Rush Limbaugh Program - December 18, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program

33:26

December 18, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Greetings, my good friends, and welcome back.
	Great to have you, El Rushbo.
	El Squish O. It's the all-new Rush Limbaugh, the indecisive uh not so sure of myself, and therefore less threatening.
	Gentler and kinder.
	Rush Limbaugh here on the EIB network.
	Great to have and funnier, too.
	Ha ha ha!
	800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program to email address L Rushbow at EIBnet.com.
	I just checked the email.
	I just got there's some people tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
	You know, this illustrates what we're up against.
	I just said that there are no tax cuts being talked about.
	I said what what Obama and the Democrats are trying to make people believe is that there is a tax cut for the middle class waiting to happen in the new year, but the Republicans might screw it up by not agreeing to a deal.
	I I I just want to, folks, let me try here again.
	We have tax rates, whatever they are.
	I only know mine.
	I don't care about yours.
	Oh, no, whoa, whoa.
	That's oh, take that.
	Whoa, no, no.
	I care so much about your tax rate that I'm going to learn what they are.
	And the point is that whatever your tax rate is, if there is no agreement, your taxes are going up.
	Because the current rates expire on December 31st.
	By law, they expire.
	And by law, because of the way the tax rates were achieved with reconciliation back in 2003, by law, the tax rate there have been temporary essentially for all these years.
	And by law, they returned to what they were before George Bush and the Congress cut them in 2003.
	So they'll go back up for the top rate, it'll go back to 39.6%.
	And that's what the Obama people are trying to tell you in the middle class that you will not get a tax cut if we go over the cliff.
	But that we if we if we come to a deal, you will get a tax cut.
	The way they're saying this is taxes are going to go up.
	They're not there yet.
	Your rate is what it is.
	But if there is a deal, then your rate won't go up, and that's a tax cut, even though it stays the same.
	There's no tax cut here.
	One of two things is gonna happen.
	Your tax rate's gonna stay the same or it's gonna go up.
	Those are the and and in no neither case is there a tax cut.
	I'm sorry, but there are no tax cuts.
	This is the way baseline budgeting works.
	So we'll give you an example of how this works.
	Let's say you're gonna buy a new car, and you have allocated $50,000.
	That's what you're gonna spend on a car.
	You're going to spend $50,000 more than what you are spending now.
	And you're gonna spend that on a car.
	So you go shopping, and you find a car that you really like that costs 40,000, and you tell yourself you just saved 10.
	When what you did was spend 40,000.
	You haven't saved anything.
	You saved over what you expect.
	This is how women do sales at grocery stores.
	This is how people uh justify sales at grocery stores all the time.
	Well, it would have cost X, so I bought a whole lot of it because it was on sale.
	I saved so much money.
	No, you didn't.
	You spent more than you intended to.
	Now, in the car example, you had allocated 50, but you found something you like at 40, so you bought it and you tell yourself you saved 10.
	You didn't.
	You never spent the 50.
	You spent 40.
	So you are out 40,000.
	You can tell yourself all day you save 10 grand, but it's in your head.
	It's the same thing that's happening here in this tax business.
	There are no tax cuts.
	All that you're looking at is your tax rate staying the same or going up.
	And what Obama wants you to believe is that you get a tax cut if your rate doesn't go up.
	And that's bogus.
	Okay, I have a I have a a bunch of items here in the stack that reflect our wonderful culture.
	Uh Where we're headed where we are.
	Some of it from across the pond, some of it here in this country.
	From the UK Daily Mail, but actually it's at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, so it's uh it's a story about America, the same-sex wife of a ranking army officer stationed at Fort Bragg claims that she has been repeatedly denied membership in a club for military spouses only because she's lesbian.
	That's not fair.
	Ashley Broadway married her partner of 15 years, Lieutenant Colonel Heather Mack in November after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
	The newlyweds have a two-year-old son, and Mac is now eight months pregnant with the couple's second child.
	The father, who knows?
	Who cares?
	It doesn't matter.
	Now, Broadway said that in response to her application to become a member of the Association of Bragg Officer Spouses, she was told she can't be admitted into the club because she lacks a military spouse ID card.
	So Broadway tearfully told NBC News, I was I was really hurt by this denial.
