All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
January 11, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's the fastest three hours in media.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the distinguished, prestigious, one and only Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and it's Friday.
And let's hit it live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800.
Oh, no, I knew it.
I knew it couldn't.
I just knew it.
Happy birthday.
Happy birthday.
Oh, geez.
I was hoping to escape it.
In the middle of the show open, the highly overrated staff walks in with a birthday cake.
Those of you watching on the Ditto Cam can see it.
It is a gorgeous cake, and it's an absolutely beautiful cake.
It's a white cake.
What we call white trash cake.
That's white trash.
And I guess I'm...
Look at three other candles went out.
Look what it says over the hill.
That's what the candles say.
I can't hear what you're saying.
Look what it says.
It says happy birthday rush.
Happy birthday rush.
Well, and is there a card or did you forget to get the card?
HR has got to get the card over the hill.
Oh, the candles say over the hill.
Oh, that's very affectionate.
Wasn't my idea.
Really, really melting candles, over the hill candles.
Wow.
Is there a message there?
The card.
Birthday is tomorrow.
And they know I despise this kind of attention and having a big deal made out of it.
Because other than the third world country or New York City, the only thing about a birthday is that you made it through another year.
But I mean, everybody has one.
There's no great accomplishment in a birthday.
If always, it's embarrassed me.
All right.
There goes the wish.
I got them all but one candle.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I really appreciate the staff.
And the 62.
62 tomorrow.
Actually, 7-something a.m., very close to 7 a.m. is when I was.
I was hoping this wouldn't happen, folks.
Birthday is on a Saturday.
We're not here on Saturday.
I thought maybe they get the message and not do it.
What it means is they want the cake.
They want to have a taste of cake.
Anyway, thank you all very much.
Great to have you back here as we now swerve into our second hour of Open Line Friday.
Now, the last thing we talked about before the break at the top of the hour, CNBC with a big story on how the flu outbreak could result in a recession.
The flu outbreak could slow down the economy.
Oh, darn it.
Obama trying so hard.
The regime is trying so hard.
They're never worked harder trying to overcome all of the messes left by George W. Bush.
And here we are.
We're on the verge of a recovery.
The unemployment situation, they keep telling us, is improving.
Even though we added people to the unemployment rolls yesterday, that was called stability by the AP.
We're still at 375,000 unemployment applications every week, but we're on the verge or on the verge of overcoming the big mess left by George W. Bush.
And oh, no, damn it.
Now we've got a flu outbreak.
And the flu outbreak threatens to slow the economy back down.
And it's simply the media setting the table and offering up another reason or excuse that exempts Obama.
And then shortly after sharing that story with you from CNBC, I got a couple here.
One's from CNN.
Another one is from the Daily Beast.
Flu outbreak spreads across U.S. as media drops the ball.
And the point of this story is that a major flu outbreak has popped up.
And it is spreading and it is deadly and it is making all kinds of people sick and the media is ignoring it because they're so focused on guns.
And one of the stories makes the point that the flu will kill many more people than guns will.
In fact, there are a lot of things every year that kill more people than guns do.
And the attention being paid to gun control, of course, way out of proportion.
And there's a reason why.
And that is the left is hell-bent on getting rid of guns.
Now, this came up yesterday, and a number of people in the media poo-pooed my notion that when Biden gets together with Obama and cabinet members and they start talking about the use of executive orders, I asked, what the world could they be talking about?
Executive orders?
You got the Second Amendment.
They're talking about executive orders.
Who are they?
Avowed Democrats and leftists.
What do they believe in?
Getting rid of guns.
Obama has already used executive orders to trump the Constitution two or three times, maybe more.
It's a natural thing.
The logic is progressional to conclude that if they could, if they think they can, they'll use executive orders to somehow trump gun rights.
That's the sensible way to look at these people.
And the media took me to task because I asked a rhetorical question or I made an ironic observation.
As a way of illustrating my point, I said, who knew executive orders trump the Constitution?
And again, my mistake is always overestimating the raw intelligence and education and knowledge of people on the left, including and particularly the media.
They don't get subtle, ironic ways of making a point.
They don't get sarcasm.
They don't get parody because they don't have a sense of humor.
And they are so locked, ribbed, loaded into their cocoon and their worldview that anything outside it just doesn't compute.
And their worldview is guns are bad.
Guns equal death.
Guns equal too much freedom and power for people.
Therefore, we've got to get rid of them.
And that's it.
There is nothing else.
Any logic such as, well, if you're really concerned about saving lives, ban the wheel.
Well, the car kills more people than guns do.
