All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:29
January 24, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
L Rushbow, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling Maha Rushi.
Here at the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here, folks.
800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address.
Lrushball at EIBNet.com.
I haven't had a chance yet.
No, I haven't read Dai Fi's latest gun ban bill.
She mentioned 158 guns that Diane Feinstein wants to ban.
She wants to ban them from being imported.
She wants to ban them, I think, from being made.
She wants to certainly ban them from being purchased.
She wants to ban them from being sold.
She wants to ban them from being bought.
She wants to ban them from being cleaned.
She wants to ban them from being looked at.
What I don't know if it includes the kind of handgun that she used to carry.
Did you know that?
Oh yeah.
Diane Feinstein used to carry a handgun.
I don't know if she still does or not.
Or the gun that Chuck Schumer carries.
I don't know if her gun ban includes the kind of gun that Chuck Yu Schumer carries.
I mean, some people claim I don't know this.
I can't attest to it.
Some people claim that Dify still carries a 357 Magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.
Hunting.
She goes hunting.
Because see, if you if you're a liberal, the only thing people do with guns is hunt.
And they don't want to stop people from doing that.
So maybe maybe somebody will publish a list of all the politicians who have gun permits, like that newspaper did.
It published the names and addresses of average citizens who had gun permits.
And we all know how that worked.
So a blogger says, you know what, I'm going to publish the uh names and addresses of people that work at that newspaper.
And of course, journalists can't handle it when journalism is committed on them.
What do you mean you can't publish our names and addresses?
Really?
Well, you you publish the names and addresses of the people that are licensed to own guns.
Well, that's different.
Why?
Why is it well?
That's dangerous.
People need to know where in town there's guns so they will avoid them.
Maybe not get shot.
Well, you mean people that have guns in their houses are criminals?
Well, I mean, it's just dangerous.
Anytime you publish uh every time you you go by a house where there's a gun inside, it could go off and kill you.
Oh, okay.
Well then we're gonna publish a list of all the places that your journalists live in town.
So people Well, you can't do that.
You can't do that.
You can't publish where we why not?
People need to know where journalists live so they can avoid it.
And of course, the journalists at this paper, they ended up caving and so forth and so forth.
They just can't stand it.
They can't handle it when journalism's committed on them.
I love it.
If you listen to Diane Feinstein and the Liberals, a second amendment was written to protect hunters.
It's the only reason that it is there.
The Detroit News says that union membership is down to a 70-year low.
The nation's unions lost four hundred thousand members in twenty twelve as the percentage of U.S. workers represented by a labor union fell to eleven point three percent.
That's the lowest since it's uh well, since the nineteen thirties.
It declined by one half of a percentage point over the last year.
Michigan accounted for about ten percent of the nation's loss of unionized workers as the uh state fell to the seventh most unionized state from fifth in 2011.
Overall union membership fell in 34 states.
The president of the AFL CIO, Richard Trumke said the new figures were sobering.
He said working men and women urgently need a voice on the job today.
The sad truth is that it's become more difficult for them to have a voice.
As today's figures on union membership demonstrate, union membership impacts every other economic outcome that matters to all workers.
Falling wages, rising health care costs, home foreclosures, the loss of manufacturing jobs, disappearing retirement benefits.
So union membership falls to a 70-year low.
400,000 union jobs lost, and yet look at the power.
The union leaders nevertheless still yield.
But I'm going to tell you something.
As that membership continues to plummet, and 400,000 fewer union jobs means 400,000 fewer donors to the Democrat Party, whether they intend to be donors or not, 400,000 fewer dues paying union people.
The only reason that matters to people like Trumka...
See Trumka and James Hoffa.
These are powerful people in the Democrat Party, but there's a reason that they are powerful people.
And it's not because they're anything special.
It's because they raise money.
They turn out voters.
And in exchange for doing that, they are given seats at the Democrat Party table of power.
Well, if union membership is plummeting, that means the amount of money Trumka will be able to deliver could decline, which makes Trumke less valuable to the Democrat Party.
So believe me, Democrat Party's not going to sit there and take this and have to do something about this.
But and you note also Trump says working women and men urgently need a voice on the job today.
And what he means is union members.
They use the term working man to describe a union guy.
If you have a job and you work hard every day but you're not a member of a union, you are not a working man.
You're white-collar, middle class.
You may be a worker, but you could be management, but whatever.
You're not the working man.
