All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
January 8, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, and that's documented by the latest opinion on it of me.
That is Sullivan Group.
Now in Long Beach, California.
Sullivan Group moved under cover of darkness one night and I didn't even know it.
Anyway, documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
A new study is predicting that health premiums could increase as much as forty percent for young adults once Obamacare goes into effect in 2014.
The concern, according to a study published in Contingencies Magazine, is that an influx of relatively healthy people are going to tip the balance away from those with immediate health needs, and that is going to drive up the cost for individuals between 21 and 29.
And this is in the Hill.com.
That means that close to four million uninsured individuals can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would, even given the availability of premium assistance, said the uh the author of this particular study.
Now I remember that Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in half in his first term.
He's going to reduce health care premiums by $2,500 a year.
And that if you liked your doctor, you were going to be able to keep your doctor.
If you liked your plan, you were going to be able to keep your plan.
And it's just a shame.
None of that's working out.
Health premiums are going to be going up by minimum $2,500.
dollars.
The deficit in the debt, we all know what happened there.
But you know, Obama's a nice guy.
Don't blame him.
Things don't work out.
Blame Bush.
But these are all mission accomplished items.
Uh government safety agency is very upset.
Do you know that electric cars don't make any noise?
You get in your Chevy Vault, you drive down the road, uh, and low information voters may be crossing the street, and you run right into them because they don't hear you.
Yeah, they can be looking right at you in your Chevy Vault or your or your Tesla, whatever it is you've got, your electric car, but it doesn't make any noise.
And so what a low information voter is pointing at your car and admiring it, you run him down.
So a government safety agency wants electric and hybrid cars to make more noise when traveling at low speeds so that pedestrians and low information voters can hear them coming.
The cars and trucks, which are much quieter than conventional evil gasoline or diesel-powered cars, don't make enough noise at low speeds to warn low information walkers and bicyclists, and of course the low information visually impaired.
This according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
So the proposed rule would require the that the these cars to make additional noise at speeds under 18 miles an hour.
The government says the cars make enough noise to be heard at higher speeds.
The automakers would be able to choose the sounds that the cars make from a range of choices.
So what would happen is that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would make a database available of acceptable noises that your car could make, and then your car manufacturer would choose from that database which sound their car would make.
There would be a range of choice.
Boy, is this not freedom or what?
Similar it is.
It's like picking a ringtone on your cell phone.
Or it's like choosing the voice that speaks to you on your computer.
Isn't this cool?
And is the government making this possible because they really care about us?
Similar vehicles would have to make the same sounds, and the government says that pedestrians must be able to hear the sounds over background noises.
Uh on the uh on the proposed rule, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will use public input as they craft the final rule.
Now they have estimated that new noise programmed into these new cars would prevent twenty-eight hundred low information voter pedestrian and cyclist injuries during the life of each model of electric and hybrid vans, trucks, and cars.
Who knew that these things were death machines?
I bet nobody stopped to think when he started putting together the electric car and designing it.
I bet nobody stopped to think.
You know what?
Low information voters are not going to be able to hear these things at low speeds.
But thankfully, the government, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, thought this through.
And so now there will be a database of acceptable noise that the manufacturer can choose.
And I assume you get to participate in choosing what noise your car may.
I do not have a list of the noises.
I don't know what noises could they be?
What noises do standard regular killer cars make?
Occasionally somebody might toot the horn.
But I mean, this is you got all kinds of possibilities here.
People could be really creative with the noise.
Imagine giving their car a voice.
So that under 18 miles an hour, your car actually starts talking.
Making sure that low information voters on the sidewalk don't cross the street in front of you and get wiped out.
By the way, this rule is required by the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act.
And that law was passed by Congress in 2010.
I didn't hear about that law either.
Last Friday, on Open Line Friday, we had a call from a guy who wanted to comment on the idea that had been put forth.
You might remember this.
That the Federal Reserve would manufacture, or the government, somebody would manufacture a platinum coin that would be said to be worth one trillion dollars.