	I mean, I lived for years under don't ask, don't tell, and I couldn't be part of a military family, and now after after don't ask, don't tell, I thought, wow, I can I can finally be part of something.
	Finally give back to the military community in ways other than just writing a check.
	So it was a blow.
	It was a real blow.
	It was it was a blow.
	And here I thought things were progressing.
	I was I was knocked back down.
	So another example of an unjust, immoral, and unkind military and country.
	Lesbian wife banned from the spouses club at Fort Bragg.
	And there's this.
	Gay Marine proposes to boyfriend at White House.
	U.S. Marine Corps captain Matthew Phelps made history Saturday at the home of the commander-in-chief.
	A 35-year-old active duty officer proposed to his boyfriend Ben Shock, 26 in a grand foyer of the White House at the end of a holiday tour.
	It is believed to be the first time two gay men have gotten engaged inside the White House and a first for an active duty member of the U.S. military.
	A transgender man proposed to his partner in the East Room earlier this year, but never two gay men.
	Another record set.
	Wow.
	I mean, it's remarkable.
	San Mateo, California, a sex romp in a public park, has helped prosecutors convict a California woman of faking an ankle injury to collect workers'compensation payments.
	San Mateo County prosecutors say 29-year-old Modupe Aduni Martin reported the injury while working as a Sequoia Union Haskell District janitor in 2009.
	Martin claimed she couldn't walk and needed crutches.
	The DA says investigators caught her on videotape throwing her crutches into a car and running in high heels in a public park.
	And after that, she performed oral sex at the park on a boyfriend.
	Doctors concluded she couldn't have done that with an injured ankle.
	She pleaded she pleaded no contest to the fraud and was sentenced last Thursday to nine months in jail, also ordered to pay more than $79,000 in restitution.
	What don't you understand?
	What's hard to understand about this?
	What's hard to understand?
	That's exactly what they said.
	She could do what she did to the boyfriend with an injured ankle.
	The ankle wasn't part of the sex romp.
	She she lied about the injured ankle.
	She didn't she didn't injure the ankle when she was a janitor.
	She's faking walking on crutches to get disability payments.
	And they didn't, and they and they caught her throwing the crutches away and in and then jumping the boyfriend uh I'm trying and then meeting the boyfriend in a loving act of togetherness in the car.
	And they caught all this on on camera and they concluded that her sex romp revealed the workman's comp fraud.
	How what?
	What do we what is hard to understand?
	You have a woman who faked an she didn't break the ankle.
	Snerdley, you know, you're you're you're getting caught up here on the guttural aspects of this.
	Snerdley is asking, and maybe some of you are too.
	Let me address this.
	What would a broken ankle have to do with having sex anyway, particularly in certain techniques, methods, and so forth, right?
	But that's not the point.
	She's not in trouble for having sex in public with a boyfriend in the car.
	You can do that all day, any day, everywhere.
	Sam Mateo doesn't matter.
	In fact, you'll be applauded for it.
	But if you defraud the government and tell them you broke your ankle as a janitor and get disability payments, and they catch you ditching the crutches while you jump the boyfriend, you're in trouble.
	It's not that the broken ankle prevents sex acts.
	I mean, they're they're happy she has sex.
	That's not the problem.
	She lied about a broken ankle.
	In other sex news, this is um Australia, an Australian court has ruled that a bureaucrat who was injured while having sex on a business trip is eligible for workers' compensation benefits.
	The full bench of the federal court ruled on December 13th, five days ago, in favor of the woman who can't be identified for legal reasons.
	They rejected the appeal of the federal government's insurer, which ended a five-year legal battle.
	The woman, this is what happened.
	She was hospitalized in 2007 after being injured during sex with a male friend while staying in a motel in a town south of Sydney during the sex.
	A glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face, breaking her ankle.
	No, I just threw that in.
	Now what happened was the glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed during sex, landed on her face, injuring her nose and her mouth.
	She later suffered depression and was unable to continue working for the government, nor was she able to have sex because she had a perpetual fear that the chandelier was going to land on her face.
	Her claim for workers' compensation for her physical and psychological injuries was initially approved by the government insurer ComCare and then rejected after further investigation.
	The ruling was overturned in federal court 2012 when the judge, a man, naturally, John Nicholas, rejected the findings that the sex had to be condoned by the government if she were to qualify for compensation.
