All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:22
January 28, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, how are you?
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh.
Your bulwark the last line of demarcation between you and a totally compliant media.
That's right, Barack Obama said if it weren't for me and Fox News that he wouldn't have any opposition.
If it weren't for me and Fox News, the Republicans would be totally content to agree with Obama on the Democrats on everything.
And then everything would be fine.
Everything would be fixed, everything would be okay.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number is 800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program, the email address El Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Our last caller, I had time constraints, and I didn't get a chance to expound on the actual news story that he was reacting to, but it is true.
A Milwaukee sheriff, David Clark Jr., who's African American, released a radio ad urging Milwaukee area residents to learn to handle firearms so that they can defend themselves while waiting for police.
He said Friday that law enforcement cutbacks have changed the way police can respond to crime.
So he put together a 30-second PSA saying personal safety is no longer a spectator sport.
He said in the PSA, I need you in the game.
With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 9-11 and waiting is no longer your best option.
You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, you can hide under the bed, or you can fight back.
Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so that you can defend yourself until we get there.
As you can imagine, there are people up in arms over this.
The ad has generated sharp criticism.
from other area officials and anti-violence advocates.
The president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriff's Association, Roy Felber, said it sounds like a call of vigilante-ism.
That doesn't sound too smart, Faber said.
People have the right to defend themselves, yeah, but they don't have the right to take the law into their own hands.
What law are they taking into their own hands here, Mr. Mr. Felber?
Under Wisconsin's castle doctrine, somebody who uses deadly force against an unlawful intruder in their home or business or vehicle is presumed to have acted reasonably.
And so what the caller was saying, who would I rather listen to?
The sheriff of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, who happens to be African American, or the president of the United States.
Who would I rather listen to on what I should do to stay safe?
And that's why I started talking, well, you know, some people think that Barack Obama, who's never done anything with community organized, knows everything about health care, and nobody else knows anything.
Only Obama knows about health care.
Only Obama knows about health insurance.
Only Obama knows about big oil and gasoline, and only Obama knows about windmills and solar panels, and only Obama knows about the military.
I do.
I I I find it I understand it psychologically.
I understand the uh the the the notion that particularly in the minds of low information people, government is the beginning and end of everything.
Government is where the protectors are.
That's what really has happened.
Is that this all-out 50-year assault on capitalism has led to people believing that their neighbors and that their friends and that people that run businesses large and small are just out to screw them.
Mistreat them.
And that government is there to protect them.
A government's there to make sure that everybody's treated with fairness and that everybody's knife.
And uh therefore it is thus assumed that it's Barack Obama who knows more about health care than the guy that runs the American Medical Association.
Barack Obama knows more about pharmaceuticals than all the CEOs and all the scientists at all the drug companies.
It of course is patently absurd, but sadly uh it's what people believe.
The Associated Press, you know, this is pretty wild even by AP standards.
What this story is, I think it's an apology for a random act of journalism they had last week.
Remember the story we had?
AP reported the penalties on smokers, the fines in Obamacare, starting in 2014, the insurance premium penalty.
And we gave two examples, somebody 55 years of age, somebody 60 years of age, and the 60-year-old smoker under Obamacare one year from now, in addition to whatever his health care premium is, will pay a penalty of $5100.
This has suddenly been discovered in Obamacare, and that, as I say, implements next year.
For the smoker that's age 55, the penalty is, I think 4500, on top of the premium.
And I started joking last week about, well, why stop there?
Why don't they put a penalty in there for obesity?
And lo and behold, AP has a story.
Do penalties for smokers and the obese make sense.
Attempts to curb smoking and unhealthy eating frequently lead to backlash.
Witness the current legal tussle over New York City's first of its kind limits on the size of sugary beverages.
The vicious fight last year in California over a ballot proposal to add a $1 per pack cigarette tax, which has ultimately been defeated.
So why provoke a backlash?
If one in five adults smoke and one in three are obese, why not just get off their backs and allow them go on with their lives and die?
This is the AP story.