And then the Federal Reserve would deposit that coin.
And we got a trillion dollars.
They just manufacture the coin.
See, you can't do that with other elements.
Can't do it with gold, silver, because that's already control.
But platinum, there aren't nearly as many controls, apparently.
So you could manufacture one coin, and the government could just say it's worth a trillion dollars.
And you put that in a bank and then you draw down on it.
If you're the government, you start spending it.
It's a trillion dollar coin.
So we had this guy calling, talking about this is crazy.
It makes no sense.
It's not founded in anything substantive.
It's not real.
Well, the idea is catching on.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times loves the idea.
Which means that on every Democrat website and blog, millions of Americans are going to think that this is a good idea and worthwhile.
This was a serious proposal.
Paul Krugman, New York Times website, said that Obama should circumvent the debt ceiling by having the Treasury meant this trillion dollar coin, just one.
If you could do two coins, it'd be two trillion, and so on.
And that coin would then be given to the Federal Reserve, and that would free up a trillion dollars of additional borrowing.
It would not be used to pay down the debt.
No, no, no.
It would be used for additional spending.
So Paul Krugman wrote, should President Obama be willing to print a one trillion dollar platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into the fault.
And Krugman said, yep, absolutely.
People are serious about this.
People on the left think that this is a brilliant idea.
Including Paul Krugman.
So of this, the Republicans have introduced a bill that would ban the creation of a trillion dollar platinum coin.
Now, folks, you have to admit that this is this is the kind of stuff that banana republics do.
I mean, this is this is absurd, but it has the support of leading leftist democrat journalists and economists, such as Paul Krugman.
A trillion just uh a platinum coin that's worth probably 85 cents would just be said to be worth a trillion dollars, and the government could spend it.
It'd be a trillion dollars found, and we wouldn't have to print any additional money.
It it's a miracle.
Gotta take a quick time out.
We'll come back and get to your phone calls after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, welcome back.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
And fairness is what it's all about, and that's what we're devoted to here.
And we always have been.
And we start on uh let's see, Palm Coast, Florida with Alex.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you here with us.
Hey, Rush.
Listen, I'd like to touch in on this issue about uh Al Jazeera.
Yeah.
Okay, um first off, I would like to say that I am a Republican.
Um I recently took a trip, my first trip to Europe, uh English or the only English channel that I was able to watch was the Al Jazeera Network.
And I had my preconceptions from the United States on the credibility of the network and everything, and you know, I kind of took it with a grain of salt when I started watching, but the more that I started watching, the more I started realizing that it wasn't the terrorist network that I think that Americans think that it is.
Um they take a very easy hang hang on j just one brief moment.
Okay.
You you started out by saying that you are a Republican.
Right.
Now that's cool.
Uh, but but why is that important?
I think that particularly the Republican Party um ha has these views.
I think that the people who are more liberal t don't have as hard a line on the on the idea that Al Jazeera is a terrorist network.
I think that's kind of pushed more by the by the Republican side of our country.
It is.
Okay.
Republicans push the idea that Al Jazeera is a terrorist network.
Well, per particularly conservative people like Bill O'Reilly, I've seen like uh, you know, on his show, um, you know, push pushing the the idea that it's more of a terrorist network and that it can't be taken, you know, seriously.
Okay.
Uh I I haven't seen so much of that on CNN.
But um I I would like to just touch on the issue that I don't think that I I think that they are a very credible network.
I think that they're more along the lines of BBC World News and the way that they um portray news.
So the fact that Al Gore Yeah uh BBC is as almost admittedly now far left as you can get.
Well, far left, I mean, look, there is conservative and liberal point of view, but at the same time, you know, Al Gore is a Democrat.
He sold it to somebody that he thought was in line with his, you know, beliefs, which is, you know, more of a liberal ideology.
But to say it's anti American is to say something different than saying that it's liberal.
Well, wait a minute.