That doesn't matter.
When's the last time somebody drove a car into a school?
No, wait a minute.
You said you're concerned about saving lives.
That's right.
We are.
Well, then there are a lot of things to get rid of before guns.
That kind of thinking doesn't permeate.
They don't even consider it.
It doesn't make a dent.
You can't make logical debate points with these people.
It's not possible.
They're not capable.
They're so locked into what they believe that nothing permeates.
So right now, because of Newtown, we are more focused, they are more focused than ever on getting rid of guns, doing something to get rid of guns, doing something to get rid of some kinds of guns or some kinds of ammo.
And they are all devoted to it because there's groupthink.
They're all devoted to it with the same amount of energy.
And if you listen, it's the only thing happening in the country is kids dying because of guns.
Now, to illustrate the point even further, if you point out to them, as we've done countless times on this program, forget Newtown, look at Chicago.
And then you point out what's killing people in Chicago, handguns.
Over 550 gun deaths in Chicago, a town run by Democrats for decades, currently run by Rahm Emanuel.
What did Rahm Emanuel do in regard to the gun violence in Chicago?
He held a press conference.
He told the gangbangers to keep killing people in the neighborhood, to keep it in the neighborhood.
Stop going out and targeting their kids.
The mayor of Chicago said, we're going to be watching you leave our kids alone, meaning go kill your kids or go kill somebody else and leave ours alone.
You keep it in your neighborhood.
And I'm reported this and I'm literally dumbfounded.
But nobody, the last I looked, was making a big push to get rid of handguns in Chicago.
No, it's just automatic weapons now because of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.
And the reason is Newtown was a big story.
Plenty of pictures, plenty of emotion, and a massive number of deaths on one day.
In Chicago, it's two deaths one day, eight deaths the next.
It barely gets reported.
Therefore, it's not a media story.
But it is.
Over 500 people, largely children, killed with handguns in Chicago, not Illinois, in Chicago every year.
And you can't get the media interested in it because it will not advance the cause.
Another reason, folks, in Chicago and other places, the deaths and the gun violence is occurring in the minority community, and nobody's going to criticize the minority community.
To criticize the minority community is racist, it's bigoted, it's prejudiced.
So you got to leave that alone.
If a TV network, Oxygen, wants to do a TV show about a rapper, Shawty Lowe, called All My Babies Mamas.
You've got to let it happen.
We've got to learn that experience.
We have to learn that life.
We've got to learn why that happened.
We've got to learn and adjust ourselves to it.
There are reasons for it.
It's America's fault.
We must find out why, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
See, just you don't condemn anything that happens within minority populations or minority neighborhoods.
You just don't, even the Democrats don't.
You just don't go there.
But Newtown, that was as middle class as you can get.
And that was with an assault weapon.
It's made to order.
And so the media won't let go of it.
Now we've got a couple of stories.
While they're focusing on that, we got this big flu epidemic that's kicking up up there, and they're not even paying any attention to it.
And some people are upset about that.
And the reason they're upset is the media is going to have to do the warning.
They're going to have to warn people, get the flu shut.
See, people are not smart enough on their own to take steps to avoid getting the flu.
This is another thing you have to realize.
In our country today, the people that run it and the people in the media have a contemptible view of average people.
You're incompetent.
You're incapable of running your own life.
That's why they have to.
You're not innately able to do the right thing.
You're not innately decent people.
And by the way, this is a crucial point.
If I might make it again, Why does the government want to control what you eat?
Why does the government want to control what you drink and how much?
It's because they don't think you've got the smarts.
They don't think, left to yourself, that you'll do the right thing as they define right.
Correct.
They don't think you will.
You have to be controlled.
People that have this desire for power, this desire to control as many details of the way people live as possible are people who have no faith in other people, who have contempt for other people, who look down their noses at other people.
Meanwhile, the left gets away with being portrayed as compassionate, tolerant, understanding, open-minded.
They are the exact opposite.
They're anything but you're not capable of doing it on your own.
You are not inherently decent.
You are inherently evil, in fact.
Or you are innately prone to doing bad things.
And society needs to be protected from people like you, and you need to be protected from yourself.
This is how they think.
And it is thinking this way that allows them to pat themselves on the back and applaud themselves for having great compassion, a lot of caring, being very concerned.
But it really is dead serious.
It is hideous.
And so now there are people upset.
It's just like when it snows.
You have an eight-foot snowfall.
You've got to have media people out there telling you it's snowing.
And they're going to tell you how dangerous it is to drive in the snow.
They're going to tell you better stay home.
Why?
