All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
December 19, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, guess what, folks?
Obama is Time Magazine's man of the year person.
Person of the year.
What a shock.
What an absolute shock.
And wait till you hear why Time Magazine chose him.
It is a vindication of me, your host, El Squisho, El Rushbo here at the EIB network and the Limboy Institute.
Time magazine actually goes out.
They say Obama is president because people that don't know anything voted for him in greater numbers than anybody else.
And that is a testament to his strength to be able to convince people that don't know anything to vote for him.
How are you, folks?
Great to have you here.
El Rushbow at, again, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, Obama is attempting to upstage me yet again, even now, announcing from the White House that he is going to put, you may have heard this by now, Joe Biden will be in charge of the regime's effort to end gun violence, which now honestly makes me wonder just how serious an effort this will be.
After all, the vice president was the man who was put in charge of making sure there was no waste in the stimulus.
And Biden was also the man put in charge of protecting the middle class in the first four years.
And now the vice president of the United States has been put in charge of the regime's effort to end gun violence.
You know the problem that we have in all of this.
A friend of mine sent me a note last night.
His father, psychiatrist, it was a long note.
A friend tells me that his father's biggest fear was every night dreading a phone call from a patient threatening suicide.
The biggest fear that he dealt with because he was dealing with people that needed to be committed and oftentimes would refuse to be.
And it was a very, very pressure-packed existence.
And my friend says, you know, says one of his father's beliefs as a practicing psychiatrist.
You know, Shakespeare said brevity is the soul of wit.
The fewest amount of words necessary make the most powerful point.
This is one of those sentences.
It is rare to find collective solutions to individual problems.
Now, many people would say, what do you mean, individual problem?
This is a societal problem.
Rush, kids are blowing up people and people are blowing up movie theaters.
Now, see, this is even better because look at what we're doing.
Every time something like this happens, what is the first natural instinct people have to blame all of us?
Our society, our culture, and there may be, obviously, cultural rot going on, and there may be things that need to be addressed, but it's still an individual.
Nobody actually put the gun in the little kid's hand and sent him to the school.
He did it.
Adam Lanza did it as an individual.
He didn't tell anybody he was going to do it, or he'd have a team behind him.
He'd have a pregame meal.
He didn't have a coach telling him how to do it the night before.
He was on his own.
And yet we attempt to apply a collective solution to it because we make it, out of our own psychiatric or psychological needs, our own problem.
It has something about us.
There's something wrong with us.
There's something wrong with the society at large.
And this, by the way, is what enables the Democrats to instantly politicize events like this.
Is this immediate reaction that we're all responsible, we're all to blame, that there is a collective solution to individual problems.
And there isn't.
There is no collective.
There is no law that we can all get together on and agree and then pass and have Obama sign it that's going to stop this.
There is no collective solution.
People who think there are collective solutions write books with titles like It Takes a Village to raise an idiot.
And we know who the collectivists among us are.
They are almost exclusively Democrats.
But, for example, gun laws, and there's going to be a slew of them now attempted, especially Bite Me, in case you don't know.
Bite Me has a—I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
That's— That makes people nervous.
That's disrespectful and a little bit off-putting.
The vice president has a long history.
Well, I'm trying to be less threatening, Mr. Snirdly.
I'm trying to make young women less nervous as they listen to the program.
I'm trying to sound less confident, less sure of myself.
In fact, if you go back from the earliest days of this program, from the earliest days of criticism, what did I always tell you that the people that really didn't like this program are because I sounded so sure of myself?
Nobody's that sure of themselves.
Nobody.
Everybody has doubts.
Everybody's indecisive.
Everybody, and this guy here, I come along and I sound so damn sure about everything.
It's threatening.
And I want to be less threatening.
I want to be more metro-sexual, except for the weight loss.
I don't want to go that far.
But anyway, the vice president has a long history as a gun grabber.
He really does.
Joe Biden has never seen a gun control law that he did not like.
So you know, and I know that we're going to get, before the emotional reservoir that's really overflowing, before that dissipates, we're going to get a lot of people try a lot of gun laws to capitalize on this fevered pitch emotion that everybody's feeling right now and try to take advantage of something that's impossible, a collective solution to an individual problem.
Now, by the way, I don't want to be misunderstood on this.
I'm not saying that books, movies, TV shows, all these influences are irrelevant and don't play a role, but that does not mean that we all have culpability.
One of the left's tricks here in an event like this, I mean, they are the blame America first crowd on practically everything.
I don't care if it's global warming, war, starvation, thirst, pestilence, whatever.
It's our fault.