Who who says they're that they're anti Western every look at I mean are you really want to make the case that Al Jazeera is objective, unopinionated, uh that that they don't represent a world view?
Well, look, everybody represents a world view.
Every network that you're gonna watch is gonna represent a world view.
I just think that the way that they portray news, you can be if you can be from either side of the aisle, you can be in the United States, and you can watch their news and you can you can judge it fairly.
You can watch it like you can watch any other network.
I don't think that it's anything um I don't think that it's anything ridiculous that they are coming to the United States.
I think that they do have a worldview, but you know, viewers can tune in, they can assess, but don't think they're anti-called.
Have you ever heard of the uh journalist named David Marish?
Yes, I have, and I saw him on CNN after um I remember he was a journalist for uh he he was a journalist for the network after he quit.
He was.
And after he quit, he resigned from his position as the Washington anchor for Al Jazeera English in 2008.
He cited reflexive adversarial editorial stances against Americans and anti-American bias is the reason that he resigned.
Right.
And I hear I watched him too.
I remember he went on um he went on Fox News, he went on CNN, and he talked about that.
And you know, he said a couple things.
Um a lot of the first off there has been power test in in the network recently.
You know, since the time that he started there and all that, and he said that um it wasn't so much American bias that it was it it's not like they injected it in the news, he just felt it in the newsroom, and you know, you can still take that, whatever.
Well, now wait, see he did say that.
You're taking what he said, and you're telling me that he didn't say it.
Or that he didn't mean it.
And he did say it.
But that's not my point with this.
You said it.
Al Gore shares a worldview, Democrat Democrat with Al Jazeera.
And yet you've called here to make the case that it's no big deal, they're fairer and better and more balanced than American news.
That's not my point.
That was not the point at all.
I think it's fascinating, though, that you wanted to call and defend Al Jazeera editorially.
I think but that's not what I was talking about.
Um my my whole monologue on this has to do with with the fact that Al Gore has demonstrated himself to be a class triple A propagandist.
Al Jazeera has a vested interest in the part of the world they represent triumphing.
That is undeniable.
They've hired a guy, they bought a guy who will now become a lobbyist for them to help expand their footprint or their influence.
Now here's Al Gore, who has made his name post politics as being anti-oil, anti-fossil fuels, anti-conventional energy, who just got in bed with conventional energy.
He just got in bed with oil wells.
He has gotten rich condemning them, and yet he's now taking their money to further enhance his own wealth and to help them expand their footprint.
Whatever their footprint is, whatever it ends up being.
All I'm trying to do is explain, you know, because people are saying, what why would they pay $500 million for a network nobody watches?
That's not what they were buying.
They were buying distribution of this network.
They're buying an opportunity to program it the way they want, and they're buying Al Gore as a means of helping them.
So Al Gore is going to end up, and already has, offered considerable assistance to a bunch of people he's gotten rich condemning.
It's my only point.
Who's next?
Uh, David Mattoon, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate you taking the call.
Um and I want to say thanks also.
I was raised a Kennedy Democrat.
Uh I was born in 1959.
So I was raised at the Kennedy Democrat, and after serving in the Navy and listening to you when you first went national, I was converted.
So uh thank you very much.
You bet, sir.
Uh I was wanting to comment uh earlier you had mentioned about the low information lower income class uh feeling that the federal government had swooped in while they weren't looking and took all of their money.
Uh I don't understand where they think it's going, or you know, they surely can't explain.
They're not thinking.
No, no, this is pretty an emotional thing.
It's it's not that they it it's not that the government is swooped in, it's the rich have swooped in and taken what they have.
Uh look, I've only got 30 seconds in this segment, but I'm gonna have to expand on this in the in the next segment.
But this is a common emotional ploy that has been used and is continued to be used, is continually used in order to um persuade people within the confines or under the umbrella of grievance politics.
And that is what's happening.
Let me expand on this when we get to take a another obscene profit time out here at the bottom of the hour.
We'll do that and I'll explain in even greater detail when we get back.
