All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
February 11, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Greetings, my friends.
How are you?
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, and another full, exciting, busy broadcast week from the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
And as always, we come to you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, a telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
I am ecstatic to be uh to realize we're talking to millions of survivors who no doubt took all of the tips that we offered last Friday on surviving the snowflakes that fell, the snowstorm that fell in the uh in the Northeast.
Uh millions of you had you not listened here, had you not taken our advice, would have died.
The f the fact that you didn't die, the fact there were no reports of mass death over the weekend indicate that everybody listening to the program followed the advice that we gave, and therefore you are alive and we're happy.
We're hoping that you would survive.
Education means so much.
Education is so important, and our program last Friday stands as a monument to the importance of education to the survivability of the human race, and we take a lead role here in that and very happily, very proudly do it.
Uh also um I have been urged, and I think probably not necessary for most of you, but I have been urged to um make an announcement to the Democrats in the audience to assure you, Democrats, I am not stepping down.
There were reports, well, with the reports that the uh that the Pope is resigning.
There were millions of confused Democrats, I'm told this morning.
Because that was the last thing they thought I would ever do.
They read I have no plans to step down.
They they they read Time Magazine, they read that I was a Pope last week, and so today the Pope said he's quitting, doesn't have the energy to fulfill the duties required, and that certainly is not me.
I clearly have the energy to fulfill the duties uh that are demanded because I define them.
Uh whatever or how much or how little is required, I'm capable of it.
And as such, it's not me.
L. Rushbow, that was the other Pulp who um who retired.
A most amazing thing to me anyway.
This may not be that big a deal to you, but but but to me it is.
This was I I found this on newsbusters.
I didn't actually see this.
Chris Matthews has a syndicated show that runs on Sundays uh throughout the country.
This is not his nightly MSNBC Tingle Up the Leg Show.
And on his show yesterday was Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who literally begged Obama, implored Obama not to destroy Marco Rubio in the upcoming immigration debate.
Um I I think this is a tantamount admission to what's going on.
I have alerted you and anybody who will listen that what the objective is at the White House is the annihilation of the Republican Party, the elimination of all viable opposition, and on a personal level.
You know, not just to annihilate Republican Party slash conservative ideas, but also people.
The people who carry them, the people who who believe in them.
And this is a tantamount admission that I, El Rushbow, was right about it.
Chris Matthews said, Marco Rubio's been designated as the Republican respondent.
Uh pretty smart.
He's the guy's Cuban American.
He's talked on the emigration issue.
Will the president stick it to him and say, I'm going to be good on immigration, you guys are going to have to handle the issue.
And David Ignatius said, I think that he's going to make immigration one of the issues.
He talks about the State of the Union, and he will.
Meaning Obama.
Immigration, gay rights.
It is going to be in advance what it's going to be.
You know, the inauguration speech of Obama was a left-wing manifesto.
And it's not reported as such because the media doesn't consider that to be anything abnormal or shocking or out of the mainstream.
But taken by itself, his and his inauguration speech was as as big a left-wing manifesto as you'll find anywhere, and more of the same is coming our way in the State of the Union show.
And whatever the issues are, whatever he talks about, it's going to be presented from an Uber left-wing perspective.
And Ignatius said, well, I think he's going to make immigration one of the issues he talks about.
State of the Union's okay, it's good.
But here are the things we need to do.
That's what he's going to say.
He's going to talk about immigration reform, going to talk about climate change.
Speaking, speaking of climate change, I don't know if you people heard this or not.
There is an info, babe.
I'm going to get back to this Ignatius thing in a minute because I haven't made the point yet.
There's an infobabe at CNN by the name of Deb Firick.
And over the weekend, Friday, Saturday, sometime, I guess Saturday afternoon, she was reporting on CNN about an approaching asteroid that will pass by the Earth on February 15th.
And it's going to be relatively close in astronomical terms.
It doesn't pose any kind of a threat yet.
She actually asked her guests, and I don't I don't know the guests were she actually asked if the approaching asteroid and she was serious.