In fact, that's the foundational girding of their whole belief system that America needs to be fixed, that America is imperfect.
It's unjustly, immorally founded, as Obama believes.
So we do not have these, there is no collective solution to individual problems.
Gun laws will not cure emotionally ill human beings.
Will they?
All the gun laws in the world are not going to cure mental illness.
And all the gun laws in the world are not going to prevent people who really want to go get a gun from getting one.
So why are we going to do it?
Feel better.
Feel less guilty, less responsible, less culpable.
And after all that, feel like we're doing something.
What's the phrase?
I want to make a difference.
Yeah, I want to make a difference.
And people want to make a difference.
They want to feel like their lives mean something.
Meaning and matter and so forth.
And so it's seductive.
Collective solutions to individual problems, very seductive.
It's how Obama gets elected, by the way.
Collective solution to you not having a job.
Collective solution do you not have in the house you want?
Collective solution do you not have in the cell phone plan that you want.
But gun laws will not cure emotionally ill people.
What we can do is let people know some of the things that stir up emotional instability.
For example, in this case, the story's out now that the kid may have gone over the edge at the thought of being committed.
And in fact, there's a couple of stories I've seen that tell the story of a person who was told they're going to be committed and they committed suicide.
They want to be committed.
They want to go to the funny farm.
And that may have been a factor here, according to some news stories.
But movies and drugs and video games are more harmful to some people.
Some people are particularly vulnerable to that stuff.
Now, I watch trash, can't escape it.
I watch filth now and then until I figure out what it is.
And if it maybe makes me curious, I'll stick with it for a while.
The point is it doesn't turn me into any of these things, and it doesn't turn most people away from who they really are.
But it does on some people.
But you can't have a collective solution that applies to everybody, takes everybody's freedom away, for example, in order to try to stop the one or two or few exceptions that are out there.
And there are some young people who haven't fully formed their neurological systems, much less their morals and ethics.
So external influences are going to have more effect on them than on others.
Movies, drugs, video games are more harmful to some people than tobacco is, for example.
And yet look at the high horse we're on about tobacco.
I mean, tobacco, to the extent that people believe it's a killer, and they do, it's a long-term killer.
I mean, if you wanted to kill somebody today, you would not use tobacco, for example.
But tobacco, like some of these other influences, can cause harm decades after its use.
And it restricts itself to its user.
So, and by the way, and if you're on tobacco, you can work.
It doesn't impair your ability to do your job or anything else.
It's just now become so societally unacceptable.
But yet, what do we do?
We pass laws restricting smoking for adults, and we advertise fantasy games of mass murder that are used every day of children's lives.
And we produce movies that fantasize all these horrible, and the dead always don't stay dead.
They come back to life.
Young impressionable kid watches pulp fiction, and the next day they see John Travolt in the Bahamas after he got shot in pulp fiction.
Wow, okay, so he really doesn't die.
Depending on who's watching it, that can be a conclusion.
The problems of violent crime by mentally ill people challenge the best minds in the behavioral sciences.
And it's really, here we go.
I think it's a joke to have the president show up.
Clinton did it, Oklahoma.
The president doesn't have the answers here, but we're willing to invest in the idea that the president has there, particularly somebody like Obama who cares so much.
But it's misleading.
It's a false sense of security to trot out a president to appear before parents of children who've been murdered and have him say that had tighter gun laws been passed, the crime would never have been committed.
That is irresponsible.
It's intellectual fraud.
It's exactly what we do because it works.
It does have the ability, because of the evolution of our society and culture, to place all this faith and belief in one man, the president, no matter who he is, to fix all these things.
But it doesn't really fix anything.
And if you have somebody irresponsible in office who's willing to use these emotions to further advance a political agenda has nothing to do with mental health or preventing further events, then you have a problem.
And that's what I think we have.
Anyway, in addition to all of this, folks, we got the report on Benghazi.
Did you know that?
The independent panel review of Benghazi is out.
And you know what?
It says that mistakes were made.
Yes, there were mistakes made at our consulate in Benghazi, but nobody's really at fault.
And nobody is going to be disciplined.
How many of you saw that coming?
I did.
No, I mean, that was as predictable as I was so shocked when I read the Independent Panel Review today that said mistakes were made, but that nobody was at fault and that nobody is going to be disciplined.
I was so shocked by that outcome.
I almost fainted and I almost got a concussion.
So the president once again attempting to upstage me.
It's no accident, ladies and gentlemen.
His press availabilities start at noon on the day as he decides to do them or between noon and three on the days he decides to do them.