And as such, you're not being taken advantage of.
You're not being used, you're not being spit on, taken advantage of and all of that.
Anyway, union membership continues to plummet despite the stimulus bill.
That's what I find the stimulus bill, the Obama stimulus bill, I guess it's ran out of money by 2012.
That $787 billion, the stimulus bill was practically 75% of it went to maintain union jobs so that they were not lost during the recession.
And the reason, folks, again, is that those jobs are part of a money laundering operation, if you will to funnel money from the U.S. Treasury back to the Democrat Party.
Yes, I'm dead serious, but okay.
Federal government, one day, they decide that they're gonna go get $787 billion.
From where?
Well, we don't have it, so they're gonna borrow it or print it or whatever, but they go get it.
And they tell everybody, yeah, we're gonna put this, we're gonna inject this.
Just imagine this is a giant syringe, we're gonna inject this right out there in the country is gonna create roads and bridges and school repair jobs and all this wonderful stuff.
And people go, Oh, wow, that's cool.
Instead, what the money did was actually go to teachers and other public sector union people so that their jobs would not be lost.
So that money from the Federal Treasury, or being barbed in China wherever ends up as salary for union workers, a portion of which gets taken out as dues.
And what happens to the dues?
The dues get spent on re-electing Democrats, campaign contributions, ad production, what have you, all for the benefit of the Democrat Party.
So if you follow the route, 787 million dollars, billion dollars left the Federal Treasury, and a percentage of it ended up in the Democrat Party.
The only way that can happen is if he wash the money at various stages along the way.
Obama still can't write the Democrat Party a check from the Federal Treasury.
So in lieu of that, tell the country we're going to stimulate the economy with brand new spending here and roads and bridges and construction jobs and repairs of schools, and people go, yeah, yeah, right on, cool.
The money goes to union workers to continue to pay them so they don't lose their jobs.
They keep getting a paycheck, a portion of paycheck goes to dues, the dues go back to the Democrat Party, and so essentially the money has come out of the Department of Treasury to the Democrat Party, but it has to go a couple places first.
Ergo, that's why I call it a sort of a money laundering operation.
The bottom line is 400,000 fewer dues paying Democrat donors now in 2012 alone.
The former coach of the Oakland Raiders, Bill Callahan, who has been the former head coach of the Nebraska Cornuskers.
He was what, I think a defensive line coach for the Jets.
He's now it's either offensive or defensive line coach for the Dallas Cowboys.
But he took over the Oakland Raiders when John Gruden left to go coach a Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
And it turned out that the very next year, the Oakland Raiders and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers squared off in the Super Bowl.
Gruden facing his old coach and his old buddy Bill Callahan.
Well, it turns out that a former wide receiver for the Oakland Raiders, Tim Brown, a guy of incredible reputation and integrity, has accused Callahan of sabotaging the Raiders and effectively throwing the Super Bowl to Gruden and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
And the way he did it, they say, is that two, three days before the game, he totally changed the game plan.
So all the practice and all the thinking and all the strategizing leading up to the game was thrown out.
Two days before the game, a new game plan installed.
Nobody had time to learn it.
Team goes out, doesn't play well, and they lose.
Jerry Rice of even more incredible reputation, also a receiver for the Raiders, has agreed with Tim Brown that Callahan threw the game.
A couple of other players have said, yep, we think it happened.
Other players, Bill Romanowski, former linebacker, a couple of others said, no way.
This is absolute absurd.
Others have pointed out the hell with the offensive game plan.
Our defense got torched by Tampa Bay in that game.
Wouldn't matter what our offense did.
I mean, Rich Gannon with the quarterback for the Raiders during the game in question, like five picks.
So now Callahan is denying it.
And he says that the allegation is defamatory.
Now you start using words like that, and people start hearing lawsuit.
No word on that.
But this comes on the heels of the family of junior Seao suing the NFL for basically denying Junior Sayao proper information to know that he could really get hurt bad if he played the game.
People play the game.
Brian, I don't know if you know this, but people playing football don't know that they could get hurt.
They don't know that they can suffer concussions, and they don't know that they could blow out knees and so forth.
So now the league is being sued for keeping that information from its players.
On the heels of Callahan being accused of sabotaging the Raiders and essentially throwing the Super Bowl.
This was a game that was ten years ago, By the way.
Along the same lines, the Department of Homeland Security on let's see, this is uh yesterday.