She asked if the approaching asteroid is an example of perhaps global warming.
I kid you.
Cookie, do we have this in the soundbite roster?
I went through this very quickly, and I don't recall seeing her name here, but I don't need it if you don't have it.
It doesn't matter.
I just if I have it here, I'll play it.
I don't think I do.
Anyway, she that's that all Sheila and Jackson Lee comes off as Einstein compared to this.
But she no the point here, this isn't this isn't uh an object learning lesson.
This she was dead serious.
She was not trying to be funny.
She thought she was asking an enlightened question.
Now, moments earlier, before they'd had a spot break, she segued from the Northeast blizzard to a segment was Bill Nye the science guy.
And by pointing to global warming, she said, every time we see a storm like this lately, Bill, the first question to pop into a lot of people's minds is whether or not global warming is to blame.
And that's true, and that's one of the signs of evidence of the success of the whole politicization of global warming.
Every time there's a temperature change or any kind of extreme weather, everybody just say.
Or just just asks or thinks.
Everybody's been so conditioned now.
Oh, global warming.
You know somebody is going to say that.
So in Deborah Firik's world, global warming is not limited to Earth.
Global warming is taking place throughout the universe.
And global warming could be affecting asteroids.
In fact, the asteroid coming close, she actually asked the science guy, is this an example of perhaps global warming?
And to his credit, Bill Nye, the science guy, was a little confused and flummoxed.
Now, how does this happen?
Obviously, she's a product of her education.
She's a product of her environment.
She is part of the media, the Democrat Party massive apparatus.
She lives in her cocooned world just like they all do, and they just they believe global warming is happening, and it's man-made.
Well, look, Snertley is shouting at me over the IFB, obviously she's an idiot.
It's more than that.
I mean, if she's an idiot, they're all idiots.
And it's it's not.
I'm gonna be a little charitable.
I mean, I yeah, you have to be a little bit of an idiot to think that this is possible.
But if this is the way you've been educated, raised, trained, if this is if this is what your worldview is, it's quite natural to ask this question.
And I think it's, as I say, it's an object lesson into where we are.
Now, there is, ladies and gentlemen, I was made aware over the weekend of a book.
Friend of mine is reading a book out there called Anti-Fragile by Nassim Taleb.
And who knows if I'm pronouncing it right.
It's N-A-S-S-I-M Taleb, Nassim Taleb.
And it's a it's uh anti-fragile, and it's a it's it's a book about a different way of looking at things from the standard daily and ordinary media template or narrative that everybody is subjected to.
You can't avoid the daily narrative.
The daily narrative of global warming has been going on for 25 years, that's why Deb Feyrick thinks that she's asking a brilliant question.
Now, this author, Nasim Taleb, in his book Antifragile, says something fascinating here about journalism that is relative here to her question.
In the past, journalism was an act of courage, revealing truths in the face of powerful establishments and risking jail, or worse.
Today, journalism is becoming the refuge of disconnected cowards.
In my entire career, he writes, I've never seen a financial journalist go to the other side.
That is, pull the trigger or engage in risk taking or in any situation in which one can be exposed to harm from one's opinion.
This can be generalized to journalists in general, who rarely, if ever, switch to doing, all the while pontificating on Steve Jobs mistakes or similar purported errors of others or praising Geithner and other powerful frauds.
Some have wondered why journalists seemingly so knowledgeable about politics never become politicians.
It's the same problem.
Modern journalists are designed to be either cowards or have a need to escape reality.
Yet the tragedy is that the doers are in contact with the world through journalists.
Let me let me translate this because I think this is profound, actually.
What he's basically saying here is journalists, the whole coward business basically is okay.
Here you got a bunch of people on the sidelines who've never done what they're reporting on.
He uses financial journalists as an example.
They've never taken a risk.
They've never started a business, they've never done any of the things, or very few of them have.
They've done very little of the things they're reporting on, and yet they sit there and they pontificate, as all knowing.