Okay, before I uh finish the story that I started with a previous caller, I'm gonna go back to Al Jazeera for a second because the call we had, I I don't think the caller that we had on Al Jazeera is a disconnected consumer of news.
I think he was calling here to defend Al Jazeera on the merits as a news network, as a news organization.
He was calling to defend them compared to BBC, better than CNN, but so forth.
Um a number of people do.
Um Colin Powell, lady, that the titular head of the GOP says he watches Al Jazeera.
Hillary said that and Obama have have both say they watch Al Jazeera and they've praised it.
They've said that it is great.
Hillary said Al Jazeera is the model of new reporting.
And that's exactly what Al Jazeera wants people to think.
Now, in addition to the connection that I've made Al Gore and Al Jazeera, and I think that's the big story here, and not what not what kind of news network Al Jazeera is, but I'm gonna get into that here.
But I the real thing that people want to have, why why would they pay 500 million dollars?
Nobody why they've literally, folks, they've got 64, 65,000 viewers, tops.
You don't pay 500 million dollars for that.
You do pay 500 million dollars to get a good lobbyist, and that's what they got with Al Gore.
I I look whatever you think of Al Gore, objectively, we have to say the guy is pretty good at what he does.
He has perpetuated a hoax, he's gotten rich off of it, he has persuaded millions of people that it's true.
If you are Al Jazeera and you are seeking similar success, having people think that you are what you want them to think, who better than a guy like Gore?
He he comes already with with a lot of people credibility.
He does that movie, he does that book, he puts that fraudulent photo of the polar bear up there on a little sheet of ice, and little kids all over the country say, Mommy, mommy, we got that killing of polar bears.
And the parents go out and buy cheap little cars and light bulbs, and people start blaming themselves for climate change when there isn't any man-made climate change, blaming themselves for global warming, start accepting bigger government, accepting, accepting tax increases, accepting the notion they got to buy things they don't want in order to save the planet.
I mean, it's really been successfully well done.
And and the irony is it Gore has become what he has become.
Targeting big oil, big oil, fossil fuel, it is the number one enemy.
It is who Al Gore is attempted to get everybody to hate.
And yet, who did he just get in bed with?
And the important thing is what Gore is going to do for Al Jazeera going forward.
Now, about Al Jazeera.
To understand Al Jazeera, you have to understand the difference between Islamist and Islamist terrorist.
And Islamist is not a Muslim.
You must understand this.
Terms are specific and they have meaning.
Words mean things.
An Islamist is any Muslim person or institution that wants to impose Sharia law.
And Islamist terrorist wants to do it via terrorism.
And Islamist terrorist will accomplish the objective or seek to by pursuing radical objectives through terrorism.
Now, Al Jazeera is not Islamist terrorist, but they are openly Islamist.
They're not who they're not.
They're not an island in the world of Islam that's not Islamist.
They are who they are.
Now, you may not be comfortable hearing it, and you might not want to hear it, but it is what it is.
You remember I'm the mayor of Realville.
The most popular show on Al Jazeera is called Sharia and Life.
It is hosted by a sheikh, Sheikh Yusuf Kardalwi.
And he happens to be the top jurist in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now running Egypt.
Who, by the way, Mr. Morsey has now gone public again with demanding the blind sheikh back.
Omar Abdel Rahman, who is in jail here.
He said it was the first thing that he said when he was elected president, and even his campaign.
First thing he was going to do is demand the return of the blind sheikh.
That will happen.
Mark my words, we will release the blind sheikh, and we'll do it under the guise, the poor guy's diabetic, he can't see, he's blind, he's uh wasting away.
Uh and just like the Brits gave away the Pan Am Bomber, we'll give away the blind sheikh, supposedly the last days of his life, so you can live them out at home and family and friends, blah, blah.
I know this is going to happen.
But I am wandering off course a bit here.
Al Jazeera is openly Islamist.