Why not just get off their backs, let them go on with their shortened lives?
And then AP answers it.
Well, because it's not just about them, say some health economists.
Bioethicists and public health researchers, your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm, said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think tank, the Hastings Center.
And after all, that's really why the left wanted Obamacare in the first place, because your freedom is somebody else's harm.
So now everything we eat and anything we do or don't do will affect everybody else's health insurance rates.
And this is why they wanted health care.
Once they are allowed to regulate your behavior and what you eat, what you do, you don't eat, and relate that to health care costs, they have the power to control it.
And that's why they wanted this.
That's why they wanted Obamacare.
It isn't about making health care better.
It's not about improving insurance.
It's not about any of that.
It is about control, and it's about control because you don't know what's best for you, and therefore you could do great damage to society.
So somebody raised the question.
Well, look, if somebody wants to smoke, let them.
They'll just die sooner, and there'll be less of a burden on everybody.
And then that's when the bioethicist said, ah, wait a minute.
That smoker's freedom is somebody else's harm.
And somebody said, What do you mean by that?
Well, he's just not gonna die.
He's gonna get sick first, it's gonna require all kinds of treatment for cancer, maybe lung cancer health treatments, so this guy's freedom to smoke is gonna cost all the rest of us a bunch of money.
So the bioethicist is making the case for all these outstandingly huge fines for all the behavior that the government sees as unsuitable.
And they've locked that they've now added uh obesity into this.
Not only is AP contend that the smoker penalty is a good thing, they now say there should be a penalty for being overweight.
And this is exactly what I predicted on Friday when I did the story, I was laughing about it.
I said, Well, you know, if they do this on smoking, they're gonna have to come in and do the same thing in obesity, and now they've done it.
We discussed this smoker penalty last week.
I'll never forget it, and I started joking.
Well, how come the obese get an exemption?
I'm sure you remember.
How come the obese get an exempt?
Here comes AP saying that we're not talking to bioethicists.
You know, the obese shouldn't get an exemption.
The obese ought to pay a health insurance fine if they're overweight, because that's gonna cause all the rest of us.
Because the freedom that they engage in that results in their obesity is costing all the rest of us money.
And so in two AP stories, we actually get the truth for people willing to acknowledge it.
And the truth is that your freedom is the problem.
Particularly if your exercise of your freedom is in an unapproved way.
If the exercise of your freedom happens in a way they don't approve and it leads to higher costs of everybody else, then you're going to pay a fine, buddy.
And that's why they wanted Obamacare.
Now they can they can legislate all kinds of behavior, even behavior has nothing to do with health per se, but they'll claim it does because of the um of the cost.
It's about people control.
Gun control is about people control.
Pure and simple, and nothing more.
By the way, the U.S. Embassy Cairo has been closed due to the protests there.
There obviously is uh a new anti-Muslim video just got posted on YouTube, apparently.
That's uh Daniel Sierra Vista, Arizona.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I mean uh long time listener and a first time caller.
Um it's great to have you here.
Thank you much.
No, thank you.
Yeah, I wanted to tell you I'm a uh border patrol agent.
I uh work down in Douglas, and um I wanted to talk about this uh immigration reform plan that Marco Rubio and several other senators are putting forth today.
I've been looking over the text, and um a lot of it is just the same uh same Washington hackery that you see with every piece of legislation that comes out.
Um what I told you, call screener was I feel that compromising on the fiscal deal by essentially promising the spending cuts is the same thing as giving amnesty to illegal aliens and then thus promising a secure border.
I just don't think that it's gonna happen.
Um they you know they they say uh I think let me tell you what I heard.
Let me let me tell you what I let me tell you what I read.
I forget where, I forget where, but there was a it was a blog post this morning, and a Democrat on his blog post admitted that the whole notion of border security has been added to this immigration bill simply to give the Republicans a talking point, that the Democrats are not serious about it.
So your instincts on this are right.
Yeah, exactly.
They don't want any border control.
The Democrats want all these new voters, and so do the Republicans in one degree or another.
