All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:43
January 11, 2013, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
Hi, folks, how are you?
Is everything okay out there?
If it's not, we'll do our best to make it okay for you.
As we wrap up a busy broadcast week here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, so happy you're here.
It's Friday, and you know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Open line Friday where callers choose what it is we talk about.
Monday through Thursday, you gotta talk about something I care about, or you don't get on.
But Friday doesn't matter.
I don't have to care about it.
I'll fake it or I'll tell you I don't care about whatever.
Your chance to play host.
Your chance to determine where we're going with the program.
That's why it's the greatest career risk known to exist in big media.
Happy to have you here, folks.
As I said.
Our telephone number is 800 dead 282-2882 and the email address.com.
27 degrees outside San Diego right now.
27 degrees, and they're talking about global warming.
27 degrees outside San Diego.
We have a lot to do today, folks.
Let's just get to the real news, shall we?
Low information voter update.
Did you see?
We just got through raising taxes on the rich.
And that means the rich are really gonna have it stuck to them.
The rich are gonna finally find out what it's like.
And everybody is celebrating the fact that the rich finally had their taxes raised.
The richer the reason everybody's suffering, the rich is why we're an economic malaise, and Obama took care of it.
Despite that, did you see?
Rolls Royce has reported second consecutive annual sales record in its 108-year history.
The U.S. is still the biggest market for Rolls-Royce.
Which just speaks to my point.
No matter how Obama and the rest of the world socialists try, it is really, really very hard to punish the truly wealthy with taxes.
Despite all of the assaults, despite all of the focus on the rich, still going out and buying Rolls-Royce's.
Now, the cheapest Rolls Royce, what do you think the cheapest Rolls Royce sells for?
Take a stab at it.
Give me a You're close.
$272,000 is the cheapest Rolls Royce.
But the really wealthy wouldn't be seen in one of those.
That's the low-end rolls.
The better rolls lines, uh, like the ghost go for several times that.
In fact, I'll tell you, premium and luxury car sales worldwide have grown by 13% over the past four years.
So you know, all this talk about punishing the rich, they're out there buying their bigger cars, they're out buying bigger houses.
They're out buying more houses, they're out buying more cars.
Gee, you just you just can't catch a break.
Gwyneth Paltrow, ladies and gentlemen, the Oscar-winning actress says that she is not going to be as strict with food this year.
This is the real news today.
This is reported by X17.
Gwyneth Paltrow said, No, I'm not on a detox.
I'm not on a diet.
I know, New Year's cleansing and all that, but not this year.
I can't do it.
Maybe later in the year, maybe in the spring.
So for now, I'm just gonna continue to eat my pasta and my cheese.
Uh maybe be a little bit more mindful of ingredients, but I'm gonna eat my pasta and my cheese.
Now imagine your Gwyneth Paltro, you get up and you read about yourself in the paper, and that's what it says about you.
And then you and I stop to think how many people wish they were Gwyneth Paltrow.
So Gwyneth Paltrow in the news, she will not give up pasta or cheese.
Justin Bieber has been sued by an ex-bodyguard.
The ex-bodyguard punched and berated Justin Bieber.
So Justin Bieber beat the crap out of one of his Israeli bodyguards and berated the former soldier after a disagreement.
This according to a new law cert, uh lawsuit.
It's Bieber being sued by the guy because Bieber is the one That engaged in the violence.
And there's all kinds.
Social administration, Social Security Administration, has taken back a reprimand of a flatulent worker.
I'm not making any of this up.
I mean, this is in the news to every one of these items is big where it's published.
Social Security Administration officially reprimanded an employee, whom colleagues accused of continually passing gas and releasing an unpleasant odor that created a hostile work environment.
After the smoking gun posted the reprimand letter online, the Social Security Agency said that it had withdrawn its disciplinary action against the flatulent worker.
The agency did not respond to request to provide a date for its rescinding action.
The employee allegedly had episodes as much as nine times in one day.
According to a log of the incidents included in the letter, the smoking gun described the employee, the flatulent employee, the 38-year-old Maryland man, working at the Baltimore Social Security Office.
