is there a between-the-lines threat?
What is that?
Of course.
How does that work?
Well, what about the shakedown with the BP?
What about you?
When Eric Holder's in the room with the BP executives and he's trying to extract money from them and not even giving them due process and declaring their liability, their absolute liability, after, by the way, they had already accepted responsibility.
We think that the BP folks might have been better off if they had the alleged coal bomber with them, yes?
But yes, but he always finds a way to get him.
And then they would have been let off.
That's right.
But he always has these people that he's attacking come under his wing and support him, whether it's badgering doctors and then the AMA then supports him or badgering the financial companies who then underwrite his bill.
It's so counterintuitive, you've got to wonder what kind of things he's threatening these people with under the table or overtly.
But, I mean, this is thug government we're talking.
I know people are going to think I'm talking in helium voice, and I'm...
No, no, there's 100 pages or more here of notes and footnotes and annotation.
You don't need to bore yourself with them, but if you want to know the facts and if someone wants to join someone else on the road to knowing the facts, it's all here in the book.
David, you know I've got a scoot, don't you?
Yes, sir.
I'm going to have some more remarks about this book when we come back.
David, thank you so much for taking all of this time here on your brother's show with Amir Guest Host.
But it's a very wonderful and important book.
Thank you.
You are great, and I was listening to you before I came on.
You are quite the guest host.
Thanks for having me on.
Oh, boy, I instruct everyone to lower expectations at this point.
Thank you so much, David.
We'll see you again one of these days soon, okay?
Thank you, sir.
It's Ducker Bansky, filling into Rush Limbaugh.
I'll be right back after this.
Now, you know how good David Limbaugh's book is by the fact that the left are calling it pure slanderous trash.
And the more they call it trash, the more you know how superb it is.
This is their tactic.
As you know, he uses documentation.
He uses superb research.
And, you know, if you are a liberal and you claim to be open-minded and you claim to want to know where the facts will lead you, at the very least, you've got to read David's book and say, well, it's well researched and the facts are stubborn things.
They do not lie.
It's excellent, well-researched, base and true with honesty.
The book is a warning, of course, to the people about this very corrupt regime, as Rush calls them.
He uses the word accurately.
The first American president to truly get in trouble when I say this.
One wonders if he truly hates America.
And he has an agenda based upon the destruction of America.
It's either that.
It's either that, or he's simply not smart, or he's cunning or wise.
The answer to the whole debate is facts.
Facts.
And that's what David Limbaugh presents.
And as Ronald Reagan said, facts are stubborn things.
It's no secret, obviously, that the Limbaugh's at the other end of the ideological spectrum, so am I.
But we like the debate, and we like where the facts will lead us.
We do not get caught up on controlling of speech, as this side is very interested in doing.
What is it?
By the way, in the next hour, we're going to talk about the war on luxury.
We're going to talk a little bit about Charlie Wrangel, and we're going to have some fun with it.
It's Douglas Serbansky.
It's 1-800-282-2882.
It's Open Line Friday, and we'll be back after this.
We'll be right back after this.
And thank you, David Limbaugh, for taking the hour with us, by the way.
A great honor to go through the entire, to go through the entire better part of the hour with David Limbaugh.
I think we could talk to him for about two hours or three if necessary.
The book is fabulous.
Do you see how he's broken it down into chapters?
▲
Export Selection