Because they don't think you have the smarts to know how to deal with snow.
You don't have the smarts to know how to deal with a thunderstorm.
You don't have the smarts to know how to deal with anything.
And so it follows that with a major flu outbreak, people think the media better get in gearstart warning people.
Otherwise, people aren't going to know.
And they're going to get sick and they're going to die.
And it's up to us to keep people from dying because they're not smart enough to know how to keep themselves alive.
But they're so focused on guns that they're missing the flu epidemic.
So CNN's worried about it.
And we get this story here of the Daily Beast flu outbreak spreads across U.S. as media drops the ball.
Major influenza epidemic taking hold across much of the country, but there's a curious lack of coverage in the media.
Curious lack of coverage.
That's because they're so focused on guns right now.
Anyway, folks, it is being ignored because somebody dies from the flu.
That's not really a story.
And the flu is not murder.
And a flu is not death via gun.
And there's no way to blame conservatives on the flu or for the flu.
With guns, though, you can blame Republicans.
You can blame conservatives.
You can blame the rich.
You can blame the NRA.
In other words, focusing on guns is a direct route, a direct opportunity to take out political opponents.
But the flu doesn't offer that.
And that's all the media is anymore.
The media isn't news.
The media is not made up of people who tell you what happened where you weren't so that you know.
There is no reporting.
There's simply an agenda every day.
And the overarching agenda is the elimination of any opposition to the left.
That is what guides every news cycle.
Where in today's events can we glom on in a way to blame Republicans, blame conservatives, and do our best to get people blaming them and hating them so they never vote for them.
That's the objective.
That's the agenda.
There is none of that with the flu.
How do you tie the flu to conservatives?
Now, somebody will.
If somebody could come up with even the slightest credible way, it would become the big news of the day.
Like if some conservative scientist at CDC was screwing around with various vials and test tubes and came up with a secret plan to infect half the population, and some vigilant media reporter figured it out, turned that into a story or something.
Or there was a funding cut.
Yes.
If some Republican in a previous administration could be found to have cut funding for the centers for disease control, and that led to this strain of flu being created or not being stopped.
But if a news story, quote unquote, cannot be blamed on Republicans, it's not going to be covered right now.
That's what's happening.
And that comes from the top.
That comes from the regime.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
It's back to the phones Open Line Friday.
Andrew Mandeville, Louisiana.
It's great to have you here.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
First, I'd like to just thank you for the opportunity to talk on your show.
And I wanted to just make a comment about what you were talking about earlier on healthcare records.
Yes, sir.
So I'm a physician and I've used a variety of different systems and just want to say that, you know, I mean, they're not necessarily this panacea that's going to make everything better.
It's still a relatively new technology that needs a lot of work.
And also that software development, as you may know, can be very, very labor-intensive and expensive.
The data input alone could take eons.
Yeah, so a lot of these are, you know, I mean, they're too expensive and they don't add enough value to make it, you know, worth it for small businesses.
So why was there a big push to digitize health records then?
You know, I mean, I think, I mean, I think you can speculate on that, but, well, I mean, just as an aside with it, there's a variety of different things that computers come into play and in, you know, in healthcare.
And things like getting laboratory data and looking at radiology, you know, like x-rays and MRIs, that stuff, it's excellent, and almost everybody uses that anyway.
The health records side is more, I don't know, I think there's a lot more work that needs to be done with it.
And also, it's not, you know, I say in some cases, it's actually made things a little bit worse.
Well, you're going to have to need things like database insurance.
What if somebody inputs incorrect data that results in you administering treatment that's not exactly called for?
It's wide open for snafus.
Now, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of digitizing health records.
And I must say at the outset that some of you IT experts might have to call here and correct some not intended errors that I make, because I may not be fully up to speed on various aspects of what I'm going to say.
But data input, let's say, take just one patient, one average patient at a doctor's office that has hospital records, doctor's office records, test results, x-rays, any number of, you got it all.
That data has to be entered into a database, and it has to then be a database that every doctor in hospital would use.
The software is going to have to be universal or close enough in compatibility that if it's not identical, it's still going to have to be able to read the information.
Now, as with data input, you're looking at computer keyboards.
The amount of data here is massive.
The opportunity for error is huge, which means that there will have to be triple checks, a lot of editing of records, and double-checking and triple-checking to make sure the data is right.
This is going to assume that the original data that's being input is also correct.
In other words, that the nurse or whoever is responsible for the charts and the medical records in the doctor's office has the data is accurate there.
You can't just scan pages of data into PDF files because you need to be able to change.
You need to have active fields that will be updated and changed.