The site posted what it claims to be a picture of the worker posing with Pepe Le Pew, Looney Tunes characters at an amusement park.
In the Washington Post today.
Don't even get mad at me.
Stick to the issues.
Washington Post.
This other stuff, Gwyneth Paltrow, it's out there.
Justin Bieber stuff, it is out there.
This is, I mean, this is the important news.
In fact, let's go to the audio soundbites that started number 9.
Nope, number 21.
Quentin Tarantino.
Oh, speaking of that, the Oscar nominations happened.
And you know, there is a lot of curiosity.
Katherine Bigelow, who was the director of Zero Dark 30, she won the first female director to win an Oscar for the Hurt Locker.
She didn't get nominated for best director for Zero Dark 30.
And you know why?
The popular conventional wisdom is that she didn't condemn waterboarding in the movie.
Waterboarding is portrayed.
It is enacted, and it is said in the movie, well, not said, it's kind of left to be concluded by the audience, that it helped in finding bin Laden.
And this is not good.
Hollywood will not support anybody who does a movie that does not condemn waterboarding.
There's another theory that says there were three senators, Diane Feinstein and Carl Levin and one other, oh, oh, McCain, who were also upset about waterboarding in the movie, and they took to the Senate floor and they wrote a letter condemning the movie.
And because of the actions of the senators, Catherine Bigelow was not nominated as a best director for this for this movie.
And her people are writing about this as a major, major snub.
Quentin Karen to Tarantino.
Big movie, Django Unchained, nothing.
Zip zero nada.
Last night on Rock Center on NBC Prime Time.
Take it back.
I'm still reading the raw.
This is the United Kingdom, Channel 4 News.
The correspondent is talking to Quentin Tarantino.
She said, Look, why are you so sure there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?
Don't ask me a question like that.
I'm not biting.
I refuse your question.
I'm not your slave, and you're not my master.
You can't make me dance to your tune.
I'm not a monkey.
A little touchy these days.
Quentin Tarantino not answering a question.
Now we go to Cat Williams on the TMZ website yesterday.
Reporter interviewing the comedian, and they're talking about changing sports team names, and Kat Williams said this.
As long as we still live in a country where you really will call a team the Redskins, we shouldn't have **** say.
I'm saying, you know how racist that is?
That would be like saying the Chinese Yellowskins or the Compton Blackskins.
Like, are you kidding me?
Redskins?
That's the name.
Come on.
We've done enough now.
We've come.
You're letting gay people get married.
Can you please not keep disrespecting the people we already admit we did wrong to?
Slavery was wrong the first year, not 399 years in.
The pressure is mounting on Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Redskins to change the name of the team from Redskins.
That was well known, highly touted, highly acclaimed comedian, often arrested, which adds to the resume.
Doc Rivers, the coach of the Boston Celtics, maintains that Kevin Garnett did not say that La La Anthony tastes like honeynut cheerios.
And it has caused a huge contre ton on Monday during the Celtics Knicks game, Madison Square Garden.
Carmelo meant the Melanie uh Anthony, the the estranged husband of Lala Anthony, reportedly highly outraged and offended when Garnett said that his wife tasted like honey nut Cheerios.
Of course, Carmelo Anthony didn't dispute that.
He's just curious how Kevin Garnett knew it.
So on the radio in Boston yesterday, they had the coach of the Celtics on Doc Rivers to talk about this, is what he said.
I know what it's being reported did not happen.
I know that as a fact.
A guy does something crazy like Carmelo did, and the way to get out of trouble is say, well, he said this.
It happens all the time.
When it gets racial or or personal to family, then that crosses the line.
But I'm gonna say it again.
In this case, that didn't happen.
Well, there you have it.
At final word, coach of the Celtics.
Doc Rivers, Kevin Garnett did not say Carmelo Anthony's wife, Lala Anthony tastes like honeynut cheerios.
And there you have it.
Low information voter segment to kick off the program.
We'll be back after this.
Well, I guess my uh my quest, by the way, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
Open line Friday.
Telephone number 80082-2882.
I guess.
