All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
January 8, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, folks, this this day could be a total bomb because not much has gone to write this one of these days where I've got stacks of paper here, and I can't separate pages.
I'm trying to get one page and the pages are sticking together, and that really ticks me off.
And I just threw a cigar at the ashtray or at the wastebasket, which is only two feet away, and I missed.
And that ticks me off.
I mean, it's little stuff like that.
Just trying to plug in the audio feed to my belt-worn cochlear implant took me five seconds longer than usual.
That ticked me off.
So knows what's going to happen here when we get when the program starts unfolding before your very eyes and ear.
Just giving you a heads up.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Did you see where Iran's foreign ministry seems to be endorsing Chuck Hagel?
Obama's Oh!
Speaker, the Washington Post has noticed something.
The Washington Post has noticed that every Obama appointee is a white guy.
There aren't any women.
The women are being dispatched.
Lisa Jackson over to EPA, Susan Rice, Nomas.
She's gone.
We don't hear much from Valerie Jarrett.
We don't hear from uh uh Michelle my and the cabinet in the czarina ship.
Um well, there are no Zarinas.
It's it's all white males in the Obama camp.
And of course, the Washington Post, they don't criticize or condemn it.
They just sort of scratch their heads in curiosity as they as they notice it.
It it must be an oversight uh uh on the part of Obama because clearly good liberal, he's into diversity, and so it is it it it can't be something that's conscious.
No liberal, no good liberal, no good socialist could ever just besmirch diversity in this way.
And then I don't know if you noticed this or not, um, or if you've heard about this, but uh a number of Second Amendment defenders are planning a pro-gun rally on the mall in Washington on the Saturday before Obama's immaculation.
That is going to drive the drive-by's crazy.
They're already insane over guns.
They're insane over the fact that a majority of America, a clear majority wants guns.
They are they are blown away by the popularity of guns.
They are scared to death that so many people are now going and buying guns.
Because you see, the drive-bys, they they've they've tried everything they can.
They've they tried to make the second amendment uh uh to be something that was written for hunters.
Have you ever noticed that that's that what when you when you hear a liberal talk about the second amendment, they always say, well, I'm all for guns.
Clearly uh we should have guns for hunting.
That's not why the second amendment was written.
Founding fathers didn't put the second amendment the Constitution for hunters.
It if you read it, well armed militia, what the hell is that?
That that that it's clearly a militaristic implication.
Well, it's it's it's even more than an implication.
Uh and you know, nobody ever talks about the Third Amendment.
Do you know what the Third Amendment says off top here?
Anybody know what the Third Amendment says?
It's really fascinating.
Look at the Third Amendment, of course, comes right after the second.
That's that's simple math.
The Third Amendment is the one that says no citizen can offer housing to a member of the United States military under certain circumstances.
But it is obvious if you read the second amendment conjunction with the third, what the second amendment's all about.
And it's not about hunting.
Anyway, the drive-bys are just beside themselves because they've done everything they can in terms of wielding influence to discredit gun owners, gun buyers, gun manufacturers, gun sellers, gun users.
And still we have between 270 million and 300 million guns in the country.
And of course, the drive bys know that there really is no way that even Obama can issue an executive order and have everybody pick their guns up and have them turned in.
That just that won't fly.
So anyway, this big pro gun rally on the Saturday before Obama's immaculation.
They're gonna have a cow.
They are going to have a anyway.
Back to uh Iran.
The Iranian foreign ministry seems to be endorsing Chuck Hagel as Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense.
I think it's kind of funny the kind of people who endorse Obama and his picks, and we've made mention of this over the course of the past four years.
Look at the people who endorse Obama and speak positively about it.
Look at the people who sound like Obama and Democrats when they talk about this country.
There's Fidel Castro, there's Hugo Chavez, who may be, by the way, not very far from room temperature.
You know, Hugo Chavez a cancer.
Hugo Chavez went to Cuba for treatment for his cancer.