They're the experts.
They sit in judgment of everybody.
They've never played the game, but they report on it as though they would be the best ever if they did play.
In politics, they've never run for office, they've never been in the arena, they're always on the outside telling everybody else who's right, who's wrong, who's smart, who's dumb, but they're basically disengaged.
That's that's what he means, I think, by coward.
They're afraid to get into the arena and take the slings and arrows.
And you know what happens when a journalist has journalism committed on them, they go absolutely bonkers.
You don't dare investigate them.
You don't dare subject them to the scrutiny that they use to scrutinize others.
You just know they'll come back you like they think they're immune because they're journalists.
But then the killer there the kicker here is.
The tragedy is that the doers are in contact with the world through journalists.
So The doers, the people out there actually doing something.
The people trying to make something, trying to build something, trying to get something right.
Their contact with the world is through these people who don't do anything.
Now, what's this got to do with Deb Fire?
What it has to do with Deb Feyrick is that she's basically ignorant.
She has no idea.
She's talking about global warming and an asteroid and whether or not it affects global warming, and she's basically as distant and as far from the reality of science and global warming as anybody can be.
Yet, in her mind, she's right in there.
She's reporting on it, which to her is the same thing as being involved in it.
And that's true with political journalists, it's true of sports journalists.
I I think it's uh I haven't read this book.
This is just one little excerpt.
There's uh uh another excerpt that was sent to me, which by itself, I don't know what the guy is talking about.
Perhaps I shouldn't I'll just tell you what's it's one line.
So the three most harmful addictions on earth.
This guy, Nassim Taleb, is book about different way of looking things.
The three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary.
Those are the three in his judgment, the way people think, the prison that you're thinking puts you in.
I know that's what this book's about without having read it.
I know exactly what this guy's talking about.
The prison that we all live in based on the way we think.
And it's pretty narrow.
And particularly he's writing about journalists as far from being worldly and aware they live in this narrow little bubble.
Their life experiences pale compared to those they're reporting on, and yet they end up being perceived as the experts.
And the people doing are the ones who are the criminals.
The people doing are the thieves, the one the people doing are the cheats, the people doing are the liars and the felons.
And the journalists are the paragons of virtue.
Now, as to this, the three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates, and a monthly salary, I can only assume that being a prisoner to a monthly salary, if that's your objective getting paid, then that's going to limit choices and opportunity elsewhere.
That's just a wild guess as to what the guy means.
Now, look, I have to take a brief time out.
We'll get back to this Ignatius and his request that Obama not destroy Rubio in the emigration debate right after this.
You know, I would add politicians to this guy's definition of journalists.
You're talking about talk about people who impose activities, impose laws on activities they know nothing about.
And you know who's at the top of the heap on that one's Obama.
Here's a guy who hasn't done anything.
If you look at his resume, he hasn't done any, particularly in the private sector yet.
What is he?
Expert on health care, expert on jobs, expert on related things health here, pharmaceuticals and you name it, expert on automobiles, uh, expert on saving money.
Expert on immigration.
Expert on virtually everything.
Not definitely not a doer.
Now I'm not I'm not trying to relegate to insignificance the fact he got elected, that's a major achievement.
But in terms of actually having been in the world and done something, as opposed to being in the stands and observing and commenting.
It's a it's a it's a phenomenon.
And it's a phenomenon in our culture today, the people who are thought to be the dregs of our society are the doers, and those who are attempting to do.
And the people we laud and and and hold outside of pop culture, the people we revere and and hold up great reverence and respect are the commentators.
And they're the great protectors.
They're protecting us from the evil.
And the mean spiritedness and the extremism of the doers.
And I tell you, folks, it's a to me, it's a it's a problematic thing.
And it about journalism particularly, and it's been something that has been gnawing at me for my uh entire career.
And it's especially true, I think, of uh of politicians as well, and who gets respect and who gets suspected.
And it's always the doers who get maligned and impugned and who are suspected.
Anyway, much more straight ahead, be right back.