I'm not ready to give up on this.
My my New Year's resolution, which I didn't announce to anybody, was to become less high profile, become less profile, less talked about, less noticed, less discussed.
But this next, I mean, I didn't even do anything, ended up being discussed.
I mean, I didn't literally do anything.
It happened yesterday on the five at five on Fox.
The first thing they did was play this sound bite from Michael Moore.
That was recorded Tuesday night in New York City.
This was on the red carpet for the National Board of Review Awards.
Uh a bunch of people got awards among them for having the right frame of mind on gun control.
And so the five at five on Fox played Michael Moore saying this short-term solution is we have to ban the assault weapons, ban the semi-automatic weapons, ban the magazines that can hold more than ten bullets.
That's it.
That should be the bottom line of what we need to start with.
We should be registering every gun.
We don't do that now.
We should be licensing everybody with a gun.
So, as you can see, I was not mentioned.
I had nothing to do with that bite.
The five at five then began to discuss this.
Michael Moore, the spokesman for the left.
Could we please get this out of our collective heads?
You're right.
We're sorry, it's you, Bob.
But it's always it's you, Bob.
It's always somebody on the left, though, that's naming somebody on the right.
But he is not a spokesman to the left.
So we can get away with doing it too.
You say that you say Rush Limba is a spokesperson.
Hopefully, right.
That's what I was referring to.
You say these are spoken.
Oh, I highly doubt that.
That was Angela or Andrea Tarantula there saying that uh uh you guys always talk about Limbaugh being a spokesman on the right, and then you want to say that Michael Moore isn't.
And and Beck will say, well, Michael Moore sees a buffoon, basically.
Nobody on the left listens to Michael Moore, but you people on the right, you do listen to Rush.
By the way, I'm happy that the comparison was made, but just to illustrate, I didn't even do anything.
And I ended up being disgust.
I don't know how I could do this.
I I really I thought maybe that I could affect my desire to become less high profile by virtue of the way I did the program.
Maybe be a little bit more mellow, less Expressive, not as many wild gesticulations while speaking.
Uh not monotoned, but clearly not as uh energetic.
You people may not be aware, but I I tried being more mellow the first week I was back.
Well, yeah, less threatening.
Because I was told that 24-year-old women are threatened by me and and my passion.
So I try to dial it back.
I figured that maybe maybe if you know what it boils down to, I just don't know how to be boring.
I was trying to be boring, and I don't know how to be.
And uh I did.
I I even tried to be less confident.
So I am convinced, and I have been convinced for a while, that most people are not well, I'm not this I know.
This is not something I've recently become convinced of.
I something I know most people are not confident of what they believe.
Most people have a lot of self-doubt or just doubt, if they don't doubt themselves, they have doubt about things, not very confident and not sure.
And they've also seen what happens to people who are confident, who are sure.
They are the ones that get hit.
So I thought, okay, and I've I've known for a long time that uh when people talk about me being braggadocious or bombastic, what they're really saying is that I'm too sure of myself.
Nobody's that sure of them.
And it it rubs them the wrong way.
So I try to dial that back.
I tried to sound less confident.
I tried to sound boring.
Uh I don't know how to do that.
I don't know how to sound less confident.
So I don't know if I'm going to be able to pull this off.
Become less high profile.
Anyway, New York Times, I hate to break this to you.
Do you remember when they were touting digitizing health records?
Making everybody's health records electronic so that they would be easily available to doctors and medical professionals.
Of course, not scammers, they would never get them, of course.
But only the people that ever needed to see your health records would be able to.
They'd take care of that.
Well, they said it's going to really make things cheaper.
We have to do this because the health care costs are just out of control, causing the deficit, causing the national debt.
We've got to get our arms around this.
So everybody goes, okay, majority of people said, fine, go ahead.
Let's let's digitize health.
I hate to tell you, but the New York Times has a story.
Here's the headline.
In second look, there will be few savings from digital health records.
Oh no.
Oh now, I remember when I first heard about this.
I didn't believe any of it.
Heard about digitizing health records, and I warned everybody in the audience it isn't going to save anybody any money.