He made a political statement out of it, trying to fulfill this notion that the best health care in the world is in Cuba and it's free.
It's not the best.
Even Castro imported a doctor from Spain.
You know what was wrong with Castro?
When he was near death.
Castro didn't want to wear a colostomy bag.
Something happened, and that was what he was facing with.
He said, Nope, he told a doctor, look, just sew it up.
Just sew up my colon, sew it up.
Uh I'm not wearing a colost.
And he got infected very badly.
And they had to call in a uh doctor from Spain.
Hugo Chavez could have gone any number of places in South America with better medical care than Cuba, but he went to Cuba to make a political statement, which is what leftists do.
And it is said that he's in dire straits.
Anyway, Hugo Chavez endorses Obama and what he does, Mahmood Ahmed Izad.
And he is Iran.
And now he's applauding Chuck Hagel.
Actually, think about it, maybe it isn't funny.
But I mean, these people, when they sound like when they're criticizing America, they sound just like your average Democrat does.
Now the Iranians, and by the way, it is said that Hegel would probably be an ideal pick if you are of the belief that the Iranians should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
I mean, who are we to tell them that they can't?
And people are basing that assessment of Hegel on not only his uh statements, but uh his uh votes as, well, Washington Post is reporting that Obama is going to set another precedent for his immaculation instead of having someone of the cloth delivered the benediction, a genuine religious person.
Uh Washington Post says that Obama has picked a lay person.
Merley Evers Williams, who is the widow of the slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers.
Which is no skin off my back.
I couldn't care less.
But it's got to really tick off Jeremiah Wright.
I mean, the elections are over now.
There's no reason to pretend that Jeremiah Wright's not your best but there's no reason to pretend that that church is not yours.
If you're gonna bring in somebody from the civil rights era, go ahead and get Reverend Wright.
He doesn't have to hide him anymore.
I don't know.
I just observations.
The New York Times.
The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen, has finally found an area where the federal government should cut spending.
The New York Times has finally, after an exhaustive search, found an area where the government is spending too much money.
And you know what it is?
Enforcement of immigration law.
That's exactly the New York Times believes that we're spending way too much money enforcing immigration law.
It's just too costly.
The headline, huge amounts spent on immigration, comma study fines.
The regime spent nearly $18 billion on immigration enforcement last year, significantly more than its spending on all the other major federal law enforcement agencies combined, according to a report published Monday by the Migration Policy Institute, and of course nonpartisan research group in Washington, the Migration Policy Institute.
What the heck is a migration policy incident?
And how in the world could it be nonpartisan?
Anyway, they've done an exhaustive nonpartisan study, and they've found that we're spending way too much money enforcing immigration law.
So the New York Times can finally say we're on board with cutting spending.
The migration policy institute obviously is not a nonpartisan research group.
It's a radical open borders organization, and it's uh bought and paid for by George Soros.
So, George, I don't know, folks.
I get somewhat of a giddy mood to me.
Really, all you can do is laugh.
And yes, we we have our low information voter segment coming, and it keeps building.
If I did it all, I'd probably have an hour's worth of low information news, low information voter news today, and we'll get to some of it.
Controversy erupted at the Illinois Labor History Society salute to Labor's historic heroes from the History Makers Today Conference.
That's the title of a meeting.
The Illinois Labor History Society had a salute to Labor's historic heroes from the history makers of today.
It was a conference.
Karen Lewis, the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, was one of the speakers.
She drew applause, loud applause, and laughs.
During her comments, we have the first of two audio sound bites here.
Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them.
Please understand that.
However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages.
The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill.
They weren't.
They were just ready.
That's like off with their heads.
They were seriously talking about that.
I guess she is too.
That's Karen Lewis, who is the Chicago Teachers Union grand poopah, had honcho, and she is talking about the wealthy and the rich.
Now, again, play these sound bites if we had them 10, 15 years ago, and we'd sit here and laugh, and we would joke about it.
