All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
March 5, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Lynn boss serving humanity simply by being here behind the golden EIB microphone.
There are only two of those.
And of course, I have them both.
One's here and one's over there.
Oh, it's not over there, it's over there.
We just got it back.
What was it?
Oh, where was it?
Oh, that's right.
We donated it to a radio museum for a while.
And they just sent it.
Yeah, it was the second golden EIB microphone was on tour at a radio museum, and we just got it back.
We're lucky we got it back.
We're lucky they sent it.
We're lucky it wasn't stolen.
So anyway, there are only two of them.
We have them both here.
Great to have you, folks.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Now let me wrap this up.
I'm very nervous about this, and the only reason that I'm continuing to go through this limbaugh theorem is being very honest with you.
I'm being delused with email from people who are telling me they're seeing and reading all kinds of people using it as their own and not giving me credit.
And I just want you all to know that's I don't really care.
The only people I care about are you.
Now you understand, you know that that's totally sufficient for me.
But two people have said that it is important because for three reasons.
A, the people appropriating it from you don't really fully understand it and are not explaining it fully like Romney was on Fox News Sunday, and he went through, yeah, the Obama is just simply campaigning.
That's all he's doing.
But that he didn't explain why that is being done and what the real impact of it is and how it relates to politics today.
And a lot of other people are mentioning Obama is not governing, he's campaigning, but they're not closing the loop.
Another good friend of mine said it's bigger problem than that, Rush, because I don't know whether you know it or not, but there's a bunch of young conservatives out there who are trashing you all the time.
Saying that you need to be ignored, denounced, or whatever, and yet they're stealing a lot of things you say.
And it's important for people to understand where this stuff's coming from since you don't toot your own horn.
So that's the only reason I'm going through this one more time.
And again, the starting point for it was this New York Times piece on February 12th.
Polls showed dissatisfaction with country's direction, but support for Obama's agenda.
That caused the light to explode, and uh I've been able to answer a question that had been bugging me for four years, which is how is it that this guy get re-elected?
How in the world does none of what's going wrong in this country that everybody acknowledges is going wrong, how does he escape accountability?
And now I know.
It is a great Alinsky IT sleight of hand.
He's not governing.
He's fighting.
He's not governing.
He's opposing.
There are other forces making this happen.
Powerful, invisible forces like a bunch of wizards of Oz.
And it's those people behind the curtains trying to protect the rich.
Trying to make sure that you don't get your job back or what have you.
That people accept and believe.
When you have dissatisfaction with the country's direction, but support for Obama's agenda.
That's amazing.
And that's why he's on the campaign trail now, and it's why he's going to stay on the campaign trail because what he's doing is effectively trying to wipe out all political opposition.
There is no common ground.
There's no desire for bipartisanship.
He doesn't want to come to bipartisan agreements.
In fact, Boehner once gave Obama everything he asked for in a fiscal cliff deal, and Obama changed the terms of the deal.
He demanded an additional trillion dollars in tax increases from Boehner, and that's when Boehner walked away.
He didn't want a deal.
He doesn't want any agreement.
He doesn't want his name attached to any policy going forward Because the intention here is for to be more pain where we are now.
Now that the sequester's kicked in, the objective here is for you to experience pain.
The objective is for you to feel pain and to suffer.
And this is so that you will never ever again accept the government getting smaller.
You will never, ever again accept budget cuts.
You will never ever let Republicans run the show.
Your suffering, your pain is his gain.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
There's Major Garrett this morning on CBS this morning.
And he was talking about Janet Napolitano and the supposed pain and suffering at the airports.
As for what's happening with the spending cuts, no visible disruptions, at least not yet.
Even so, the Homeland Security Secretary said big flight delays dogged weekend travelers.
But where?
I want to say O'Hare.
I want to say LAX.
Um I want to say Atlanta, but I'd have to check.
Officials at Chicago's O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport reported no significant delays.
Air traffic controllers in Chicago did say delays are coming.
Air traffic controllers.
What the what's that got to do?
The delays are because of TSA.
Longer lines to get through the security checkpoints.
And a snowstorm's coming to Chicago, so they're going to be delays.
But here you hit Janet Napolitano in this bite says, Well, I want to say O'Ham.
I want to say LAX.
Um, I want to say Atlanta, but I'd have to check.
So Major Garrett, when I say there isn't any suffering.
There are no suffering delays.
There's no pain.
Doesn't matter.
She said so.
She said there is.
And that's what the regime is doing all over television.
Telling people that there are disruptions and delays, inconveniences, pain, suffering when there isn't any.
The worst thing that can happen to the regime is for the sequester to kick in, which it has, and for nobody to notice.
That's the worst thing that could happen.
Now, the Washington Examiner today explores this whole concept in an editorial.
Perhaps for the first time in the history of the country, it's in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people.
Inflict, cause it, not just benefit from it, but to cause it in order to benefit.
And listen to how they begin their piece.
President Obama is just 42 days into his second term in the White House, but he's already done governing.
Well, where'd they get that?
As the Washington Post reported this weekend, Obama's already executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisors believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.
Yeah, the Washington Post did report that late to the party, but accurate nevertheless.
The goal the Washington Post reports is to flip the Republican-held house back to Democrat control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change, and the economy.
During his final two years in Orifice, according to Congressional Democrats.
Well, that is what's going on.
The Washington Post is right, as I say, late to the party.
In other words, folks, Obama is done trying to work with Republicans this year and next.
And you know what he's going to say is the reason for it?
Well, you know, I'm going to have to get a lot of stuff done this year, because starting next year, people are going to start talking about the midterms, and I'm not going to be a factor.
And then after that, they're going to be looking at the presidential race in 2016.
So I've got to get everything done this year.