Now I don't mean to pick on Deb Ferich.
She's she's just one of any number of people I could use as an example here, but I mean, when she's got Bill Nye, the science guy.
By the way, Bill Nye, the science guy is another questionable.
I mean, this is not a science guy.
He's he has a degree in mechanical drawing.
And he's on television to kids, primarily, as a as an expert scientist.
He's got all the answers when it comes to science.
He doesn't have a science degree, mechanical drawing degree, but he wears a white coat on TV.
And that's all you need, the optic.
White coat, answering questions about science, and bingo, get credibility, and you are an expert.
It's like Obama had a bunch of people up to the White House want them to look like doctors, so he gave them white coats.
Some, well, they were doctors, but some of them showed up in normal street clothes.
And the White House, oh, you can't have that.
We're trying to preach some optics here.
So the doctors all had to wear white hospital gowns, make it look like they were real doctors.
Otherwise people wouldn't have known and wouldn't have accepted it.
So here, Deb Feiberg, she's talking to Bill Nye the Science Guy, says talk about something else that's falling from the sky, not snow.
It's an asteroid.
What's coming our way?
Uh, Bill, is is this an effect of perhaps of global warming, or is this just some meteoric occasion?
What what what is a meteoric occasion?
I've never heard of that.
The first time I've ever heard an asteroid coming close to the earth and somehow being because of global warming.
Now, we looked at her website at her bio on the website at CNN, and says in her spare time, she likes to write about life as a working mother.
She speaks French and once delivered a cow while on assignment.
So maybe she is a doer.
She delivered a cow while on assignment, and she writes about life as a working mom.
The New York Association of Black Journalists honored her for her coverage of the foreclosure crisis.
The American Muslim Union named her an outstanding journalist.
Bill Nye, the science guy, has a degree in mechanical drawing, but he wears a white lab coat, so he looks like an expert in science.
I don't want to make too big a deal of this, but when I when I see a reporter actually seriously ask a science guy if global warming could explain a meteorite getting close to the earth, all I think it's what I think of is little kids in classrooms being told the same stuff and growing up thinking the same stuff, and then I think of the hard work that's going to be required to unwind all this to deprogram all these people end up thinking this stuff.
Mechanical engineering, sorry, is a degree in mechanical engineering, Bill Nye, not mechanical drawing.
So, wanted to make sure that we have it right.
Now back to David Ignatius.
On the Chris Matthews weekend show on Sunday, talking about Marco Rubio.
He says, I know Obama's going to talk about immigration State of the Union.
I know he's going to do that.
He's going to talk about climate change.
He's going to certainly talk about bringing the troops home from the wars.
And I think he'll announce a number of troops that'll be withdrawn.
You know, Marco Rubio question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero sum game in Washington where to do something good on immigration reform, he has to destroy Rubio, who is the Republican symbol of progress on that.
And I'm looking to see whether he can lift his game beyond where he was in his inaugural address and really speak to the country.
Really speak to the people who didn't vote for him, as well as the people who did, and have a platform for really doing so.
So here we have, quite by accident, a member of the state-controlled media, openly concerned about what Obama is doing, admitting that the inaugural address was a left-wing manifesto and worrying what it means for the country if the State of the Union is the same thing.
And openly asking, can Obama accomplish anything without destroying somebody?
Meaning, can Obama behave in such a way that his ideas will triumph, or can he only get what he wants by destroying his opponents?
Well, you and I know the answer that Obama can't sell his ideas.
He doesn't even try.
The entire Obama M.O., and it's been this way since Obama got into politics in Illinois as a state senator, has been to clear the playing field, not level it.
This is why I have been imploring people to understand, particularly Republicans, that what they face is not just a president, but an entire Democrat Party, which has as its objective to eliminate all viable opposition, but not do so in the strength of their ideas, which they can't do, by the way.
Their ideas do not sell.
And that's why Obama doesn't try to sell them.
That's uh specifically why Obama has to destroy the credibility and the reputation of his political opponents.