Department of Homeland Security took to its Twitter account to offer tips on how to deal with winter weather.
Not only do football players not know that they could suffer injuries and get hurt, uh concussions, sprain their ankles, blow out a hamstring, maybe an ACL, a PCL, an MCL, all kinds of bad things that they didn't know.
Now the Department of Homeland Security is offering us tips on how to deal with winter weather.
Because we otherwise wouldn't know.
The big sis, uh Janet Napolitano Secretary uh put out the tip sheet, and it says during winter storms and extreme cold, stay inside.
During the storm.
When the storm is going on, you can go out.
But during the storm, okay, whether it is snow, little white flakes that you see out there, maybe sleet, same thing as snow, except it's ice pellets, makes the streets and uh sidewalks slippery.
Could be fog and so you when that happens, you're stay inside.
Um if you don't stay in, say if you go outside while it's snowing or sleeting, the next thing it says here is walk carefully on uh snow and icy walkways.
Genuine Twitter tip sheet from the Department of Homeland Security.
Uh after you've been told to stay indoors during the storm or to walk carefully on snowy, icy walkways if you go outdoors during the storm, you are to next avoid over exertion when you shovel snow.
And there's a reason for that.
Over exertion can bring on a heart attack and a heart attack can make you die.
And in fact, heart attacks brought on by over exertion are a major cause of death in the winter because people don't stay inside, like the government says.
So if you are not gonna stay indoors during the storm, and if you're gonna go out and you're walking carefully on the snowy icy walkways, and then if you decide to ignore the tip sheet here and and and shovel snow, stretch before you go outside.
Do some stretching exercises, isometrics up against the wall, but stretch out because this will lessen the possibility that you could get killed outside by virtue of having a heart attack because you're over exerting, and then above all, after all of that, next on the tip sheet, stay dry.
If if if you're not gonna stay indoors during the storm, you're gonna walk carefully on the snow and ice, and you're not gonna overexert, stay dry.
When it's snowing, it's raining.
This is go for hurricane too.
If it's uh windy out there, stay dry.
Change wet clothing frequently.
If you're outside walking around on the ice, make sure you go back inside every five minutes and put on a new shirt or something.
Um so that you don't lose your body heat.
Wet clothing loses all of its insulating value, and you could get a heart attack.
If you get wet in the snow or the rain.
So change clothes all the time.
And there's even more to this that we didn't know.
Hi, are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Uh Ditto Cam's coming on here in just a second, folks.
I have here a list.
Actually, this a partial list.
If you're watching on the Ditto Cam at Rushlimbo.com, just sit tight.
Diane Feinstein announced today all the guns that she wants to ban, and I want to show you.
There they are.
That is the lit is a partial you can't read it, that's the point.
There are so many guns banned.
That's just the first page.
There's not much on the second page.
That's the that's the majority of it right there.
You can't read it.
Don't try.
You may want to zoom in.
I don't know how the pixelization is going to work for you, but just wanted to illustrate for you the scope of the die fi gun ban.
Now I've turned the ditto cam off.
I'll have to zoom back out here before I turn it back on.
I'm doing that even now as we speak, because I can multitask and do vegans at the same time.
Now it uh it it turns out.
Let me think.
Let me grab uh let's say grab Ken in Charlton, South Carolina, because he's got a detail here on it.
Ken, welcome to the program.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you for having me, Rush.
Uh you're a great voice for the American people.
Appreciate that.
The um the great Governor Cuomo of the state of New York had basically by signing his newest legislation on gun control made just about every police officer in the state of New York in violation of a class A misdemeanor.
Because they carry most of the police officers I know in New York City were.
Well, is it basically going to make every um standard police revolver illegal?
Well, the police don't carry revolvers anymore.
They um ninety, I would say ninety-five percent of the police are carrying semi-automatic handguns to carry fifteen rounds in each magazine.
Oh, I'm sorry, it says here that you were going to say that standard police revolver is being made illegal.
Yes.
Well, the standard police revolvers, which are revolvers, and I could get very technical, but I know your screeners don't want me to do that, but the standard revolvers are basically semi-automatic guns.
Because when you pull the trigger, you get one ball.
All that means is self-loading.
You know, they're using these terms here that really scare people.
They're not applicable.
This I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled by this.
Um, Obama has put forth this women in combat business.
And my memory on this is uh this has come up before.
Women in combat, we've been there, done that, we've had this debate way, way back in the nineties.