Rush you on a I'm a graduate student at the University of Arizona.
My emphasis isn't isn't security studies.
Um I've done my own initial uh uh initiative on on interviews with a lot of these aliens, the majority don't want to be here.
They don't want to live here, they want to come and work and then go back home.
Uh these are the same talking points that Republicans have been putting forth for years.
In 1986, Ron DeRegan tried it, and it didn't work.
And it's the same exact thing that's gonna happen now.
And it's unfortunate here senators and representatives uh look, it's it's it's what I just gun control is not about guns.
Um health care is not about health care, and immigration is not about immigration.
And by the way, I don't say this lightly, and it's not easy to say.
Do you realize the easy thing would be to say, you know what, folks, there's nothing we can do.
We may as well go ahead here and acquiesce, try to secure the border and move forward.
That would be the easy thing to do.
But what's being talked about here is not really about immigration.
On the Republican side, after the election when Romney lost, it didn't take long, matter of days for the Republican consultancy class to start saying, well, we lost because Hispanics hate us.
We lost because of our position on amnesty, immigration, and we lost because women hate us, because we we're too uh too cold hearted when it comes to abortion and this kind of thing.
And so there's a defensiveness here that is propelling a lot of people.
Not every Republican, but there's a defensiveness that's inspiring them all.
But I I keep falling back on one thing that just doesn't make sense to me.
And maybe somebody can explain it.
It's the Democrats who keep telling us that the reason we're losing elections and falling short is because we're just not reaching out to Hispanics enough.
We're not we're not compassionate enough when it comes to immigration.
Too many Hispanics think Republicans don't like them and don't want them to be here and want to deport them.
And so the Democrats tell us this.
The Democrats are say, you guys are gonna have to moderate your views on this.
You're gonna have to become more like we are.
Now, my my problem with this is I just can't if the Democrats think that their position on immigration, let's use that for an example, is the right one.
And if the Democrats' position is what's getting all of that support from Hispanic voters, what I don't understand is why would the Democrats want to give up some of those voters to the Republicans.
Can somebody help me out here?
What strikes me is something similar to the often heard media and Democrat charge, you better not criticize Obama.
You guys, you're just gonna scare the independents and they're gonna be running right back to Democrats because they don't like all this partisanship, and they don't like this bickering.
And meanwhile, the most partisan people around to the Democrats, the most loud argumentative, mean spirited people around to the Democrats.
And yet, when they're loud, mean spirited, argumentative, and partisan, somehow that doesn't bother the independents.
They have no problem.
But when the Republicans ostensibly get that way to the independent say, eh, screw you guys, I don't want any part of you.
Well, I think it's all a trick that's worked, the purpose of which is to get the Republicans to shut up, to not criticize Obama.
Now, the idea that the Democrats are trying to help us get some of the Hispanic vote, I just don't see that.
I I don't see anywhere else in the political spectrum where the Democrats want to share their voters with us.
I don't see it they don't want us to have any more women voters than they do.
So the idea that we've got to compromise by acknowledging that we're wrong and agreeing with them on immigration in order to increase support from the Hispanic population doesn't compute with me.
It doesn't make sense.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
I gotta take a brief time out.
Look, Daniel, I'm glad you called.
We will be back and continue.
Stay with us.
Okay, first off uh on immigration.
This is a story from a very excited, I would have to say cheering associated press, senators reach deal on immigration changes.
Now we a previous caller, I'll mention this again.
We've done this, we've we've done amnesty before.
It was called Simpson Mazzoli.
And it was uh during the Reagan years, it was 1986.
Reagan was not in favor of it, but he bought into it.
They promised him if we do this once, it'll be the end of it.
Once we grant amnesty, that's it.
No more of this illegal immigration stuff.
We're talking about 1.1 to 1.3 million illegals back then.
That's what the haggle was over.
One point three million illegals.
Ted Kennedy went to the Florida Senate in 1986.
He said this amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens.
We'll secure the borders henceforth.
We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.
1986, Ted Kennedy.
And here we are.
This is the fourth year in a row.