That's what they did to Romney.
You know it and I know it, and everybody else that was paying attention knows it.
Romney knows it.
They just didn't respond to it in the Romney campaign theoretically because they didn't have any money at the time the Obama attack was taking place via all those TV ads.
Even today, Stephanie Sutter's still out there, Stephanie Cutter, the Obama campaign babe, she's still, oh yeah, Romney's a felon.
Damn right, I'm not ashamed of it.
He was a felon then and he's a felon now.
They're still saying it because they're still in campaign mode.
So their MO is literally to destroy their opposition and win in that way because their ideas do not triumph.
And Ignatius here is practically admitting it.
The question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero sum game in Washington where to do something good on immigration reform, he has to destroy Rubio, who is the Republican symbol of progress on that.
Zero sum game means, in terms of economics, if you believe in a zero-sum game, you think that there's a finite amount of money.
And for example, if somebody gets a raise of $10,000 a year that somebody has to lose it.
You do not believe that the pie can grow.
Well, what Ignatius is saying here is that Obama believes in a zero-sum game business in politics, that if somebody like Marco Rubio draws rave reviews and accolades, it means bad things for Obama.
Obama cannot exist with his enemies being praised.
Obama cannot exist with his political opponents also getting positive reviews.
Zero sum game.
So what Obama has to do is make sure that none of his opponents get rave Reviews or even approving comments.
So he has to take them out.
And Ignatius is openly hoping that Obama won't do that in this case.
That he'll try for his immigration reform ideas on the strength of his ideas and not do it by destroying Rubio.
Now I'm going to tell you something, folks.
This is a Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius.
For him to be saying this, I don't care what show it is.
For him to be saying this means that there is, and it's probably got a very faint heartbeat, and I'm not trying to attach too much weight to this at all.
But what it means is that even within the bowels of the liberal Democrat power base, there is some huge discomfort with the way Obama's operating.
It's a faint heartbeat, and um don't misunderstand what I'm saying.
I'm not saying there's an open revolt against Obama, but nothing like that.
Do not put emphasis on this that I'm not myself adding.
But I just, again, I think this book that I told you about has some profundities in it.
The anti-fragile book by Nassim Taleb, I think what Ignatius said on Matthews, and he might have said it as this is a throwaway, but I think there are strains of profundity in it because of what he's admitting.
He's admitting.
He's basically, they want Obama.
These guys believe in the ideology.
They believe in the superiority of liberalism or progressivism.
And they want Obama to win on that basis.
They want the idea to triumph.
They want that to be what everybody's supports.
They would, they would, I mean, they're purists.
They want to be winning because you become a liberal.
They want to be winning because you accept progressivism.
They don't want to be winning simply because Obama wipes out the opposition.
They want you converted.
And Obama's not converting you.
He's ignoring you if you don't agree with him.
He's taking out all of your leaders if he doesn't agree with you.
But he's not building anything.
He's tearing everything apart, tearing things down.
That's what Ignatius is saying.
He may not even realize it.
And again, don't infer something I'm not, I'm not saying.
I'm not saying there's something to build on here.
To me, this is just one of my little observations.
Saw this.
I think most people it would zoom right by him and it wouldn't even register, but to me, uh I mean, you go be the reason I think this struck me, look at John Dickerson.
John Dickerson's CBS political director is actually encouraging Obama to obliterate and annihilate the opposition.
And not just Dickerson, a lot of Obama's media have been begging him to just destroy the Republicans, to wipe them out and the conservatives.
And just just that's why Obama's focusing on Fox News and me and talk radio is the only two places left where there's any opposition to him in the media.
But somewhere in the bowels, and it may, you know, Ignatius may be a lone wolf here, but he's clearly not comfortable.
If he is imploring Obama to do immigration reform without destroying Rubio, I think it's profound what he's saying.
And now I must take a brief time out while you ponder that.
I fully expect many of you to think, I don't know what I'm talking about.