Now, you can there is software that allows you to manipulate PDF files so that you can manipulate data in fields, but it is not easy.
It's not something that's yet commonplace.
So, you're dealing it with a massive amount of data input.
You can't just take a picture of it all and then scan it into a database because the picture has to change as each patient's health circumstances change.
That data will then have to be input and kept common, and it will have to be, as I say, in software that is compatible from town to town, city to city, state to state, hospital to hospital.
Then, what happens if the data has an error that results in something going wrong that was not wrong on the paper form?
I mean, I just look, I understand the desire to digitize this stuff.
Most people try to digitize as much of their paper data as they can, but this is a massive, massive data input process.
Now, the New York Times article that I read from earlier today, which pointed out that, oh, damn it, you know what?
There aren't any savings from doing this.
We're sorry, we're sorry, but the original cost savings was $80 billion.
Obamacare, by making everybody's health records electronic, was going to save $80 billion somehow.
And the New York Times story today says, sorry, on second look, that isn't going to happen.
This New York Times article says federal regulators are investigating whether electronic records make it easier for hospitals and doctors to bill for services they didn't provide.
So the New York Times story is already assuming that a bunch of doctors and nurses are going to cheat you, just like Obama accused doctors of doing unnecessary surgeries, tonsillectomies, amputations, because you can charge a lot more for that stuff than just fixing the problem in a conventional way.
So now there's the concern, you know what?
If we digitize the, and I don't know how this works, by the way, but the New York Times clearly says here, electronic records make it easier for hospitals and doctors to overcharge, in fact, to bill for services they didn't provide.
Also, whether Medicare and other federal agencies are adequately monitoring the use of electronic records.
And that is another.
Who's to say that what data input is correct?
So it can be done.
It's not impossible to do.
It's just a massive, I don't know where anybody thought it was going to save any money.
Just in the man hours alone inputting the data and then keeping it current and then having software from institution to institution, doctor's office or doctor's office that is compatible.
I think, you know, looking at the other way, electronic records could make it easier for the government to make sure that doctors aren't making too much money.
It could work the other way, too.
You noted how in the left, it's only the doctor.
It's only the private sector guy who would engage in fraud.
The government never would.
The government would never say that something happened that didn't.
The government would never deny that something didn't happen when it did.
So anyway, bottom line is digitizing health records won't save the money it was going to save.
And now the New York Times, or 80 billion a year, it was going to say 80 billion a year, which I don't understand how they calculate that at all, but regardless, doesn't matter because they now say it won't.
Here's Rebecca Palos Verdes, California.
I have been there.
Great, great place.
How are you?
Welcome to the program.
Thank you very much, Rush.
I believe that the flu outbreak should grow our economy because if you follow the liberal logic, if you're unemployed, unproductive, sitting at home, and getting unemployment and stimulus, that should grow our economy.
Well, by the same token, if you're sick, sitting at home, unproductive, and getting sick pay, that sick pay should be.
You are exactly right.
Pelosi and other Democrats say that for every dollar of unemployment, $1.73 of economic output occurs.
In other words, every dollar we pay somebody not to work creates $1.73 worth of work output.
So your theory is, who cares if the flu wipes a bunch of people out and keeps them at home?
That'll make us even more productive.
The same theory that works with unemployment benefits.
I think it may even cause a boom in America.
It could well be common sick.
And it may lead people, you know, we just, to heck with anybody working, just put everybody on unemployment and then get out of the way for all the economic growth that's going to happen.
She's right, folks.
If you are relatively new to the program, I can understand if you're new to the program and you're hearing a caller and you probably think, well, what a nutcase.
What a whack.
No, she's right.
Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have bragged about unemployment benefits growing the economy.
That they are worth it.
That every dollar paid, unemployment benefits, creates $1.73 in economic output.
Sheila Jackson Lee has said it.
Pelosi has said it.
A number of ranking Democrats have said it.
Of course it makes no sense.
They've said it to justify the failure of their own economic policies.
And they know that the database of low-information voters in this country will lap it all up and everything will be fine.
People have to buy medicine.
You get the flu.
You got to buy medicine.
That's economic output.
That's economic growth.
Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.
This is what Pelosi said.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not making this up.
Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.
It injects demand into the economy.
She said it.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Let me give you more from Nancy Pelosi.
First, she did say unemployment benefits.
This is a quote.
This is not a paraphrase.
Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.
It injects demand into the economy.
Now, is it even worth our time to stop here and parse this?
Unemployment benefits are what?
Maybe for the low-information voter crowd, maybe we should do this.