Their most popular show is Sharia and Life, and it's hosted by Sheikh Yusuf Kardawi, who's the top jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The network, just like the Muslim Brotherhood, pretends to be opposed to terrorism.
But they support Hamas, they support Hezbollah.
They do it by rationalizing that these are just resistance and political organizations, not terrorist groups.
Now, I don't want anybody to think that I have just said that every Muslim is an Islamist.
They're not, and it's why I'm making the point here.
The difference here is between Islamist and Islamist terrorists.
Islamists and Islamist terrorists have the same objective.
They just go about it different ways.
And Al Jazeera wouldn't get on one cable network if they're openly advocating terrorism to achieve their objective.
So they're doing it under the guise of news.
You can't blame them.
If you're part of Muslim Brotherhood, or if you are an oil sheik in the Middle East, and you're looking at ways to spread the word about what you believe in your heart of hearts, and you study the rest of the world and look at people who've succeeded, you would eventually find the American mainstream media.
And in your study of how to effectively, peacefully inform, indoctrinate propaganda, whatever people to accept your worldview, you have to admit that studying the way the American mainstream media has done it is pretty effective.
The lowest information people in the United States determine who wins elections.
That is made to order.
The lowest information, it's not to say the stupidest, lowest information, people, the least engaged, who don't pay much attention, but when they do, you got them.
There happen to be more of those than there are of us, folks.
You and I being wonks, we live and breathe this stuff.
The low information crowd does it.
Low information crowd, in fact, needs electric cars to make noise so they don't get run over by them.
So if you're Al Jazeera, You study various places around the world that have been effective in spreading their word.
And you would come across the mainstream media in the United States.
And you'd have to admire them.
Look at what they're doing here.
They got a guy elected president that nobody knew anything about.
They got a guy re-elected president by literally destroying the character, image, and reputation of his opponent, Mitt Romney.
The mainstream media, if you're an outsider studying this country, would have to be something you really admire.
And you'd look at how they did it, and they've done it by ostensibly being in the news business.
But they're not any longer.
Mainstream media is not in the news business.
They're part of the Democrat Party.
But they're so good at it that as far as the low information voter is concerned, they're still in the news business.
They're objective.
They're fair.
The low information voter really believes Mitt Romney's a felon, really believes Mitt Romney was fine with a guy's wife dying of cancer.
That Mitt Romney really doesn't like dogs.
You might disagree with me here as a come on, Rush, they don't really believe this.
I'm telling you that they did.
I'm telling you that when the head of the Chicago teachers gets up and starts talking about the rich and how they took everything from everybody and how they're never going to give it up legislatively.
We're going to have to take it back from it.
They believe it.
This is what we're going to have to admit.
So Al Jazeera is what it is.
That's who Al Gore accepted money from, and that's who Al Gore is now going to be lobbying for.
And I think among all the things I've mentioned, the fact that Al Jazeera exists because of oil, which Al Gore has gotten wealthy, despising and making other people despise, I just find it fascinating.
That nobody is calling Gore a hypocrite.
That nobody is questioning whether Gore now has any credibility at all.
If oil is rotten to the core, why in the world would you help them?
Why would you enrich them?
Why would you facilitate whatever it is they're trying to accomplish?
Big oil is banned whether they're making gasoline or whether they're doing news.
I would think.
Now, the caller also mentioned that Al Jazeera is not much different than the BBC.
And he's right.
He mentioned the BBC World Service, but it doesn't matter.
BBC is BBC, and they are as leftist as any news organization is.
But this guy didn't think so.
And I don't know how many people that listen to BBC World Service or watch it on TV.
I don't know how many people think it's as leftist as it is, but clearly not a majority.
It, like the mainstream media in this country, is perceived as news and objective and fair and truthful and all that other.
Now, the guy, a last caller, wanted to talk about how the middle class has been convinced that they once were rich, but he said the government came and took their money.
It's not the government that took their money.
What has been effectively accomplished here.
And it's not just with the middle class and poor, it happens racially.