And in a couple three months, you'll come around.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post, sadly, another journalist whose career I may have just ruined.
His next assignment probably be the Westminster Dog Show.
Well, we hope not.
Anyway, welcome back, El Rushmore here as we kick off a brand new busy broadcast week.
So yesterday on CNN, Candy Crowley asked the panel on her program if the comments of Dr. Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast were inappropriate.
Actually, she asked if his comments were appropriate.
Now, before we play for you the Candy Crowley soundbite from CNN yesterday, I want to go back.
We've got two sound bites from Dr. Benjamin Cardin.
He's the Johns Hopkins University Hospital Pediatric Neurosurgery Director, it's a great guy, great, great family story from Detroit.
Here are the two excerpts that we aired last week from his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama sitting right there.
Now some people say, they say, well, that's not fair, because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.
Where does it say you have to hurt the guy?
He just put a billion dollars in the pot.
You know, we don't need to hurt him.
It's that kind of thinking.
It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands.
That money needs to be back here, building our infrastructure and creating jobs.
Here's Dr. Carson with his solution to the health care crisis in this country.
Here's my solution.
When a person is born, give them a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account.
To which money can be contributed pre-tax from the time you're born to the time you die.
When you die, you can pass it on to your family members so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spin up everything.
You're happy to pass it on, and there's nobody talking about death panels.
That's number one.
And also, for the people who are indigent who don't have any money, we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money.
Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs.
Now they have some control over their own health care.
Uh-oh, uh-oh, not what Obama wants to hear.
Now, patients, now people can have control over their own health care.
He wants that control.
He wants the government to have that control.
He wants the death panels to have that control.
Now, these sound bites were just part of a long speech Mr. Cardin made, Dr. Carden made, that everybody, I mean, it it really resonated.
It was terrific.
It was so rational and so simple, and it was so needed.
And it's such a great contrast to what we're getting from the Republican Party or wringing their hands and being all introspective and changing their branding and changing their marketing, and all that's required is somebody to articulate the ideas.
Particularly since Obama's afraid to use his own ideas.
Ideas can triumph.
And Dr. Dr. Carson here proved it.
So this to show you what a threat this man is and was at the prayer breakfast on State of the Union on Sunday, Candy Crowley's show.
She interviewed Jan Shikowski, Congresswoman from Illinois, and uh talking about Dr. Carson.
And they had this exchange.
Did you find anything offensive with Well, certainly he's it's America, he's entitled to his opinion.
A lot of the talk was about was this the right place to do it?
And there was lots of applause from Republicans who said, finally somebody stood up and said it.
It's really um uh not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech and to invoke God is his support for that kind of point of view.
But I think most of all, the kind of message that he was giving shows a real empathy gap of where the American people are right now, and I think it's reflective of where many of the uh Republicans and Tea Parties are right now that we need to have an economy that works for everyone.
You you can't have a bigger disconnect than this.
Candy Crowley versus, well, it's kind of offensive.
Certainly he's titled to his opinion.
I mean, he's an American and all, but was this the right place?
Prayer breakfast?
President sitting there, was this the right place?
You mean there happen to be places where telling the truth about things just isn't permitted, not appropriate.
And then, of course, Shikowski.
Well, of course it's not appropriate.
No way, invoke God in a prayer breakfast for the kind of point of view he has.
Of course that's not appropriate.
But look at the disconnect here, Candy.
Most Americans are not thinking of doing things for themselves.
Most Americans want the government to do it for them.
And for this guy to show up and talk about taking care of yourself and controlling your own health care.
That's not where the American people are.
Whoa, what a big disconnect.
That just shows you how screwed up the Tea Party is.
But that they were questioning whether or not this man had the right or was appropriate.
Statists, folks, statists.
You noticed all the white Republican racists who are pretending that they like Dr. Benjamin Carson.
You notice that snorkel that's how the well, that's how the left would look at it.
Okay, got a quick timeout here at the top of the hour, my friends, but we've only just begun.
▲
Export Selection