What is unemployment benefits?
Right.
Unemployment benefits are checks you get when you don't have a job.
What is not happening when you don't have a job?
Right, you're not working.
So we can conclude then that unemployment benefits are paid to people who are not working.
And when they're not working, what are they doing?
They're watching television or they're reading TMZ or they're playing video games.
Now, granted, they're going out and buying stuff, Jack Daniels, Smirnoff ICE, chips, lottery tickets, and so forth.
So there is economic activity taking place.
But, again, now for the low-information voter, where are the unemployment benefits coming from?
That is money that is already in the economy.
It's not new money.
So if the unemployed, a low-information voter is going out and buying some Smyrnaff ice and chips, it's not Smirnoff ice and chips that would otherwise not have been bought.
If the unemployed were working, it'd still be buying the Smirnoff ice and chips.
So the way we look at economically, it's a dead wash.
At the same time, there is no economic productivity taking place on part of the part of the unemployed low-information voter.
Low-information voter, unemployed, is not working.
Therefore, he's not accomplishing anything.
There is no task being completed.
And therefore, economists call that economic output.
There isn't any.
And yet Pelosi is saying that unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program.
Paying people not to work creates jobs.
Nancy Pelosi.
Not only that, paying people not to work creates jobs faster than anything else we could do.
Now, they're not working by definition.
They can't be working and getting unemployment checks.
But Nancy Pelosi is telling us that unemployment checks create jobs and injects demand into the economy that wouldn't otherwise be there, which none of those things are true.
Here's more from Pelosi.
Quote, let me say unemployment insurance is one of the biggest stimuluses, and the correct word stimuli, but she said stimuluses, to our economy.
Economists will tell you, she said, this money is spent quickly.
It injects demand into the economy and it's job creating.
It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.
Well, then we should take everybody out of their offices and out of their shops and put them on unemployment if we really want to grow the economy.
A ranking Democrat actually said this.
Doesn't matter whether she believes it.
The point is, she said it hoping to make Americans believe it.
Here's more.
Unemployment insurance creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because again, it is money that is needed for families to survive.
And it is spent because it's all they've got.
So it has a double benefit.
It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.
Did you?
Well, yeah, if you make chips or if you bottle Smyrna off ice.
But this is, folks, this is what we're up against.
And the people who believe this stuff, who show up to vote, outnumber us.
In a sane world, Pelosi would be institutionalized.
She'd be wearing a white straitjacket.
And there'd be people really worried about her.
Instead, she's an oracle.
Here's Charles in Germantown, Maryland.
Hi, Charles.
I'm glad you called.
Here they are?
Yep.
Okay.
As you were talking a little earlier about the motivation to tie some of this flu epidemic around the Republicans, I remember back in 2004 when Kerry was running against George Bush, that they were trying to basically indict George Bush and Tommy Thompson for not having enough flu vaccine prepared.
That's right.
And Kerry, I looked up a couple of the quotes as, you know, if you can't get flu vaccines to Americans, how are you going to protect them from bioterrorism?
Right.
And he also made a comment on National Public Radio, if you can't get flu vaccines to Americans, what kind of health care program are you running?
Exactly right.
And I just comment on that because I hear up here in Maryland, as some of your staff was basically saying to you that, you know, there are shortages up here of vaccine even now because we're expecting the flu epidemic not to come until February.
And, you know, it's kind of ironic how likely the media will bring up anything, you know what I'm saying, is about the current regime.
Now, remember, this is a good point.
This is an excellent point because it affords you the opportunity to repeat something that I said a half hour ago.
The best way to understand the media today is to have the courage to accept that what they are about, their objective, is to eliminate the opposition to the Democrat Party and Obama on the part of the Republicans.
If a news story does not offer the opportunity to blame Republicans for something, it will not be a story that's covered, i.e., massive gun deaths in Chicago, which is a Democrat state with a Democrat mayor, a Democrat governor, and involving primarily minority victims.
Your example of Bush and the flu vaccine is made to order.
You got a Republican president, a supposed shortage of flu vaccine.
Bush doesn't care about people.
You got Hurricane Katrina.
When Bush is in office, Bush doesn't care about black people Louisiana.
You got Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast.
There hadn't been a word about Obama's incompetence in getting aid anywhere to people.
It's that simple.
The news media is about destroying opposition to Obama, nothing else.
We have the audio of Nancy Pelosi saying what I just quoted her as saying.
So you can hear it right from her lips.
We'll have that for you.
We come back.
Plus, we continue with your phone calls on Open Line Friday.
The fastest three hours in media.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection