All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
March 5, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, what's so funny that I said he doesn't even know the loop on it?
Is that what was funny?
All right, well, maybe I will.
I don't know.
I'm really, I'm conflicted over whether or not to do this.
I've got my my instincts are saying don't do it, but everybody saying, no, you gotta do it.
Oh, I don't know.
I'll think about it.
Anyway.
I know you're wondering what I'm talking about, but if I tell you what I'm talking about, we're talking about things here in the staff back and forth.
I got I got emails from listeners.
I got snerdly, I've got friends telling me that I ought to see if I start talking about it, I start talking about it.
I have a minute in my mind if I want to start talking about it.
I know it's unfair to you folks.
I'm teasing you.
I don't intend to.
The show just happened to start right in the middle of, you know, as usual, people telling me what I ought to do.
And the microphone went on, and uh that's what you just caught up here in the middle of.
Program has started.
It's great to have you here.
Here's a telephone number if you want to be on the uh program 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
You know, there's a there's a I guess it's an editorial today, the Washington Examiner, and it's actually there's an excellent point in this piece.
It's about it's about the sequester, and it's also about the limbaugh theorem in a way.
That's what these people are all urging me to talk about.
I am being inundated with emails from you in the audience who are telling me that you can't turn on the television these days or read anything without somebody, without hearing somebody mention my theory about Obama never governing, always campaigning, always appearing as the outsider, blah, you know, that whole spiel that I started two weeks ago.
Basically, I got people emailing me saying everybody's using that now, but nobody's mentioning your name.
And I get snerdly and I've got these emails, you people in the embassy, you you need to explain how this got started so that you get credit for it.
I'm not about getting credit, and I don't want to come here and start whining about stuff, but I've got friends saying it's important rush because you're out there, you're getting maligned, you're getting ripped to shreds and so forth, and you're the guy that's providing them with all the theories they're using to make themselves look smart.
So I don't know.
I just so all I care about is that you people in the audience know the truth about things, and whether anybody else does, that's that's for events to flow of their own inertia, history to take care of.
I don't know.
Maybe it's right.
Being right is its own validation.
Success is the best revenge, whatever, since Obama's into revenge.
Well, well, now that is true.
Snurdly is making the point that people are hearing incomplete versions of the limbaugh theorem and maybe are not fully understanding.
Well, last night, somebody emailed Hot Air, the website that we quote here, Ed Morrissey and uh and his gang and the Michelle Morkin started that.
They've got a thing every night called quotes of the day.
Uh and and last night somebody sent it to me.
And last night's quotes of the day was everybody that was quoted explaining the limbaugh theorem.
But you're right, Snerdley, they not they they all missed an element here or an element there.
And it is, I'll tell you it's important, especially for low information voters to eventually understand this.
And it's not hard.
It's very easy to understand it, so it's I don't know, maybe I'll spend some time on it and do course in mere moments.
I do want to this this DC examiner piece, because it kind of goes along with it in a way.
Let me lift this little excerpt.
For the for perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict Maximum pain on the American people.
And this is a natural outgrowth of the limbaugh theorem.
And it is dead on.
In order for Obama to win this sequester argument, there has to be pain.
The American people have to experience pain in their daily lives.
And that can manifest itself as long lines at the airport.
It can manifest itself in any number of ways.
It could also not be true, but just said to be true, like big sis.
Janet Balitano has been caught lying about how bad things are at the airport.
She can make a statement long line, you might expect that you might see them at the airport.
You might giving the impression that because of the sequester, it's harder than ever to get through a security check and board an airplane when facts on the ground don't indicate that that's true.
But the the the bottom line is that this point is exactly right, and it may be for the first time in the history of the United States.
That's a stretch.
Because you might have been able at some at at various uh parts of the Clinton administration to make this point, but but not nearly as pointedly or focused and severe as now.
It is clear that the Obama administration doesn't just need the American people to feel pain.
It wants you to feel pain.
It is it is the number one requirement in order for Obama to succeed at what he's ultimately attempting to achieve here, and that is, and it's another part of the Limbaugh theorem, winning the House in 2014.
It's never really about the sequester, it's not really about the continuing resolution.
All of this is about disqualifying Republicans in the eyes of voters, making Republicans absolutely persona non grata, making them the epitome of modern evil, so that when the next midterms come up that they are voted out, and thereby Obama has eliminated any effective political opposition and has a clear road.
There have been criticisms of Obama in this regard, and this is uh this is also from people picking up the Limbaugh theorem and adapting it in their own ways.
One of these adaptations holds that uh Obama is not being president.
He's just purely political.
I mean, he's spending his time campaigning and he's he's attacking half of the people in this country.
Anytime he goes after the Republicans, he's going after people to vote for them.
You know, the old adage is the president's the president, everybody.
The president's not particularly ideological, the president's not particularly political.
The president, in this case, however, is, and he's spending all of his time campaigning, not governing.
He doesn't want his name attached to anything so that whatever goes wrong, it can't be associated with him, and it isn't being.
As I keep pointing out, every poll shows that people disagree with his agenda, think the country's headed in the wrong direction, but they don't associate any of his policies with what's going wrong in the country.
They still blame the Republicans for that.
They still think the Republicans don't care about them.
That Obama and the Democrats are the ones that do.
And so Obama is campaigning on that.
He's effectively not acting as president, but as an ideologue using the power of the presidency to eliminate and wipe out opponents.
And I got to thinking.
What would I do if I were ever elected president?
And I there's a part of me that would do in reverse what Obama's doing.
Except in my case, I would think I'm doing it by being honest.
I would take advantage of the bully pulpit to educate the American people who don't know about the truth of liberalism.
I certainly would not try to accommodate it.
I certainly wouldn't want to make agreements or whatever.
That it's not possible.
We don't have anything in common with the modern iteration of Democrat Party.
And can we be on the last, you know, the Republican presidents we've had are George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
And isn't one of the reasons so many Republicans are disappointed is precisely that neither of them ever did get political.
Even when they were being lied about and roasted and destroyed, they never engaged.
It's not that they didn't attack the other guys, they never even defended themselves.
And as such, they never defended the ideology.
They never defended the philosophy that was under assault constantly.
And the rare moments, and they were just, you could count them on one hand that Bush did this.
There were cheers all over this country when it happened.
So, in a political sense, purely political sense, I understand exactly what Obama's doing, and by the way, putting myself inside his head, I think it makes perfect sense for him to be doing what he's doing given who he is.
He's an authoritarian, he doesn't like two-party accommodation.
He wants one party domination, rule, what have you.
The objective in business is to eliminate your competitor.
Why shouldn't it be in politics?
That's what he's trying to do.
Our side just doesn't get it.
Even as some of these people try to adapt for their own use, the limbaugh, they still don't quite get what's inspiring it.
They're still looking at it within the prism of standard Washington politics.
Well, he's just out on a campaign, constantly campaigning.
Well, yeah, but why?
To what end?
And how is he doing it and how is he gaining success doing it?
And what's motivating it.
And that's what I think people still yet haven't grasped.
Although more and more are, as I read them each and every day.
We're into the fifth year of Obama.
You can read pieces from so-called intelligent people on our side who are just now figuring out Obama lies on purpose.
And just now beginning to consider the possibility that maybe all this is by design.
Maybe.
Don't quite want to make that leap yet.
But when you understand, as this Washington examiner piece today points out, that perhaps for the first time in the history of the country, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people.
That is quite stunning.
Now don't misunderstand.
That I would not, if I were president, when I would not want to emulate, it'd be just the exact opposite.
I would be for prosperity for everybody.
That is not Obama.
I would not want to inflict pain.
I would want to set the table for contentment, happiness, and joy.
Economic, cultural, spiritual, you name it.
That's the kind of country I would want to preside over.
I wouldn't want to preside over a country where half the people are ticked off all.
Even Obama's fans are ticked off because they're never happy.
But this notion now that we got the sequester, and so now in order for the Democrats to win this sequester thing, there has to be pain.
There must be suffering.
By the American people, there must be.
That's how Obama benefits.
That's how Obama succeeds, is by virtue of people suffering.
And the real stinko part of it is that the plan is to see to it that the suffering is because of the Republicans.
They're the reasons for it.
Opposing Obama is what causes the suffering, not Obama, you see.
Opposing Obama is what causes the pain.
That's, pardon my French here, but in political terms, that's the brilliance of what Obama's doing.
And he's into his fifth year of it now.
I can understand the president.
getting away with this for six months.
But we're into the fifth year of a guy in the White House who is never I shouldn't say never, but seldom attached to anything happening in the country.
It's almost as though we haven't had the election yet.
The campaign's still ongoing.
Anyway, you get the drift.
But this this point about pain and suffering, equaling achievement, success, and not just for Obama, but for the Democrats as a party.
It's hideous, folks.
It is insidious.
And it uh certainly is not what this country has ever been about.
I must take a brief timeout.
When we come back, audio sound bites have two of them and uh demonstrate once again.
You know, yesterday, Lauren Silberman, I told you there are two ways to analyze Lauren Silberman's attempt that she tried out for the NFL as a kicker.
And she had two kicks.
One went nineteen yards, the other went thirteen yards, grand totaled 32 yards, two kicks.
Then she claimed a quadriceps injury and left.
It looked like she never had kicked a football before, didn't look like she had any idea what she was doing, had to ask.
It took her ten minutes to figure out how to put the ball on the T. I'm told.
Well, maybe not ten, but certainly five.
It kept falling off.
She kept she'd never done it before.
Publicity's not whatever.
And I said there are two ways to interpret this.
There's the low information way, and there's the honest way.
I did both.
We'll come back and...
Well, you'll just hear.
Don't go away, folks.
Ha!
Are you great to have you here?
It's L Rushbow, fastest week in media.
It's already Tuesday, if you can believe that.
Telephone number is 800 282-2882.
Okay.
By the way, the lingerie football league, and they do exist.
I love that league too.
Lingerie Football League.
They provided some of the replacement refs, by the way.
Just during the during the uh the lockout of the regular referees national football, a couple from the lingerie league, I kid you not.
The lingerie football league has announced that Lawren Silberman is not good enough for the lingerie league, that they are only interested in real football players at the lingerie league.
They told us the TMZ.
So I follow TMZ.
Um hip.
That's how I know this.
And don't forget what I told you yesterday, but Lauren Silberman said when the trial didn't work, said, look, it's not the length that matters, it's the technique that counts.
As she trudged off the field.
Here's what I said.
Do we have time to get both these?
I'll try.
Here's what I said yesterday about that.
Now, the low information voter way of reporting this would be to go, oh, what a valiant, you know.
Did you see this lady kicker traffic of the National Football League?
You want to talk about guts.
This is a woman who really is challenging the orthodoxy of the day.
This is a woman who's not content with her lot in life and her place in this culture.
And she wanted a tryout for the National Football League and more power to her.
Why shouldn't she?
And she gave it everything she had.
She tried, she did everything.
She prepped, she worked hard, she did everything possible.
It's just a shame, and boy, we hope that she can get well soon and come back and kick for real so that we can find out how really good she is.
That's the low information way of analyzing Lauren Silverman.
And true to form, here it is, last night on CNN.
The media obsessed with her.
Would she be able to live up to the impossible expectations?
No.
Her first kickoff attempt went 19 yards.
Her second went 13, both well short of the perfect 60 she was hoping for.
But is it really so surprising?
As of now, the only requirement to attend one of these combines is a $275 entrance fee and proof you're eligible for the draft.
Lauren had both.
Despite coming up short, she should be proud of herself for trying.
The fact that the media is now tearing her down is a little unfair since they were the ones who built her up and created this whole stink in the first place.
Do I do I know how to play this stuff or do I know how to play this stuff?
What is this?
Well, short of the 60 yards she was hoping for.
She's hoping to kick 60 yards.
She barely was able to hit 19, and she wasn't even able to stay on her feet after the kicks.
She fell down.
I'm sorry.
I have abandoned the low information, compassionate understanding.
Gee, we should really applaud her for her effort, because that's what counts in America now, not success, but effort.
Anyway, do I know this stuff or do I know it?
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, 800-282-2882, and try to get to your phone calls in this hour.
We hardly ever do that.
We hardly ever succeed in getting to calls the first hour, but we're going to try to make an exception here.
The Congressional Budget Office announced that the federal government is going to take in a record number of dollars via tax revenue this year.
That record is 2.7 trillion dollars.
Now, there's two things about this.
$2.7 trillion in tax revenue, that's an all-time record.
And who do you think is paying the majority of that 2.7%?
When you understand that forty-eight percent of Americans are not paying any income tax.
And we've had the information up on my website for years about the breakdown.
The top 1% pays X, the top 5% pays X. Basically, the top 10% of wage earners in this country are paying about 80% of all taxes, top 10%.
The top 5% are paying 40%.
And we've got a record tax year, income tax, all tax revenue.
So you can you can say we're not undertaxed when we're collecting more revenue via taxes than ever before in a down economy, folks.
In a down economy with 8.5 million fewer jobs available since 2009 when Obama took office.
Unemployment is really at 14%.
The labor force participation rate is at a practically an all-time low.
Well, it's it's close to what it was in the 70s with Jimmy Carter.
Even with all of this unemployment, even with the fact that about half the country pays no income tax, we still have a record year in tax revenue collected by the government.
So we're not undertaxed.
If there was ever any illustration that our budget problems are spending side focus, this is it.
Even with a record year of tax revenue, it's still not enough for Obama and the Democrats.
They are still demanding more taxes.
They now want a carbon tax.
Obama's dangling a carrot out there.
He says, well, you know, I might approve the Keystone Pipeline, but I want a carbon tax.
Yes.
Folks, a carbon tax is an energy tax.
It is a tax on every bit of fuel that you use.
At every level of fuel production and distribution, from discovery to the consumer.
It is a tax at every level.
It is going to take even more disposable income out of the pockets of people.
The economy is going to get smaller.
Prosperity is going to shrink.
Tax revenue will increase and exceed the record number of $2.7 trillion.
And even with this record amount of tax revenue collected, we're going to spend a trillion dollars more than that.
Again, this year.
We're going to spend $3.7 trillion after collecting $2.7 trillion, which means that we're going to have another deficit of a trillion dollars, which means the national debt will go from sixteen billion to seventeen billion, and actually more once interest and all is added in.
Don't you think this might indicate that we have a spending problem?
Don't you think this might indicate the American people are taxed plenty?
Don't you think it might indicate that the whole idea that there are some people not paying their fair share can be thrown out the window.
No matter what the tax rate is, and no matter what the amount of money collected, Obama's still going to run around and say we just need a little bit more from the rich.
The rich still aren't paying their fair share.
They've got much more than they need.
I think this is a stunning number when you consider the number of people not working and not paying any tax.
I think it's a stunning number.
But it doesn't mean a hill of beans when you look at the amount of money we're spending.
Now, let's add the sequester to this just for the sake of it, and it's tough to start talking numbers on the radio, but if the sequester is kept in place for the next ten years, and it won't be, the sequester, of course, is $1.2 trillion cut over ten years, which year by year it's infinitesimal.
If the sequester, however, is kept in place for the next ten years, the government will still end up spending $2.4 trillion more ten years from now than we're spending now.
Which is to say ten years from now, the federal government will be spending almost as much more as what it currently collects in taxes.
We are currently collecting $2.7 trillion in taxes with the sequester, with the cuts of the sequester, we are still going to spend $2.4 trillion more over 10 years.
So there isn't any budget cutting.
There isn't anything getting smaller.
Other than the optics of it, other than government officials telling you that it's painful for people out there.
And there might be a couple of people getting furloughed a day a week here, and I'm I have no doubt that the regime is making sure that there are some government employees that are in pain because they need it.
They benefit from it.
All of you federal workers, and you've we've had a number of them call here and complain about their circumstance.
They're being furloughed, they're losing one day of pay a week, it's gonna mean this, it's gonna mean that.
You've got to understand that the president of the United States is benefiting from your pain.
It's designed for him to benefit from your pain.
It is designed, this whole sequester, and in fact, all of Obama budgeting for the next two years is designed to inflict pain because nothing is Obama's fault.
It's all the Republicans' fault.
We have a president of the country who's comfortable with suffering.
It benefits him politically.
We have a president who's comfortable with the pain His policies sequesters his idea.
The pain his policies are inflicting.
Benefits him politically.
That's not how we've understood presidents to operate and to act.
You federal workers need to blame the boss.
Your boss is sacrificing you in order to win some elections in 2014.
Brief timeout, Ill Rushbow at the Limbaugh Institute, back after this.
You know, I just got a good question in the email.
Somebody said, Why are you calling your theory a theorem?
You're calling it the limbaugh theorem.
Are you just trying to use big words on us?
No.
I'm glad I got the question.
Snerdley, do you know the difference?
Just a little test.
I'm not trying to embarrass you.
You're used to not knowing things.
Seriously, do you know the difference in a theory and a theorem?
Did you just take a wild guess at that?
He got it.
He got it pretty close.
He said theorem is more based in fact.
In fact, a theorem is something that is not self-evident, but nevertheless proved by a chain of reasoning.
A theory is just a wild guess based on some empirical data.
And that's why I'm not calling this the limbaugh theory.
It is a theorem.
Mine is a proposition.
It's not self-evident, but I can prove it by a chain of reasoning, a truth established by means of accepted truths.
A theorem has multiple parts and they all add up to undeniable truth.
I. So wait, way to go, Mr. Snerdley.
I love it.
I love it when people know the answer to stuff.
I'd say I'm glad I got the question, but it is the limbaugh theorem.
Now, here's what's going on with this.
About three weeks ago, look, I'm sorry to be redundant, but I I need to go back to the beginning to explain this.
For four years I have been frustrated as I can be, and especially after the 2012 election, trying to understand how it is that rotten economy, which has been made worse by Obama policies, never ever attached itself to him.
And there was a the the giant light of truth that went off for me was a Washington Post headline about a month ago.
It was a Sunday news story.
You know, I ought to go out, I've got it saved in pocket.
I ought to go get it and have it verbatim.
But basically, what the headline said was that despite everything happening, the bad news that Obama was not associated with it in any way.
It had people disapproving of Obama's agenda by majority numbers.
Policy by policy, from health care to the Keystone Pipeline, you name it, people oppose Obama's agenda.
They don't agree with it.
And in polling data, the American people are not happy with the direction of the country.
But then in the same polling data, Obama's approval numbers at the time were over 50%.
Significantly over 50%.
So people didn't like the direction the country disagreed with all of his policy ideas, but gave him high marks.
And furthermore, I learned that people did not associate Obama's policies with the results on the ground in this country, be they economic or whatever.
And I, how in the world does this happen?
I began to ask.
How can this be?
My entire life, the economy of a country, the economy of the country has always been tied to the president, fairly or not, fairly or unfairly.
Economy goes up, president gets credit.
Economy goes south, president gets blame.
Whether he had anything to do with it or not, it's been standard operating procedure, but not now.
And added to it, we have a president whose policies are not arguably, but definitely making matters worse.
And people do not make that connection.
So how can this be?
And I don't know what it was.
Something one of these explosions in my mind went off.
And it was something in that Washington, might have been a New York Times, something in that newspaper story that clicked for me.
He's never seen as governing.
Obama is always seen opposing everything that's happening, even the things he is causing to happen.
He is on a perpetual campaign.
Now a lot of people have made that point.
But they make it in a limited way without completing or closing the loop without fully understanding what it all means.
And why?
Some people say he's campaigning just because he likes it, that's his strong suit.
No, it's not that it's to make sure that he doesn't get blamed for anything.
He is presenting every day a photo op and an image of opposing all the things happening.
And as they get worse, he gets credit for trying to fix them.
He says, for example, that he's not going to do one thing that'll add a dime to the deficit.
Well, he's only added six trillion dollars to the national debt.
Six trillion dollars in deficits.
But people that vote for him, no, he hasn't.
He said he wasn't gonna add a dime to the deficit.
So it must be the Republicans that are doing it.
Because Obama hasn't done it.
Obama cares it.
But about Obamacare, that's gonna lower your premiums.
That's gonna make health care more affordable.
And when that doesn't happen, that's the insurance companies, because Obama's out there blaming them for it.
So the perception is he's working really hard.
He's got jobs councils, he's done all this stuff to create jobs.
He's had meeting after meeting, he's had commission after commission, he's listened to the Republicans, he's had Paul Ryan up to up with the budget.
He's trying, he's working real hard, and he understands the rich aren't paying their fair share, and he's getting money out from them, and he's he's making life fair and more equitable, and he understands gay marriage and gay rights and so forth, and he's up against it, but this country's got 200 years of a history that he hasn't been able to fix in just four.
And as such, you get an exit poll in the 2012 election.
The question cares about people like me.
81% Obama, 19% Romney.
So the old image survives.
Republicans only care about the rich, don't care about people in pain, don't care about the vulnerable, don't care about the poor, don't care about the sick, only Obama does.
Obama cares about people like me.
He's trying to make my life better.
Republicans, they're not.
They only care about the rich.
They don't care if my life goes to hell.
As long as theirs doesn't.
And then 55% in the expo blame Bush for the economy.
It all came together for me.
And that's why Obama for the next two years is not going to be seen governing.
He's gonna be campaigning because it's all about securing one party rule.
It's all about eliminating any and all viable political opposition.
That's why he's out personally attacking Fox News and me.
You know, I represent Talk Radio.
Fox News and Talk Radio, The only two, as far as he's concerned, the only two places in media now where he has the opposition.
He's got to eliminate that, just like he has to eliminate the Republicans.
So that essentially is a limbaugh theorem.
And it's being picked up and used everywhere now.
And you are sending me emails saying, you know, people are stealing it from you.
And not crediting you.
And you ought to mention it.
So I'm doing that.
I'm not through with this, though.
I have to take a break.
This is not a good time to have to take a break, but I have to.
Sit tight.
Back in a second.
Here's that New York Times headline, February 12th.
Polls show dissatisfaction with country's direction, but support for Obama's agenda.
And I said, How in the name of Sam Hill can that be?
▲
Export Selection