And I would make some comment about how, you know, folks, they um people really believe this, but nobody is actually going to believe this.
This is so outrageous.
It's so over the top talking about killing the rich.
And I was wrong 10, 15 years ago.
They do respond positively.
She does mean it.
And so does people, so do people in the audience.
They do have this degree of hatred and resentment, and it is being ginned up by people like Karen Lewis.
And it is something that Obama is playing off of, and it is something Obama is using to advance his agenda.
Do not think for a minute the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them.
Well, what does that mean?
It means that the civilized way to go about this would be to pass laws taking money away from the rich.
But she's upset the rich aren't just gonna sit there and let that happen.
And so we're gonna maybe have to take more drastic action.
And then she cites labor leaders from the past who were ready to kill.
And her audience laughs.
And some of them applaud.
And then she goes on to say that the rich think nothing of killing her and people like her and people in her audience.
They think nothing about killing us.
They think nothing about putting our people in harm's way.
They think nothing about lethal working conditions.
Which side are you going to be on?
So are we going to be on the side of justice?
Are we going to be on the side of a living wage for every person?
Or are we going to be on the side of people whose entire mentality is based on a lot?
Job creators.
Really?
Then why have we lost so many jobs?
It's what we're up against.
This years ago, we'd laugh at it.
I would sit here and think, boy, nobody's going to believe this.
Not that nobody's going to believe it.
I was everybody's going to see this for the insanity that it is, or for the extremism that it is.
I was wrong.
People eat it up.
They fall right in line.
They think nothing about killing us.
The rich, owners of factories, and now owners of football teams.
and Who, if they would have gotten away with it, would have allowed RG3 to die in that game on Sunday.
They knew he was hurt, but they put him out there anyway.
They knew he couldn't barely walk, but they put him out there anyway.
They don't care.
They're killing us.
Lethal working conditions.
Job creators, it's a lie.
Why have we lost so many jobs?
Now you and I, you and I know exactly why we've lost so many jobs.
The reason we've lost so many jobs are because of the policies of the federal government over the years.
And policies that have been put in place and exacerbated by Obama.
But there's no way that Karen Lewis thinks that, and there's no way the people in her audience think that.
You know what has been successfully engineered here?
The middle class, a lot of people in the middle class think they were once rich, but that when they weren't looking, the rich came along and stole what they've got.
And that's how the rich got rich.
Don't poo-poo it.
There are a lot of people who actually believe it.
Just as people like Samuel L. Jackson or Jamie Fox or the Reverend Sharpton are able to persuade blacks today that there is still slavery.
So there are people in the lower middle class who think they once had a lot of money and that they lost it one day when they weren't looking, and the rich came along and took it.
And that's how the rich got rich.
And the rich are hoarding it all.
And the rich don't want to share it and give any back.
And so we've got to legislate it or take it or what have you.
And Obama is winning on that basis.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Folks, I have a major correction to make.
I was totally misinformed, and there's a lesson there.
There is not a gun rally on the Maug.
Gun groups are not going to rally on the mall.
Instead, what's being called for a gun appreciation day on the Saturday prior to Obama's inauguration.
No gathering on the mall.
Gun appreciation day.
Gun owners are being encouraged to tear down en masse at gun stores, gun ranges, gun shows from coast to coast.
Be as public as they can.
Their support of guns on the Saturday prior to Obama's inauguration.
And I was misinformed when I was told that there was a rally on the mall on the Saturday beforehand.
I probably couldn't get a permit for that.
Did you we watched the football game last night?
Did you see Brent Musberger going nuts over the Alabama quarterback's wife?
Did you see that?
We have the audio sound bites.
Brent Musberger, CBS sports.
You see that lovely lady there.
She does go to offer.
I want to admit that, but she also, this Alabama, and that's AJ McCarron's girlfriend, okay?
And right there on the right is Didi Bonner.
That's AJ's mom.
Wow, I'm telling you, quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women.