This has been a well more than four years.
Go back to the Bush.
In fact, this immigration bill that everybody's touting on TV today is essentially the Bush immigration bill that was beat back in 2007.
For all intents and purposes.
It might be a little change here, a little change there.
A story from the ecstatic AP, bipartisan group of leading senators reached agreement on the principles of sweeping legislation to rewrite the nation's immigration laws.
The deal to be announced at a news conference this afternoon covers border security, guest workers, employment verification, employer verification, as well as a path to citizenship for the eleven million illegal immigrants already in the country.
What do you bet that in fact here they go now?
There they are.
The press conference to announce this is occurring.
We're not gonna jip it because all eight of them will speak.
We'll get the highlights and have it.
Maybe some today, but certainly uh tomorrow.
But the odds are that if this thing ever sees the light of day, Chuck Hugh Schumer taking the lead here.
If um if if this comes to pass, then we'll hear, you know what, maybe actually wasn't eleven, it's like twenty million illegals that we're we're talking about.
Um, we have a random act of journalism.
Comprehensive immigration reform could make millions of people suddenly eligible for assistance under Obamacare.
Assuming a final deal paves the way for undocumented immigrants to receive papers.
Illegal aliens are now prohibited from purchasing coverage through Obamacare's exchanges that'll launch next year, but the picture could change completely if Hispanic lawmakers get their wish, which is an overhaul of U.S. immigration policy that includes a path to legalization or amnesty.
The consequences for Obama's signature health care law as well as health care providers could be huge.
Representative Raul Grijalva, Democrat Arizona, member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said the legislation of undocumented or legalization of undocumented people would benefit hospitals now burdened by uncompensated care.
Of course it would.
How can it hurt to add 11 million or 20 million more people to free health care?
How can it hurt?
It's a beautiful thing.
11 more million of free health care, which is what everybody thinks Obamacare is.
So you know it and I know it.
The ruling class, the political elites in Washington have wanted this since Simpson Mazzoli.
They've wanted it since 86.
During the second term of the Bush administration, it was an intense desire.
And Obama put it on a back burner his first two years, actually his first term he put it on a back burner, but now here it is, front burner.
We've got four Republicans, four Democrats have signed on to it, and it appears to be a fait accompli.
And the Republican participation in this is taking place largely because they believe if they don't do it, they will never win the presidency again because they will never get Hispanic votes.
That's what they think.
They have been convinced that Hispanics hate them because of immigration.
Now, we know, we've seen the data, we've seen the academic scholarly data, and we know that 75%, I had these numbers before the election.
Didn't matter then, probably isn't going to matter now.
75% of Hispanic voters do not vote for a president based on immigration.
It's not their top issue.
The welfare state is government as the as the provider, government as the source of prosperity is the number one issue for Hispanic voters.
It isn't immigration.
But the Republicans have bought the idea that they're never going to win anything if they don't relax the perceived position they have on immigration.
And what is the perceived position?
The perceived position is among Hispanics and the Hispanic political organizations is that Republicans are racists.
The Republicans want to deport them.
The Republicans want to kick them out.
Why is that the perceived position?
Well, it's not the Republican position.
For as long as I've been paying attention, the Republicans have been begging for Hispanic votes.
The Republicans have not said one thing to make anybody think they want Hispanics deported.
Oh, there've been some people have held principal positions about the law when it comes to immigration.
Republicans have been penalized for that.
The law's an old-fashioned thing.
CBS News even ran a piece on Constitution kind of old fashioned.
What do we need it for anymore?
It's the same thing with any other law that people don't like.
This is this this amnesty business, this illegal immigration.
The idea is, and the reason the Republicans are thought of the way they are is because of years and years and years of Democrat media distortion about the Republican position and the Republicans' inability to counter it.
And so have to accept the fact that a large percentage of Hispanics think that Republicans want to deport them.
When nobody's ever talked about deportation.
Nobody's ever advocated it.
All the Republicans have advocated is fealty to the law.
There's a way to become a citizen.