He just said he's I think the purpose of this press availability was to talk about guns and children and announcing Biden as the guy that going to be in charge of the regime's efforts to end gun violence.
But every question from the media is about the fiscal cliff.
Every one.
And Obama just got to making a case again for tax increases on the rich.
And he said, you know, look, I'm one of these people.
You ever notice how the rich talk about how rich they are?
Democrats talk about how rich they are.
I mean, Clinton, they never let a day go by without reminding everybody.
And Obama said, hey, look, you know what?
I'm in this group.
My taxes are going to go up.
I wish they weren't.
I'm sitting watching this.
I just mesmerized these.
My taxes are going as lambs.
Oh, somebody else is raising his taxes and nothing he can do about it.
My taxes are going up.
I really wish they weren't, but, you know, I understand there are things bigger than me.
And I think of the people out there who are really working.
And they may be holding down two or three jobs.
And we've got to do more for them.
And that's why we need a balanced approach.
That's why we've got to raise taxes on the rich.
The rich are going to have to pay a little more, do more for their fair share.
We've got to do something for the working people.
So what is that going to do for the working people?
It's going to penalize.
The little guy is going to get creamed here.
He starts raising everybody's taxes, particularly the taxes on people that do the hiring and firing.
I'm blue in the face.
It doesn't matter.
You know, the truth of anything doesn't matter anymore.
What's right doesn't matter.
What makes economic commonness doesn't matter.
I'm blue in the face.
I don't, I've got the point.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
Here, here's Richard Stingle.
Grab some.
We got time to squeeze this.
Yeah, here's Richard.
You know, I want to wait because I got two sound bites here.
And I want to play them back to back.
And I don't have enough time here to play them back to back.
But it's Richard Stingle, who's the editor of Time magazine, explaining why they chose Obama.
And it's a giant El Rushbo.
See, I told you so.
Stingell, and you will hear it coming up, essentially says that they chose Obama because he is a symbol, a champion of the new low-information American.
It's kind of funny to listen to it.
We'll do that.
We've got to take a brief time out here at the bottom, an obscene profit break, and we will be back and continue before you know it.
Okay, so it just happened again.
I don't care what I read.
I don't care what I hear.
It's all wrong.
No matter where I go, sports page, business page, my tech blogs, my beloved tech blogs.
A couple of them are just absolutely reprehensibly bad.
Obama just now.
You know, this deal, what the Republicans are going to have to do is they're going to take me out of the equation because really their problem is they just don't want me to win.
And they've got to start putting the people of this country first.
They're going to take me out of the equation.
They just biggest problem in these negotiations is that they're talking to me.
They don't like me so much they don't want me to win.
They're willing to screw the country or something.
Those are not exact words, but he said, look, they're getting everything they want.
They're getting $2 trillion spending cuts.
Nurse, nurse, please, somebody help me here.
$2 trillion spending cuts.
He actually said it.
They're getting $2 trillion spending cuts.
We're going to have a trillion dollars of new revenue.
I said, somebody call the doctor.
Somebody call an ambulance.
I need help.
I can't deal with this and stay focused anymore.
$2 trillion spending.
He said $2 trillion spending cuts at the end of it.
I said, what the hell does that mean?
Does that mean what I think it means?
Yes, it probably does.
He's promising $2 trillion of spending cuts in years 9 and 10 of the 10-year deal.
Well, anything beyond year one in a 10-year deal is irrelevant.
You can only make a budget deal for one year, and then you've got a new Congress at most two years.
You got a new Congress.
You got new year.
There's one-year deals.
There's no such thing as a 10-year deal.
Is it blueprint, but there's no deal for 10 years.
If there was a 10-year deal, we could send Congress home for 10 years, which might not be a bad idea, but still it's not going to happen.
And there aren't $2 trillion in spending cuts.
Obama's not offered $2 trillion in spending.
He's out there telling the media, $2 trillion.
They're getting everything they want.
Trillion dollars in new revenue.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter where you go.
Nothing.
Nothing is right.
So here's Richard Stengel on the Today Show today with a big announcement.
The man of the year.
A failing magazine with a dwindling subscription, a dwindling advertiser base, no longer relevant in the media world.
Still holds on to this man of the year thing.
Co-host Savannah Guthrie and the fill-in host David Gregory because Matt Wauer, I don't know, I think he was still trying to chase Ann Hathaway.
Did you hear what he did to Ann Hathaway?
Did you hear about this?
You know, Ann Hathaway had a wardrobe.
Did you hear about this, Brian?
Ann Hathaway, the actress, she was in the Devil Where's Is it Prada?
Prada.
Devil Where's Prada?