What a beautiful woman.
Wow.
He's AJ's doing some things right down the show.
So if you're a youngster in Alabama, start getting the football out and throw it around the backyard with Pops.
Brent Musberger during Alabama Notre Dame last night.
Gail King and Charlie Rose on CBS talked about this this morning.
I think it's so unbecoming when a grown man slobbers and drools.
You want to say to Brent Downboy, down boy.
Yeah, she's good looking.
Down.
There you go.
There you go.
So Oprah's best friend Gail King called it unbecoming when a grown man drools, and the drooling Charlie Rose agreed right along with her.
We've got to take brief timeout, sit type.
We'll be back with much more after this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a question.
Just a question on the culture on New Year's Eve, and we talked about this yesterday, might have been last week.
On New Year's Eve on CNN, Anderson Cooper was hosting the ball drop ceremony in Times Square.
And he had on his usual co-host, Kathy Griffin, who engaged in simulated oral sex on Anderson Cooper right there on TV.
She went down on Anderson Cooper, who was fully clothed.
The reaction to it wasn't that revolutionary.
Why, isn't that cutting edge?
And people laughed about it and had a good time with it.
In fact, there wasn't much of a reaction to it.
Letterman thought it was cool.
Anderson Cooper thought it was cool.
He had her on his show the next night to talk about it even more.
But clearly that's outside the norms of what was used to be anyway, acceptable public behavior.
CNN, which is in the midst of attempting to put its image back together.
An image of respectable journalism.
Trust and all that.
And then in New Year's Eve in the ball drop, they give this acknowledged D-List celebrity airtime, and she performs this simulated.
Well, she did a Lewinsky.
I mean, if we did a Lewinsky there on Anderson Cooper.
And of course, nobody, I think maybe one of the reasons nobody had a cow over it is everybody knows that Anderson Cooper's gay, so the thing had to be a simulation.
But it's still, even when I mentioned HR, who will go to great lengths to excuse reprobates, said, yeah, but you can only see half of it on the screen.
Well, you saw enough of the half of it on the screen to know what was going on.
My point is that there certainly wasn't any outrage over it.
In the mass media, well, if it had made Anderson Cooper straight, we wouldn't have known that.
So that's not a factor.
We don't think that his sexual orientation was changed after this because it was a simulation.
My point is that nobody really had a problem with it.
The pop culture, low information entertainment media places thought it was just cool as hell.
Brent Musberger, however.
Last night during Alabama Notre Dame, the BCS championship game, happens to see Miss Alabama in the audience, happens to see if it's a note that it's the quarterback's girlfriend and goes gaga, and everybody's having a cow over it.
Dirty old man drooling.
Who does he think he is?
Gail King on CBS this morning thinks it's insulting, that it's that it's uh demeaning, uh unbecoming when a grown man slobbers and drools over a pretty woman.
So I guarantee there's there is more criticism and maybe more embarrassment for Musberger than there was over Anderson Cooper and Kathy Gribbon.
Now compare the two.
All Musburger did was what a lot of people consider pretty normal in Nash.
You See a pretty pretty woman and you go, ooh, wow, look at that babe.
Which is something that happens multiple times a day.
But you don't see a D list celebrity do a Lewinsky on a CNN anchor every day.
I just I find it all these various cultural reactions fascinate me.
Now, as you know, Al Gore has sold uh his his TV network Current TV to Al Jazeera.
And a couple of things about this.
Yesterday morning, the staff, the still shell-shocked staff at Current TV, was called to an all hand staff meeting at their headquarters in San Francisco.
And that meeting was teleconferenced to their offices in Los Angeles and New York City, where the staff at Al Gore's network could meet their new bosses from Al Jazeera.
And Al Jazeera sent two of its top guys.
Ehab Al Shahabi, the executive director of international operations, and Mufta Al Sawaitan, the general manager of the London Bureau of Al Jazeera.
Al Gore was not there.
His partner, Joel Hyatt was.