But it's it's come back, it's resurfaced.
John King was on Anderson Cooper 390 last night, CNN, talking about this.
Anderson Cooper said, You think there's no doubt that women in combat is part of the equation?
Without a doubt.
You will find a lot of Democrats who say if you can turn the Obama coalition into a democratic coalition, then the Democrats will have built in on the national stage pretty much what Ronald Reagan had for twenty years and the Republican Party had after Ronald Reagan on the national stage.
This coalition, if he can transfer it over, it spells a lot of trouble for the Republicans.
So uh I I what they're what they're doing here, and they're all in on this Reagan thing.
These people are obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and it really offends me because there's no comparison to Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan.
The only maybe I've contributed to some of this unintentionally, because Obama does want to be like Reagan in the sense that he thinks Reagan changed the trajectory of the country.
Obama believes this was a left-leaning progressive liberal country until Reagan came along, and then Reagan screwed everything up.
And Reagan got people thinking about conservatism.
Reagan was simply devoted to the Constitution.
Reagan was devoted to the concept of a representative republic.
Reagan was devoted to founding principles.
And that's what Obama doesn't like.
So now what they're trying to tell us here is that that Obama, they're admitting Reagan's greatness, by the way, and what they're doing now is trying to say that Obama is trying to accomplish what Reagan, not policy-wise, but in terms of massively influencing the people, that we're gonna have a socialist.
Uh almost a totalitarian existence.
And that's where this comparison to Reagan starts to anger me a little bit.
Reagan was not about any of this.
There were no similarities whatsoever.
Reagan was trying to de-emphasize government and people's lives.
He was trying to lower taxes.
He wanted a booming private sector.
He wanted individuals rewarded for their labor, not punished for their success.
He wanted to wipe the enemies of free people off the earth, the Soviet Union and communism everywhere.
He was a big believer in liberty and freedom for everybody, as in our founding.
That's not Obama.
So these guys in the media caught up here now in this Obama becoming becoming Reagan and women in combat.
Obama now re-establishing women in combat is to cement the Democrat coalition.
This soundbite really amazing me.
Without a doubt, Anderson, you'll find a lot of Democrats who say if you can turn the Obama coalition into a Democratic coal.
What the hell is it if it's already not a Democratic coalition?
And they mean Democrat Party, they don't mean small Democrat here.
What has he got but a Democratic Party coalition?
They can turn the Obama coalition to a Democrat coalition and the Democrats will have built on the national stage what Reagan before I'm these people don't, to this day they don't know who what Ronald Reagan was, and they clearly don't know what he was about to equate what Obama's doing here with anything Reaganistic is it's absurd and it's offensive.
But I don't even understand this.
What is the Obama coalition if it's not a bunch of Democrats?
The Gallup poll today, 86% Democrat Party approval of Obama, 10% Republican approval.
We are more partisan than ever.
The partisan divide is as great as it's ever been in history.
Well, for as long as Gallup has been tallying it.
Women in combat.
Uh women in combat that what women are being denied this?
The Republican war on women was such that women were denied their opportunities and Obama sees fit to uh to make it happen.
So anyway, the next the next question that Cooper said was okay, John, is part of this payback for those comments that McConnell made about, you know, this this top job being to make sure the president wasn't re-elected.
You could look at it that way.
I'm sure if you ask the president about this, he would say that he believes these things.
But they do believe in the White House, Anderson, pick up a census report.
Look at the demographics of this country and how they're changing.
Look at the Obama coalition from the last two elections.
They believe if they can cement the loyalty of those voters in, and part of cementing the loyalty of voters is acting on the issues they most care about.
Younger voters care about climate change.
A lot of voters do, but these are issues that fit the Obama coalition.
If they can cement that in on a national scale, the Republicans are in trouble.
Well, Republicans are already in trouble.
You notice how excited this guy is over all this, though.
He can barely contain himself.
So but it's climate change and gay marriage, those are the top two issues for people 28 and under.
And primarily 1824 college, gay marriage, gay rights, and climate change are it.
But he's salivating here over Obama turning this into some national trajectory that's gonna serve to wipe the Republicans out.
Somehow they're throwing women in combat in this.
We already have women in combat.
It's the all-American first cavalry Amazon battalion.
I've already explained this.
This is my idea.
It's a great idea, and it would work.
But I what would where this came from?