It's going to cost money to do this more than if we didn't, and it's not going to help privacy.
It's going to be the exact opposite.
And I said it in a very confident, sure of myself way, which I'm sure made 24-year-old girls nervous.
Once again, I turned out to be right.
New York Times, the conversion to electronic health records has failed so far.
Really, duh to produce the hope for savings in health care.
Do you realize nothing is accomplishing savings in health care?
Something that you may not remember, you may not have known it to begin with.
Some of the stimulus money, uh, a significant amount of Obama's stimulus money went into digitizing health care records.
In fact, the uh the stimulus created a whole new bureaucracy, the national coordinator of health information technology to oversee digitizing health records.
Now remember why we did it.
We did it to save money.
What were we told?
Was that digitizing health records would save money, and after it saved money, then it would make an immediately available on any doctor or nurse's computer, any medical professional's computer.
If you're in an emergency, medical emergency, and you're away from all the doctors who know you, your health records will be available immediately on any medical professional's computer, and your treatment will be immediate.
And this is going to save a lot of money, and people say, What about theft of people's records?
And um start digitizing and people are going to know everybody's medical.
and they assured us that that wouldn't happen.
And they assured us that we would save all kinds of money.
And it now turns out, according to the New York Times, that evil doctors and hospitals are using this online network to overcharge for services.
Yes, my friends, few savings from digital health records, the self-proclaimed newspaper of record is rewriting history a little here.
The only reason this is a RAND study, by the way, the only reason the study was significant was because in March of 2009, Obama claimed changing over to digital health records would save eighty billion dollars a year.
And he used that claim of eighty billion dollar savings, a major selling point for all of Obamacare, which mandates the switch over to digital health records.
And Obama based his claim on the RAND study in two thousand five, but with common knowledge that the RAN study had been paid for by interested parties like GE and Hewlett Packard and Xerox, crony capitalism, people that would benefit financially from the whole process of digitizing health records.
New York Times even notes this in passing in their story.
But several top Harvard doctors pointed out in the Wall Street Journal immediately after Obama started touting the study that it wasn't going to save any money.
And now it hasn't.
And the New York Times, eh, you know what?
Second look, there are a few savings from digital health.
Well, what are we gonna do now?
It's too late now.
We did it.
Uh just want to let you people know there aren't going to be any health savings.
And it's uh uh they still don't worry about your privacy, and it's not gonna be a problem.
Right.
Time magazine is gonna lay off seven hundred people after a decline of five percent in advertising revenue.
The staff cuts will come sometime in the first quarter, and they'll be focused not just on editorial, where the staff cuts have already been pretty stiff.
They're gonna be across the board.
Time revenue fell six percent for the nine months ended in September.
Profit dropped 14%, 220.
So, isn't that good?
Why should a magazine be profiting from informing people?
During that period, Time Mike magazine uh dominated 21 and a half percent of overall domestic magazine advertising, but that is plummeting.
It's open line Friday.
We always try to get the calls earlier than usual.
And we are going to start now.
We're gonna start with Gail in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Gail, glad that you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I'm so honored to speak with you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for continuing your brilliance.
Thank you.
Um, I appreciate that.
I feel kind of embarrassed because you're very nice, very complimenting my brilliance here.
I've just admitted I've tried to be boring the past couple and low profile, and uh you didn't notice.
So it's impossible.
I guess.
It was pointed out to me also, you know, I I have I have twenty-five years of opinion assets built up.
Uh even if I even if I bring to a screeching halt my opinion income, I still have opinion assets twenty-five years that can still be plucked and used to infuriate people.
Yes, yes.
And thank you.
Thank you for doing it.
I I and millions appreciate you so much.
Well, thank you.
I just want to, folks, uh becoming less high profile is harder than losing weight.
I just want to tell you.
You deserve it.
Anyway, welcome.
Why did you call about?
In the economic sense, there is a reason that Rolls-Royce sales are spiking, as well as the sale of paintings and other big commodities, homes, when the environment, the tax environment is not friendly to investment.
Our money's not going to go into capital investment.
All the money's going to go into this type of thing, as in France.