	If the applicant had been injured while playing game of cards in her motel room, she would be entitled to compensation, even though it could not be said that her employer induced her to engage in such activity.
	But because she was injured having sex, uh she's not entitled.
	Because that wasn't part of the job.
	The boyfriend's uh activities here are not described.
	Well, we don't we don't know that anybody was hanging from the chandelier.
	We we just we we don't know.
	Um he's not even mentioned.
	The boyfriend here is not even I don't even know that it was uh that was male friend, male friend, yep, yep, right there right there it is.
	It's all says that during the sex, a glass fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face.
	And it doesn't say injuring his back.
	It says in the chandelier fella injured her nose and mouth.
	Yes, and now she has a psychological fear of a chandelier falling on her when she's having sex, and she wants to be paid for it.
	Well, that was that was my point.
	Uh when all these, you know, Mark Warner, the former governor and mansion, the Senator West Virginia said, Oh my God, my daughters have told me we gotta change gun control away.
	I said, Have you guys ever been to Chicago?
	Do you know what happens in Chicago every night?
	What happens in Chicago in a week dwarfs what happened in Connecticut.
	Just nobody's reporting it.
	There's no cameras up there.
	You don't see it.
	All you see is the mayor warning the gangbangers to kill each other instead of other people.
	That's all you ever see.
	You know, it's a I no, I'm not being facetious here.
	The deaths, the gun violence in the city of Chicago.
	Take a pick, take a week, pick a week, any week in the last three months.
	Add them up over a month.
	It dwarfs what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.
	Now these are urban kids in Chicago.
	They're not upper middle class whites.
	And I'll tell you there's a there's a I don't know.
	There there's there's a there's almost a let's put it this way.
	Have you ever heard any politician go on an anti-gun rant when you've heard about urban violence?
	Does it ever happen?
	I'm asking.
	I can't think of I can't think those stories out of Chicago were happening daily.
	Drudge was highlighting them.
	But take your pick, the Rodney King incident, whatever.
	The the the the watch riots, pick one.
	Uh post-Catrina looting in New Orleans.
	Did what was the anti-gun control out in force there?
	They never are, are they?
	Why is it the anti-gun people never use violence in urban neighborhoods as an example of why we have to get rid of guns.
	Why?
	A gun's a gun people die when one's used in such manners.
	What does it matter?
	Obviously it does, because it's never.
	Rahm Emanuel has not said, of all the things he said, he's not said one thing about limiting the availability of guns in Chicago after any of those incidents.
	Has he?
	and And if he has, it hasn't been widely reported, hadn't reported enough in a way that we know about it.
	Philad exactly Philadelphia, Detroit, same thing.
	Oakland, California, exactly right.
	Look at the gun violence took place in Oakland against the cops and so forth.
	The the anti-second amendment crowd never gins up.
	Do they?
	Chicago has been averaging more murder than happened in Newtown every month this year.
	The murder toll in Chicago projected to reach at least 500 for this year.
	There are more than 41 murders a month in Chicago.
	Lyon's share of them are taking place in poor black neighborhoods.
	And I don't hear the uh Reverend O'Zach or any of the anti-gun media that we're hearing from now raise a stink about guns in those places.
	That's absolutely right.
	I wonder why that is.
	There has to be a reason.
	Ha, how are you?
	Great to have you back, Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone here at the Limboy Institute.
	We have some very interesting breaking news.
	This is from the Washington, DC CBS affiliate, eyeball news, DC.
	A fast and furious gun has been found at a site where Mexican beauty queen was killed.
	A gun found at the scene of a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers where a beauty queen died was part of the botched fast and furious operation.
	CBS News reports.
	Authorities said that Maria Susana Flores Gomez was likely used as a human shield, and that an automatic rifle had been found near her body after the November 23rd shootout.
	CBS News has learned the Romanian AK 47 type rifle found near her body was purchased by Uriel Patino at an Arizona gun shop in 2010.
	Uriel Patino is a suspect who allegedly purchased 700 guns while the ATF watched.
	Now, I don't know where this happened.
	It's CBS Washington affiliate.
	But let's just see if there's any outrage about this.
	This is a gun that ended up in the hands of drug cartel members as a result of the Obama administration Fast and Furious program.
	Now, for those of you new to the program, you don't know what Fast and Furious is, let me briefly describe it.
	Fast and Furious was a plan implemented by Obama and Eric Holder.
	It essentially allowed guns to be purchased legally in Arizona gun shops and then illegally walked across the border to be sold or given to Mexican drug cartels.
	Now you might say, why would they do that?
	Exactly.
	What what possible reason?
	Now the regime says that they were doing this in order to find out where the drug cartels were.
	But there's a problem because they weren't tracking the guns.
	They didn't know where the guns ended up specifically, yet they intended them to end up in the hands of drug gangs.
	Now, I can't be sure.
	No one can.
	But the logical thinking is that what the administration hoped for was that some of these guns would be used in the commission of crimes, where many people were injured or killed.
	The news would report it, and the stories would say guns purchased legally and easily in Arizona end up in the hands of drug cartel members who use the guns to murder and injure innocent civilians, and Americans were to be outraged, rise up in anger, and say we've got to do something about it.
	That was the plan.
	The polling data in this country, even now, is all in favor of the Second Amendment.
	Polling data, there Is no vast majority for gun control.
	But Obama and Eric Holder and the Democrat Party hate guns and they hate the Second Amendment.
	So Fast and Furious was an end run.
	It was a public relations attempt.
	Create a bunch of gun violence with American guns bought legally and therefore easily and outrage the American people.
	In fact, let me be blunt.
	The objective of Fast and Furious was to create the very emotional pitch people experienced after what happened in Newtown on Friday.
	That is exactly what Fast and Furious was intended to do was to create that kind of reaction all over the country.
	It didn't.
	An American Border Patrol agent was killed, and now the administration and Eric Holder are stonewalling the investigation into just what the hell happened and why, and whose idea it was, and every aspect of it.
	So And so now we have a gun, part of the administration's Fast and Furious program, that has been found at a site where a Mexican beauty queen was killed being used as a human shield in a battle between drug gangs.
	And so our question, let's just wait and see.
	This story just broke a half hour ago.
	We'll see if the media picks up on this.
	We'll see if the media is outraged by this.
	This is a Mexican beauty queen, the essence of innocence.
	Gunned down as a human shield, with a gun purchased in an Arizona gun shop easily, and walked across the border to a drug gang, and it's was that they know who was who who had the gun.
	This Uriel Patino.
	They know it was a fast and furious AK-47, by the way, not a Bushmaster 123, but an AK-47.
	An AK-47, like hundreds of others, essentially shipped to drug cartels by the administration.
	And let's just see now.
	Let's just see if the usual suspects get all whipped into a tizzy over this.
	Senseless death.
	This unfortunate murder.
	That would not have happened if we had strict gun control laws in this country, they will say.
	Oh, except they won't say that.
	I'll bet you you don't hear much about this story outside of this program.
	Uh grab a quick call.
	Paul in Miller Place, New York.
	I'm really glad you waited.
	I appreciate your patience.
	Hello, sir.
	How are you today?
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Merry Christmas to you.
	Same to you, sir.
	Um, uh, with this whole debate about the fiscal cliff, which I you know, it's really a stupid phrase.
	You know, Senator Rand Paul put out a thing about voting for keeping the tax rates the same for 98% of the people or whatever it was, 99% of the people, and then allowing the Democrats to go ahead and raise taxes on whatever the low was.
	I agree with that.
	Because the tax rates are low now.
	What makes anybody think that the tax rates go up, they're going to stop hiring?
	We're seeing an anemic comeback in this uh country economically at a hundred to a hundred and twenty-five thousand people being hired per month, which is good for people being hired, but what about the 350,000 that are not being counted anymore?
	So if the Democrats think getting their way with a tax increase is such a good deal, go ahead.
	And when it fails, flat on their face, the Republicans come back and say, I told you so.
	Yeah.
	I hear you.
	That's basically that's it.
	I told you so.
	Yeah, but nothing.
	But there's nothing about no spending cuts, no other thing, nothing.
	And when a budget comes out, the department of HHS gets a dollar.
	What budget?
	Exactly.
	You know, Vana controls the money.
	I wouldn't give anything to the EPA if they're gonna start acting irresponsibly.
	Here's the thing, though.
	I understand what you're saying.
	You're saying let the Democrats have this and let it be responsible for all that happens, and then we say, see, we told you so, right?
	Do I understand you?
	Exactly.
	Okay, we just did That for four years.