And why should certain people be exempted from it while the rest of the world is in line following the law?
And so when they say that, the Democrats say, see, they're biased against Hispanics, see they're biased against Latinos.
And so the Republicans, it's sort of what happened to Sarah Palin.
The media destroyed her.
The Republicans said the only way out of this is to kick her out of the party.
The only way that we can survive is for us to publicly distance ourselves from Sarah Palin.
Rather than defend her, rather than do what they could to make the case that she was trying to make, just throw her overboard, hear it with the immigration, okay, all right, they believe X, so we can't change that other than do what Democrats do, because Hispanics like the Democrats.
And that's basically where we are.
Now, tomorrow, in our second hour, uh we're gonna have Marco Rubio on the program to talk.
He's one of the eight who supports this, and he's got and has long had his own immigration plan, and I want to talk to him about how much of his plan he was able to make part of this.
So we'll have him at the top of the second hour tomorrow.
I gotta take a brief time out now.
We'll be back.
More of your phone calls are coming up.
I don't know.
My guess is going to be that after we listen to some of the sound bites of, say, Senator Trumer and Senator McCain and Senator Menendez, some of the others on this bipartisan group is announcing immigration reform today.
My guess is that it's gonna sound very close to exactly what we were told in 1986 with the first amnesty.
I'll bet you we hear that if we do this, we'll never have to do it again.
We've got to do this because it's out of control.
We've got to do this, we're going to secure the border, so forth.
Anyway, one of Marco Rubio's points, folks, essentially is that Obama's already given us de facto amnesty anyway.
He did it with the children of uh illegal immigrants via the executive order back last year was prior to the uh election.
I mean, thanks to Obama, now you have amnesty unless you get convicted of a major felony.
Uh so I I don't know that there's any stopping this.
I mean, it's up to me in Fox News, and I don't think Fox News is that invested in this.
Uh but there's not I don't think there's any Republican opposition to this of any majority consequence or size.
We'll have to wait and see and find out.
But this is one of those just keep plugging away, plugging away, plug it away until you finally beat down the uh the opposition.
Now, I mentioned mere moments ago that CBS is now doing segments on who needs the Constitution anyway.
Charles Osgood set up a commentary that was offered by one of their contributors on CBS Sunday morning.
Here is Charles Osgood introducing the weekly opinion segment.
Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which most Americans hold it?
Is the U.S. Constitution CBS News you're Super Bowl network?
The network of Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard story.
Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which most Americans hold it?
I'm not sure I accept the premise of the question.
I don't know how many Americans have deep reverence for the Constitution anymore.
It's an open question.
Anyway, that was to introduce a commentary by Georgetown University constitutional law professor Lewis Michael Seidman, who said I've got a simple idea.
Let's give up on the Constitution.
I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution.
The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring.
Not because a bunch of people who are now long dead favored them two centuries ago.
This is our country.
We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.
We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.
CBS News Sunday morning, a law professor, constitutional law professor, Georgetown University.
That is chilling, comparing the founding fathers to a foreign power, a bunch of old dead white guys.
we shouldn't allow people to Who died over 200 centuries ago and who knew nothing of our country as it exists today to rule us.
And then if we are to take back our country, what is that take back our country?
From who?
You know, the liberals are constantly talking about taking back our country, and this is what they mean.
Taking it back from the founding, taking it back from the founders.
They didn't like it to begin with, and now they want to abolish the Constitution.
The people that had anything to do with it are nothing special.
They're dead.
They had no idea what life would be like today.
Totally missing the miracle of the document.
Totally missing the beauty and miracle that is the Constitution.
I'd say I don't know where the time went today.
This is indeed the fastest three hours in media.
Norway data shows that the Earth's global warming is less severe than feared.
And of course, this is true.
And we didn't need the Norway data to uh to know it, but it's good to have it.
Folks, thank you so much for being with us.
Truly appreciate it.
I gotta run now, but we'll be back in uh in 21 hours, revved up and ready to go again.
And I really appreciate you being here.
▲
Export Selection