I guarantee you, and I wouldn't if I were you deny this.
There are African Americans alive today who still think that there's slavery going on.
There are African Americans today who know that slavery isn't going on, but they're still so ticked off that it did that it may as well still be happening.
Now this is done on purpose.
The civil rights leaders keep this emotion ginned up.
They profit from it, and they are able to advance their political agenda as a result of it.
So you have now this movie, Django Unchained, Jamie Fox and Samuel L. Jackson as stars.
They're running around in promos and interviews and hypers for this movie.
And the things that they are saying, if you didn't know better, you'd think it was pre civil war in this country, and this movie somehow got made telling the truth.
And then we better wise up.
There's still slaves.
Samuel L. Jackson was doing an interview for the movie with a television reporter, some local station, you know, they do these pre-release interviews, and Samuel L. Jackson said, I am not.
The guy was asking how about the number of times the N words used in the movie.
It's used constantly in this movie.
And it's been criticized.
And so this guy interviewing Samuel L. Jackson asked him about it.
Samuel L Jackson, you know what?
I want you to say the word.
It's a white interviewer.
I want you to say it.
And the guy refused to say it.
He said, Samuel L. Jackson, well, this interview is over unless you say it.
Now the point was.
You still think of us this way.
This is the way everybody thinks of us this way.
And I want you to go ahead and say it.
Just say it.
You want this interview to go on, you're going to say the word.
You're going to call me that.
I want you to find out what my life's like.
That's that's what was the whole point of all this.
And this the occasion of this movie is being used to advance the notion that we're still a slave nation, a slave state, and that even if we're not, there are people that still wish we were.
And people believe it.
Guarantee you.
I gotta take a break.
There's one more element to this.
This is because this explain how the middle class has been made to believe the rich took all their money, and there another example, too, but I gotta take a time out because of the programming formats, they'll go away.
Ten, fifteen years ago, mind me even farther back than that, maybe 20 years ago.
A very good friend of an African American and I were having a discussion.
Um there uh the Reverend Jackson was on a on a tour saying, ho-ho, hey, hey, or hey, hey, ho-ho, Western Civ has got to go.
They were on the war path against Western civilization on campus universities.
And the Reverend Jackson was at Stanford, I think, and making this claim that Western civilization was responsible for racism and slavery and bigotry.
And this African American friend of mine genuinely believed that all of the great Western traditions that were incorporated in the founding of this country actually had their roots in sub-Saharan Africa years ago.
I mean, I mean, thousands of years ago, hundreds and thousands of years ago, plus Egypt.
Egypt, ancient Egypt, and the sub-Saharan Africa.
He said, all of that great culture was stolen by white slave traders and others who stole all of that and created America with it, and then left blacks out of it.
And the reason that Sub-Saharan Africa today is remarkable for its poverty and backwardness and so forth, is his view, was because the greatness of their ancestors had been stolen.
He really believed it.
And he was not radical.
I mean, he was he had been taught this, that our founding fathers and others uh before America stole all of this wonderful stuff that ended up becoming Western civilization.
And his point was that the true greatness of humanity had its roots in Africa.
But that it was all stolen.
And I said, well, let's assume that that actually happened.
If it was stolen, why didn't the sub-Saharan Africans just recreate it?
Why did thousands of years go by?
And he said, because it was stolen.
They didn't know how.
And I said, well, if they invented it, there had to have been records, there had to have been.
I mean, you culture, your values are stolen, and then you lose them.
I mean, if you're never gonna get anyway, I finally persuaded him that it couldn't possibly be true.
But he had been taught it, and he really believed it.
He was not a radical, he's not a hater.
And I'm telling you that this education system in this country has multiculturalism curricula has corrupted more than you will ever be able to calculate, folks.
Go check out the Trinity Church bookstore, the website, Reverend Wright's Church.
You'll find Reverend Wright believes Western culture was stolen from ancient Africa.
That's what he's teaching people.
It's what he's teaching his flock.
▲
Export Selection