It has been traditional, they've put their money.
Anybody with extra money will buy antiques rather than investing.
Are you rich?
Pardon?
Are you rich?
Are you wealthy?
You you're speaking of of this as though you have first hand experience at it.
I graduated with honors with a degree, an undergraduate degree in economics.
I also have uh a master of business and strategic management, although I've been a small business person and I've been into trenches.
Okay, small business, it means you are rich.
No.
Well, that's what people think.
Small business.
You got a pile of money that you're not using.
You could be using it to hire people or or or give raises, but you're out buying Rolls-Royce's.
This is what people do, and this is how the the tr theory.
She's not taking my bait.
She's very smart.
She's not taking my bait.
Now, um, why would why would the rich buy a Rolls-Royce instead of investing the money in something?
Because uh when the tax uh rate is too high, uh, why would you do this?
Uh and this goes for the people that you always talk about that are not the income producers, the ones that have uh just a lot of wealth sitting in the bank that's not even being taxed.
Why are they gonna put themselves out to invest in our economy here?
No, no, no.
They will buy these paintings, etcetera.
That's what's being encouraged.
Well, now wait.
Now a painting.
And I think I know the kind of paintings you're talking about.
Well, those are gonna be investments.
Well, what would you rather see?
Investment in manufacturing or I don't care.
It's not my b if somebody wants to invest in renoirs, that's fine with see this is the difference in me and a lot of people.
I don't care.
And if they want to buy a rolls, I don't care.
Doesn't matter to me.
Uh doesn't ruin my day, doesn't make me dislike them.
I don't resent them.
Well, no, I I don't care either.
Uh uh if nothing else.
But you just said wouldn't I prefer they invest in manufacturing?
Well, I would prefer it because I care for the country to be stronger, but in truth, if they want to put their money in an offshore account, if they want to buy beautiful paintings, at least with Rolls-Royces, they're gonna employ some people to build them.
Right.
Yeah, Rolls-Royces are made entirely by hand.
I think so are.
Yeah.
I care about the country.
I would like to see investment made when we expand technology, as you saw with Steve Jobs, you expand employment, you expand the options, the pie grows.
This is the economic sense of massive.
It's gonna happen in spot markets.
For for for example, certain elements of the high-tech market, what you just described is happening.
There are people like Apple is still trying to grow and they're pulling it off.
And uh well, Samsung is I mean, they're not an American company, but there are pockets of of of the American economy which which are growing.
But in mass, when you talk about economic theory, it's not possible.
The mathematics doesn't work out.
Please confirm this for the audience, since you have an MBA or a degree in economics, you simply in the the private sector, what people think of as the American economy, you can't take money out of it and at the same time have it grow, right?
Um for the open uh markets worldwide.
I I believe that if that's what you're getting at.
I I No, I'm getting at the fact that government is growing and therefore it's impossible for the economy to grow.
If the government is getting bigger by taxing people.
That's not money.
Transfer payments are are not are just simply shuffling around the money that's there.
It's not enlarging the pie.
Exactly.
It's it's making the pie smaller.
It's taking the money away from where it is earned and produced, and then government's taking it and spending it.
And by the way, they're spending and borrowing money they don't have, in addition, and they're either redistributing it, giving it away, buying, or doing whatever.
But it's not possible for the private sector to grow.
This is my the whole argument with the stimulus.
You know, the the the Democrats in Obama told people we're gonna spend a hundred or a trillion dollars, seven hundred and eighty-seven billion dollars.
And this is Keynesian economic theory.
We are gonna have to juice the economy.
We're gonna have to put a trillion dollars into this economy to speed it up.
So what they wanted people to think, and a lot of people did think this, that the economy was sitting there as it was, and then an additional one trillion dollars was injected, and by virtue of that the economy should have grown and there should have been increased economic activity.
Now the flaw in that is that the trillion dollars that government put into the economy had to first be taken out of it because government doesn't have money.
Government doesn't produce anything.
So the $787 billion stimulus could not possibly.
It was an it this is Keynesian economic theory basically impossible because the money was not acquired from somewhere else and injected into the economy, and as a result, the economy grew.