Joel Hyatt, just so you know, is the son-in-law of the late Senator from Ohio, Howard Metzenbaum.
And the story in the New York Post about this is about how the staffers at Al Gore's network were not happy.
They're disillusioned.
They can't believe that Al Gore would sell the network to Al Jazeera.
They can't believe they're working for Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera, now stop and think about this, by the way.
Al Jazeera was made possible by oil money.
It's owned by the Emir of Cutter.
And Cutter has money for one reason oil, which Al Gore hates, at least publicly.
Al Gore is almost, from what I'm told, almost a billionaire based simply on his positions on global warming.
He has monetized a fraudulent hoax position on global warming to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.
Al Jazeera was purchased for 500 million dollars.
And of that 500 million, Al Gore got 100 million.
Al Jazeera has 75,000 viewers.
There is no way this network is worth 500 million dollars.
There is no way it's worth 100 million dollars to Al Gore.
Not in the standard ways using multiples, billing, audience, and the standard ways that you would measure value of a media property.
There is no way Al Jazeera or anybody else would pay 500 million dollars for a network that nobody watches.
And yet they did.
And there's a reason why they did.
By the way, at this staff meeting, Jennifer Granholm, who um, you know, I wondered the other day if if uh Jennifer Granholm and Joy Bear, who also has a show there, are now going to be made to wear Burkas.
And what impact that might have on audience ratings.
And if if if Grand Holman Behar wear Burkas, it might improve ratings.
But former Vice President Al Gore has has almost called for terrorism against oil companies.
This is this is no small thing, folks.
Al Gore has given that let me tell you the reason that the $500 million is not really the audience.
It's the number of homes that the network reaches.
It's the potential audience that might justify 500 million, but even that's a stretch.
Al Gore succeeded in getting this network on a bunch of big cable systems so that theoretically Al Jazeera reaches 80% of the eyeballs in the country via cables.
Not that that many watch it, but that it's on their cable systems.
Now many of these cable systems took the network simply because of Al Gore.
They love to get rid of it.
They don't want to pay anything for it.
They don't want it occupying space, and they're using this as an opportunity to get rid of the network, which is where Al Gore comes in.
And why he was paid $500 million for this.
Look at it this way.
Think about it this way.
If you were going to sell yourself for millions of dollars to a movement that has as its goal to infiltrate and overcome the United States of America, who better than Al Gore to partner with.
If you're Al Gore and you have value, here is a way to demonstrate it.
Look at what's happening, folks, in our country.
We are currently using light bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs, that are filled with mercury.
They have now been found to cause skin cell death and cancer and uh of course there's the hazmat danger.
If one of these things breaks in your home, you've got to call hazmat people to come and have it removed.
There's no reason that we've should have compact fluorescence mandated.
There's no reason to ban the incandescent light bulb other than the political pressure brought to bear by the advancement of a hoax issue, i.e., global warming, saving the planet, saving the climate.
Al Gore has succeeded in profound ways in furthering this hoax.
He's got people convinced that driving all because of a movie that he made that's filled with things in it that are not true.
In fact, you could say, and I will say, that as far as many children are concerned and susceptible gullible adults, the picture, the fraudulent picture in Gore's movie, Earth in the Balance of a polar bear on a small sheet of ice probably has had more impact and more effect, more success in convincing quote unquote people that there's global warming.
That picture of a polar bear on a small sheet of ice conveyed that the ice is melting, that the natural habitat for the polar bear is melting, and it's melting because of us.
It's melting because of the cars we drive, the light bulbs that we use, the amount of fossil fuels that we use, it's all there in Gore's movie.
The problem is stuff isn't melting, the polar bears are not threatened, their population's exploding, and that picture was fraudulent.
Polar bears can swim 60 miles.
Polar bears frolic on those little slivers of ice, but it was portrayed as its home.
That picture's been everywhere, not just in Al Gore's movie, but it was prominently there.