But it's all part of this supposed Democrat coalition Obama doesn't quite yet have, but he's trying to cement.
But they're all a tizzy.
They're just excited as they can be over the fact that Republicans might be wiped out.
Make no mistake about that.
Folks, I'm gonna tell you something.
This obsession that these people on the Democrat side have with Ronaldus Magnus is so devoid of any reality.
I think all they're trying to Do.
Well, not all they're trying to do.
What they what they want is a Republican comparison.
So that they can compare that they they know that people think Reagan's a great president.
Obama is Hoover.
He's not Reagan.
And what they're trying to do is anoint Obama with greatness by comparing him to Reagan.
And that's what offends me.
But just so you know, by his fourth year in office, if you want a comparison, by his fourth year in office, after Reagan's policies of cutting taxes, reducing regulations, we were in the midst of massive economic growth.
It resulted in over 20 million new jobs.
There is absolutely no comparison between Obama and Reagan.
None.
Other than this, this uh uh changing the overall ideological mind of the American people.
There's no doubt that uh that Obama's jealous of Reagan of being able to do that.
Obama would love if everybody in this country became as Alinsky-like as he is.
But this this this Reagan comparison is a flat-out admission to what a failure Obama is.
They're not comparing him to FDR.
They're not comparing him to Woodrow Wilson.
They're comparing him to Reagan.
And what's doubly frustrating is that our own party won't even talk positively about Reagan.
Oh no, era of Reagan is over.
Those are long ago days.
We can't give Reagan alive today.
It's a different era.
Well, not for these guys.
It was a formative point in their lives.
Reagan scared the devil out of them, and that's why they gotta change it.
And I John King is right.
Climate change, gay marriage.
That's what they all think Obama needs to do to solidify this new coalition of his.
Climate change, gay marriage, and those are the two big issues in young people today.
But I wonder how important they're gonna be when the financial system collapses from Obama's debt.
I wonder how important all that's gonna end up being when people literally are out of unemployment benefits and out of Medicare and don't have jobs and can't afford health care.
I wonder how important gay marriage and climate change are gonna be to them then.
And I'm a predict to you that it won't be very important.
Climate change, gay marriage are gonna matter a hill of beans once the real impact of the Obama presidency kicks in.
You wait.
You mark my words.
They are miscalculating here, they're feeling arrogant and cocky.
Lots of hubris is gonna come back and bite them.
But uh don't misunderstand.
Obama is what he's doing is is devastating.
That's my point.
These uh social issues are not gonna matter much to these people once this happens.
Nate in Nashville, I'm glad you waited, sir.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Mr. Limbaugh, such a joy to speak with you.
Thank you so much for having me.
Well, I appreciate that.
Um, I just want to let you know I'm 18 years old and I've been home educated all my life, and one of the joys of my education is having you as one of my professors.
So I really appreciate all you've done.
I'm I'm really uh honored and flattered.
Thank you very much.
You've been well served.
Well, I I just I'm so moved by what you've done, I wouldn't be who I am without you.
Um you've encouraged me to take action.
I'm an interning at the state capitol um with a pro-friendly lobbering group, and hopefully when I get out of college, um I'll get into state politics.
So thank you for what you've done.
You're welcome and thank you.
Well, um anyway, I just wanted to ask you, I heard somebody say that if Hillary ran in 2016 that she there's no way she could lose.
And you kind of addressed this earlier, but I just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Um, just because of her power and who she is.
Well, I just uh Nate, let me tell you something.
In 2008, I'm dead serious.
In 2008, there was no way she could lose.
And then Obama came out of the woodwork.
And the Democrat Party threw her overboard.
Here is a woman whose value to the men in the Democratic, the way they've used her is she's had to lie for the men in power, the Democrat Party.
That's been her job.
Now, this this giving this phrase that she used.
Oh, What difference does it make?
They're gonna be that that'll be recycled if she runs in in 2016.
Um question is, will anybody remember this in four years?
Maybe, maybe not.
But somebody's gonna try to make people remember in a campaign ad.
That phrase will be recycled.
But there is nobody in this country that's invincible.
There is nobody that can't be beaten.
And she's had this aura of invincibility around her since the 90s, and she still hadn't been elected to anything.
Keep that in mind and don't forget it.
Correction, Hillary was elected to the Senate, but not for the presidency, despite all of the fate of Confli, and Obama isn't cementing anything but his own fate in history as a disaster.
▲
Export Selection