Then she was catwoman in the lace baddest man.
She showed up at some premiere red carpet thing, getting out of the car, and it was easily seen she wasn't wearing panties.
So you know what then, what the view was.
I mean, if you could tell she wasn't wearing panty, what the view was.
So it was highly embarrassing.
Everybody ran the pictures of it.
And her next appearance on the Today Show, Matt Lauer, said, well, we've sure been seeing a lot of you lately, which she dealt with it pretty well, pretty gracefully.
But anyway, he wasn't there.
Savannah Guthrie and Gregory, and here is Richard Stengel announcing Obama as the person of the year.
Our person of the year for 2012 is President Barack Obama.
He won re-election despite a higher unemployment rate than anybody's had to face in 70 years.
He's the first Democrat to actually win two consecutive terms with over 50% of the vote.
That's something we haven't seen since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
And he's basically the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of.
Yeah, what's that, I wonder?
So he won despite a higher unemployment rate than anybody had to face in 70 years.
Yeah, because it was Bush's fault.
In spite of the unemployment rate, and he's the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he's now the symbol of.
So Gregory said, well, what about some people who've pushed back on that this year, saying it was more about the lesser of two evils in the course of the campaign?
A lot of circumstances seem to be bigger than the president compared to when he was first shown.
I have no idea what that question means.
But here's the answer.
Our story by Michael Scherer, our White House correspondent, really probes deeply into the data folks at the White House who really helped make it happen.
And one of the things they found out is that there's about 15% of voters who actually don't care about politics.
These are the people we didn't know who were going to show up at the polls who actually like Barack Obama in the sense that they feel like he's outside of politics.
And that's it.
That's it.
That's why he's man of the year.
That's the new demographic.
We've been making jokes here about the low-information voter, and it turns out Time magazine honors Obama because he got him.
He turned low-information, apathetic voters into people who vote.
These are people that we didn't know who were going to show up at the polls actually like Obama in the sense they feel like he's outside of politics.
We've never had a more radical, we've never had a more partisan politician in the White House than Obama.
And it's only a low-information voter, we used to call them morons, that could think he's outside of politics.
But there you have it.
There you have it.
Time magazine, we chose Obama because he's a symbol of the new low-information America.
That's what Stingell meant when he talked about Obama being the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he's now the symbol of.
I wonder how these elite Democrats really think about.
So this guy is man of the year because idiots love him.
Because believe me, they think low-information voters are idiots.
I guarantee you.
They'll be glad to take their votes.
The new stupid America, that should have been man of the year.
Person of the year, stupid, the low-information voter should have been the person of the year.
Now back to Benghazi.
As the State Department began Tuesday to circulate a highly anticipated report into what happened in the September 11th Libya consulate attack, a separate analysis found that the first reference to an anti-Islam film that was initially blamed for sparking the attack was not detected on social media until a day later.
In other words, they analyzed all the social media in Libya, whatever their version of Twitter is, and maybe it's there, I don't know, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, MyBut.
They looked at all of that.
They could not find one reference to the video on the day of the attack.
Well, naturally, the video had nothing to do with it.
And yet this administration for three weeks Said that it was the video.
The whole Susan Rice five Sunday morning TV shows, it was the video.
It was Hillary Clinton and Obama in a TV ad in Pakistan, as it's pronounced now.
The video.
The filmmaker is still in jail.
This guy who made this video, nobody saw it from back in June.
And they did an analysis of social media in Libya.
They didn't find one reference to it, which means that whatever happened had nothing to do with the video.
An independent review of more than 4,000 postings on Libyan social media was conducted by leading social media monitoring firm.
Jeff Chapman, the chief executive of this monitoring firm, said, Look, from the data we have, it's hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie.
Nothing, nothing in the immediate picture surrounding the attack in Libya suggests that.
There was no mention of the movie.
It had nothing to do with it.
But it doesn't matter because that's old news now.
And we've got the Benghazi report out.
And mistakes were made, but nobody made them.
Mistakes were made.
That's admitted to in the report, but nobody made those mistakes.
Is essentially what the report says.
You understand why I'm reaching for the nurse button here?
I got to take another brief timeout, my friends.
We'll get to your phone calls at some point.
Maybe next.
Who knows?
Depends on how I feel when the Profit Center timeout's over with.
Okay, let's go to the phones.
I've decided that I want to go to the phones, and we're going to start in Orlando.
Hi, Jeff.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Rush Limber.
How are you doing today?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
I'm going to comment about that shooting in Connecticut and stuff.
I blame the parent on that.
I don't blame no gun laws, no gun right.
I blame the parents.