The economy shrank first because that money had to first be taken out of it.
When the government takes $787 billion, whether they borrow it, whether they print it, or whether they get it via taxes.
The fact of the matter is it is not money that existed somewhere else that they're shifting.
They have to first take the money out of the private sector, and then they put it back in and claim a miracle.
It never was going to work.
This kind of stimulus never does work.
FDR tried it for years and years and years, and he ended up prolonging the Great Depression.
It is a flawed faulty economic theory.
It's the name itself is even nearly criminally incorrect.
Stimulus.
It's the exact opposite.
The economy shrank before the money was put back.
That was a net wash, a net zero.
I got to take a break.
I'm glad you called.
Thanks, Gail.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
It's open line Friday, El Rush Ball.
Making the complex.
Understandable.
Here at 800-282-2882, here's a headline from CNBC.
Major flu outbreak threatens to slow the economy further.
Now what the hell kind of headline is this?
Major flu outbreak threatens to slow the economy further.
It was just yesterday I was talking about media propagandists.
And you see this headline, and you have to understand that I know what I'm talking about.
I was right.
The flu threatens to slow the economy further.
Really?
They're throwing that out there now?
We know that it's not the flu slowing down the economy.
We know that's not the flu that has the economy near a standstill.
The economy's been near a standstill for four years.
What has the economy at a standstill are the policies coming out of Washington, D.C. right now.
And yet here we have a friendly journalist outlet friendly to Obama, CNBC.
Obviously part of the trained media to make excuses for Obama even before the bad news is even out.
The purpose of this story is to give everybody in Washington an excuse before the flu outbreak even hits.
I know that the reports of the flu outbreak are starting to re trickle in now, but we do not have an epidemic yet.
We may, who knows.
But what's being established now is that if and when there is a flu epidemic, that's why.
That's why the economy slowed down.
I guess this is probably to replace Bush for a while to explain a bad economy.
The uhverage seasonal flu outbreaks cost U.S. employers ten point four billion dollars in direct costs of hospitalization outpatient visits, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
And this story makes the point that flu season is putting further strains on an already sluggish U.S. economy as companies get slammed with increased health care costs and lower productivity from widespread worker absences.
So the flu epidemic, am I right?
It hasn't hit yet.
Or has it?
In the Northeast, the flu has really hit.
It really has.
I wouldn't know.
I'm not there.
Okay, so I don't want to be wrong about it.
I'm just, I'm telling you what this headline is a made the order built-in excuse to cover for slipshod economic policies out of Washington.
Major flu outbreak threatens to slow economy even further.
And I'm telling you, folks, all this is is a is an ad an excuse in advance.
And you know what else is part of this story?
It's possible that we could go into a recession.
That's right.
From the flu.
It's possible that this flu outbreak could be so bad.
It could reach epidemic pandemic proportions that it could throw us right back into recession.
Despite the best efforts of the regime to spur a recovery, despite the best efforts of the regime to get employment moving in the right direction, despite the best efforts of the smartest people in the world.
Damn it, they can't get your break.
Poor Obama.
Now it's the flu.
Did the flu make Time magazine lay off 700 people?
I have a companion story here from CNBC.
American Express announced it will eliminate 5,400 jobs this year, take a 400 million dollar restructuring charge in the fourth quarter.
And here's the story on time.
Morgan Stanley planning a 1,600 layoffs.
And not a word, not a word about the flu.
So this is uh this is what I mean, cutting edge societal evolution.
I want you to just keep this in your memory bank.
This story is out way in advance.
What it tells me is, in addition to everything else, that there are real fears that this economy is going to sink even further.
And of course, now it's time for the media to move in and exempt Obama and shield him from any responsibility for it.
So now they're setting up that this flu is going to be the reason.
That's why there are changes in job applications, of course, because it rained one day during the reporting week.
This is more the same.
Looky here, folks.
I just found this from the Daily Beast.
CNN has it too.
Flu outbreak spreads across U.S. as media drops the ball.
Nah, they picked it up, folks.
▲
Export Selection