	We just we just went through four years of wanton economic destruction.
	And we ran a presidential campaign on do you want more of it?
	And a majority of the people who voted said, give me more.
	Yes, sir, rebob.
	We want to keep going on this track.
	What makes us think that we can make Obama own the fiscal cliff when we can't even make him own his first four years.
	Get this, folks.
	Obama's buddy, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, and he is Obama's buddy.
	Make no mistake about it.
	Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin have just announced that they are going to build two factories in Venezuela manufacturing AK 47s.
	That will make Venezuela the only country outside of Russia where AK 47s are made.
	AK 47s will now be available in our hemisphere.
	You know, Venezuela, if you look at a map, it's not that far away.
	People think South America, they think South Pole, they think Brazil, they think actresses and models.
	But I'm to Venezuela, I mean, it is it is it is close there.
	It's not that far away at all.
	AK 40, our good buddy Hugo Chavez and uh Vladimir Putin.
	And a new AK-47 factory.
	Earlier in the program, we announced that John Boehner's plan B was essentially a Nancy Pelosi plan announced in April.
	And the Nancy Pelosi plan announced in April was to exempt the first million dollars of people earn from any tax increase.
	Not the first two hundred and fifty thousand.
	But anybody earning a million dollars or less will not get a tax increase.
	That was her idea.
	Boehner proposed it today, didn't mention her name, but he proposed that very thing today, what he called Plan B. So then everybody said, well, Boehner just he just proposed the Pelosi plan.
	Well, Pelosi has reacted now.
	House minority leader Nancy Pelosi argued Tuesday that Speaker Boehner's plan B proposal is a tactic, not a serious proposal.
	The plan, however, is one that she herself advocated earlier this year.
	Pelosi said, you know, it's really hard to imagine why they can't even uh it's it's hard to imagine why they even came up with it unless they just wanted to prove to their members that unless 218 of them are ready to raise rates, it's not gonna pass.
	The Democrats are not gonna give them that success.
	This is a tactic, it's not a serious proposal.
	She's describing her own proposal now as a tactic.
	She just is describing her own proposal as something that's not a serious proposal.
	Because Boehner has used it now.
	She meant every word of it when she proposed it in April.
	I don't think she was trying to lure anybody in, not in April.
	Nobody was serious about the fiscal cliff.
	She was serious about it.
	Now that Boehner's proposed it, oh no, okay.
	If if folks, the point of this is they do not want an agreement.
	There is no common ground.
	And the moment any common ground is apparently reached, the Democrats yank the rug out.
	They will not permit it.
	In this fiscal cliff, do look, I know that many of you think the Republicans are an order of fries short of a happy meal, and you may be right.
	But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats do not and will not permit a deal where the Republicans win anything.
	Literally, strategically, PR wise, it isn't going to happen.
	And the Republicans ought to know this.
	That's the frustrating thing, even for the new squishy me.
	Quickly, Anthony, Fresno, California.
	Hello, sir.
	Great to have you.
	Hi, Roy.
	How are you?
	I'm fine.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Merry Christmas on the Central Valley of California, known as Fresno, California.
	Merry Christmas, Ross.
	Same to you.
	Thank you very much.
	Yeah.
	My question to you first, I really, really want to thank you, and this is passing out to me, because I have been a die hard democrat.
	Oh no.
	I did vote for Obama.
	Regrettably so.
	Oh no.
	But you know what?
	What one day I was driving in my car, and I, for some reasons, I turned on to the 5 80 a.m. on my car radio.
	And I stand listening to you.
	And I have never been so politically enlightened, politically educated, and politically resurrected like when I spoke with you, Rush.
	Wow.
	So I just want to thank you so very much for the good work you've been doing.
	Well, I can't thank you enough.
	You've you've uh you've really made my day here, Anthony.
	I wish I'd have gotten to you earlier because I'm already out of uh out of time.
	But hang on.
	Uh don't go away.
	Mr. Snerdley uh wants to get the name of your kids.
	Back after this, folks.
	Don't call it.
	Pelosi sent Boehner a letter in May.
	The last sentence reads, Democrats believe tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year should expire, and that we should use the resulting revenues to pay down the deficit.
	She was not.
	Prof she she was this was not a PR stunt.
	She really meant that back in May.
	We'll see you tomorrow, folks.

▲