And somebody should sue that lady for Harry having that dangerous son around all them guns.
Somebody should sue her.
Somebody said, take that family to court and shoot and sue them.
So, you know what?
It's your fault to have that son around them guns.
You want to sue the mother?
Yes.
I want to sue her estate.
You know what?
That big old house she got.
She got a quarter million dollar house.
Okay, I was going to remind you that she was among the deceased.
She got an estate and she got a will.
That's the will being red.
That money says.
Sonny, it's the mother's fault because she had all those guns around such a disturbed young man.
Yes, sir.
And taught him how to use them.
Yes, sir.
But if she hadn't had the guns, she wouldn't have been able to teach him.
That's right.
She might have stuff.
She probably got some violability video games in the house and everything.
What do you?
I'm having trouble understanding your animus for her and why you want to sue her estate.
Okay, use, okay, use her for example.
If you, the parents in today's society, everybody say, I'm not responsible for this.
I'm not responsible for this.
I'm not responsible for that.
It's somebody else's fault.
Look in the mirror.
That is your responsibility.
If you don't want the responsibility for the adoption, get rid of it.
And I believe in that because I got two daughters and stuff.
If my daughters do wrong, any kind of way out there, I'm going to take responsibility for that.
I'm not going to blame anybody with all things.
Well, let me ask you this.
Let me ask you, how do you feel about Joe Biden being put in charge of all this?
Let him be in charge.
Still, the parents still responsible for their kids.
It's not nobody's responsibility but the parents.
Yeah, but I mean, how is Biden being in charge of this making it the parents' responsibility?
Well, the parents should say, you know what?
Who's in charge?
Some guys in the White House, or I should step it to the plate.
This is my kid.
I should be responsible for what my kids do in society.
If my kid goes outside to shoot, that's my, and I bought the gun for my kid, I'm still responsible.
If my kids get the kids to keep the keys and drive my car and run through them all.
All right, I haven't heard it.
Look, Jeff, I appreciate the call.
In everything I have heard, I have not heard this.
I have not.
No, this isn't collective.
This is the essence of individual.
This is, it's the mother's fault.
She should have had this child committed, certainly shouldn't have taught him anything at all about guns.
And if she was unwilling, she should have put him up for adoption.
This is, have you heard this theory that it's the mother's fault from anybody else?
Have you heard that theory?
Well, of course not in the elected class, but I mean, if you heard it, the elected class, it's the guns' fault.
Among the elected class, it's America's fault.
There's something innately wrong with America.
That's that the elected class is going to think that.
But in your talks with your friends, your associates, you have heard this.
You have.
I have not.
I have never heard, I have not heard this level of victory all aimed at the mother.
So does this mean, would this mean, for example, that parents should be responsible and go to jail for all of their kids' crimes?
Do you realize how many adults will be in jail in Chicago?
Well, how would that work in Chicago?
Or anywhere.
Well, I know.
I mean, if you strip it all away, the caller's point is you've got a demonstrably mentally ill child that you are teaching how to shoot guns within this survivalist context.
And what is the survivalist context?
Somebody's coming to get us, kid.
Son, they're coming to get us.
Or the days on earth are numbered and we're going to all have to fend for ourselves or whatever.
John in Effingham, Illinois.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
The last comment that you made is kind of my theory on what might have possibly happened.
The survivalist theory.
Maybe the mother over the last couple of years has been a doomsdayer over Friday the 21st.
And in his less than normal mental state that he obviously lived in, could he possibly have done this because he aimed his weapon at the children and at women?
Could he have possibly have done this as a type of mercy killing in his father's life?
I've heard that theory.
I've heard that theory put forth that, and this is from the charitable, are trying to say that the young man was actually in his own warped reality, saving people from the end of the world.
Which, yeah, it's not tomorrow, it's Friday.
It'll end sometime during Open Line Friday, I think, if I've read the calendar right.
Anyway, well, we can speculate all day long.
That's just a theory.
And then, of course, we have the latest bit of information that he cracked over being threatened with being committed to the funny farm.
And he didn't want that.
They don't want to know part of being institutionalized.
So he cracked over that.
You know, we're still learning things about why Javon Belcher did what he did.
We're still, there's a new story out today about why he went nuts.
And the latest version, the Chiefs player, latest version of that is that he is, the theory is that his girlfriend, his baby mama, was threatening to take the child and all of his money if he didn't marry her or stop seeing some other woman or some such thing.
You know, this idea of suing irresponsible parents, we might be able to clean up 75% of the country that way.
Stop and think about it.
I'm just floating with it here.
▲
Export Selection