So because of that picture, you could say, and all of Al Gore's movie and the 20 plus years that make up this hoax.
We've got light bulbs that are threats.
We got light bulbs that are not nearly as effective as the ones they were mandated to replace.
Now, if you're Al Jazeera and you have as an objective to have your chance at influencing the American people to accept your worldview of things, who better than a guy like Al Gore to buy do it?
Look at all he succeeded at doing.
We have been forced into these crappy light bulbs.
We have been forced into a number of lifestyle choices, and there will be more coming.
We are we are forced into manufacturing and buying automobiles nobody wants under the false premise that we are destroying the planet and these new light bulbs and cars will save the planet.
We are being forced into accepting higher taxes, bigger government, because we must pay the price for our extravagant lifestyles, which have led to the death of the polar bear and the destruction of the climate.
We're forced into All of these laws by our elected officials passed after being lobbied by environmentalist wackos.
And that image of a lost polar bear floating on the last remaining piece of ice on Earth, which was the image behind that picture.
All of this fraud is based on a made-up hoax, global warming, climate change, and sold to us by Al Gore, who's become almost a billionaire in the process.
He has been a relentless advocate and promoter of this thoroughly disproval, disprovable concept of climate change or man-made climate change and global warming.
So if you pull yourself away from it, you have to say, in an objective way, he's done a hell of a job promoting this hoax that he believes in.
He's done one hell of a job making it accepted.
He's done one hell of a job convincing entire governments and populations that his hoax is real.
If he's that effective for the environmentalist wackos at spreading countless numbers of lies, you gotta think that Al Jazeera has got to be asking themselves what could this guy do for us?
And so they're thrilled to pay him 500 million dollars for a network that nobody watches.
You might say it's a brilliant move on their part, business wise.
Look who they've got as a lobbyist now.
Look at how effective it look at the credibility still got projecting a hoax.
Now, seriously, folks, stop and think of it.
Here's Al Gore, who has become extremely wealthy, perpetuating, personifying a hoax that is in large part based on the dangers of oil.
Oil, fossil fuels are destroying the climate.
Our use of these fuels is destroying the climate, is creating global warming, and there's nothing good about that in Al Gore's view.
And yet, who does he accept money from?
He accepts, he sells his network for 500 million dollars to the grand poops of Qatar, which only have that money to give or to buy with because of oil.
Now you could say, well, he's taken them to the cleaner's rush, he sold him something it's not worth anything worth.
No, no, that's not what's happened.
That is not what's happened.
Al Gore has accepted money from an industry, a nation state and industry that he tells everybody else needs to be shut down.
And what did he sell them?
He sold them a propaganda arm.
He sold them a cable network that does reach 70, 80% of the eyeballs in this country.
So he took oil money.
Anybody think that that's not on the up and up?
Why would Al Gore want to have anything to do with big oil?
He hates them.
They're the reason that we are threatened.
They are the reason that we're endangered.
They're the ones that have been lying to us.
They've been the polluters.
And I think the reason they bought him is because he's obviously good at spreading propaganda.
Al Jazeera obviously has a worldview.
Al Jazeera, like any other news network, would love to be able to persuade everybody that watches it to agree with their worldview.
Their worldview is not one friendly to us.
As a country rooted in Western civilization.
Al Jazeera doesn't have much to say about Western civilization that's good, and yet they partner with Al Gore, who supposedly hates oil.
So he Gets even richer, gives them a propaganda arm, and remains involved, perhaps as a consultant.
So I mean, I and then Jennifer Grant.
What's funny about this staff meeting?
Jennifer Granholm asked about severance packages for people like her who are quitting.
And uh Joel Hyatt, Al Gore's partner, told her to shut up.
Total, total disrespect.
Back after this.
So great to be with you each and every day.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, an opportunity to discuss all these crucially important things with you.
Such a thrill and delight, and we got two more hours staring us straight in the face.
We'll get right to them when we get back, which will be sooner than you think.
▲
Export Selection