I've got to get as much done this year, the next 18 months as I can, because after that nobody's going to pay attention to me.
I'm going to become, he's not saying this, but the theory is to be lame duck, because the future is the focus and he's not it, theoretically.
But it all adds up to the undeniable fact that Obama has no attention of governing, no intention of coming to any agreements with the Republicans.
It's silly.
It's folly for the Republicans to seek that.
They ought to be doing what he's doing, trying to defeat politically Obama and the Democrats rather than get along.
But I know why they don't.
Frank Lunt's focus group.
This is another amazing thing.
Last week, Lunch did a focus group for CBS.
Twenty-two people have voted for Obama.
Twenty-two people have voted for Romney.
You couldn't tell a difference in them.
And they all said that they want the political parties to work together.
Isn't it interesting that people want the parties to work together, but only the Republicans get the blame for not doing it?
When they're the only ones that try.
The Republicans actually are the only ones, it's silly and it's folly, but they are trying to make compromise agreements with the Democrats.
The Democrats want no part of it.
Obama wants no part of it.
The Republicans get the blame for it.
And that's because of the perpetual, never-ending campaign.
We had the news last hour.
Tax revenue collected is at an all-time high.
$2.7 trillion collected tax revenue in the middle of a recession, with eight and a half million fewer jobs existing than four years ago.
Unemployment at 14%.
And tax revenues at an all-time high.
And yet Obama's running around talking about how people aren't taxed enough yet.
Not just the rich.
He's not through taxing everybody.
At 2.7 record amount of revenue collected, we're still going to have a deficit of one trillion because we're spending 3.7 trillion.
Clear illustration that we have a spending problem.
No, that's right.
I pointed out if you have you ever noticed, folks, the way this works.
In Cuba, Fidel Castro has been running that country into the ground since 1959, 1960.
Castro still talks about the revolution.
He did the revolution.
He took control 50 years ago.
As far as the way he governs, he's still trying to take control.
He's still fighting those evil Batista forces.
The revolution still hasn't been completed yet.
All popular dictators do it this way.
Mount Sae tongue.
Castro, they all never stop.
They may change the terms, cultural revolution, or what have you, but they never stop with the image of constantly fighting these powerful forces of oppression.
And that's exactly what's uh what's happening here.
Now, anyway, tax revenue is going to hit a record high this year.
And USA Today has a companion story, personal income plummets 3.6% in January.
Personal income growth dropped, plunged 3.6% in January.
That's the biggest one-month drop in 20 years.
And we still are collecting a record amount of tax revenue.
And we still are hearing from the Democrats that we are under taxed.
These are commerce department numbers.
These are regime numbers.
Consumer spending rose 0.2%.
Most of it toward higher heating bills and filling up the gas tank.
And if Obama gets his carbon tax, that's going to cost everybody a whole lot more.
And none of it attaches to him.
None of it.
Brief timeout.
We'll get to your calls when we come back.
Sit tight, my friends.
Don't go away.
No, see, if Obama gets one party rule in 2014, if he wins the House, he's not a lame duck.
You know, the old standard conventional wisdom is that second-term administrations really are worthless.
One of two things happen.
They become lame ducks because they're the past.
They have nothing to do with the future, or scandal erupts.
But if Obama succeeds in winning the House of the Democrats, there's no lame duck.
There won't be any opposition.
He'll have smooth sailing the last two years to do whatever he wants.
He won't need executive orders to do whatever he wants.
And yes, I've uh a lot of people asking me if I've noted Jeb Bush and his apparent reversal on amnesty for illegals.
Of course I have.
I'm host.
And we're gonna talk about it.
I can't squeeze it all in here in the first hour of the program.
Sit tight, be patient.
Two more sound bites before the phones of uh phone calls.
Uh up first is uh is Brit Hume.
And this is uh last night on the O'Reilly factor.
Question, when did he say he didn't want the authority that Paul Ryan wants to give him to make sure that things like aircraft carriers aren't denied, things like that.
What this question is about.
The Senate, or Riley meant the Senate.
The Senate last week to head off the sequester, offered a bill that would have given Obama total authority over whatever spending cuts in the sequester there were to be.
Republicans in the Senate proposed it.
Democrats said, nope, not going to do it.
Obama said he would veto it.
It was a test.
Okay, we're gonna pass a bill, we'll give you total authority over all the spending.
He didn't want it.
Why?
He doesn't want his name on these cuts.
He doesn't want his name on whatever happens in the sequester.
It's his idea.
He proposed it, he got it, but he doesn't want anybody knowing that.
As far as these sequester budget cuts are concerned, he's fighting every one of them.
It's somebody else causing the pain, not him.
So O'Reilly was asking Britt Hume, when did he say that?
As if O'Reilly's not believing and he said it.
So this is what Britt Hume said.
This has been pretty clear.
The administration doesn't want this.
The president seems prepared to let the public suffer almost as much as possible as long as he can blame somebody else.
This is not what we expect of presidents.
Presidents in the end are supposed to be the people who put on their big boy pants and are prepared to shoulder responsibility.
And if they're criticized for using that responsibility or authority, so be it.
But that's what you expect of presidents.
This president seems more inclined to let the chips fall where they may and hit as hard as they might, as long as he thinks he can blame somebody else.
It's very unusual for a president.
Limbaugh theorem, folks, limbaugh theorem.
It's everywhere.
And I'm not bragging.
Again, I wouldn't even be mentioning this except I'm being inundated.
I shouldn't even say this.
I'm very uncomfortable about this, as you know.
A good friend of mine said you better stand up for it because there's this culture out there, these young whippersnapper conservatives are tarnishing you, trashing you, ripping you to shreds while they steal your ideas.
I said, Well, I don't care.
As long as the audience knows where the what's what, that's all that's ever mattered to me, and you do.
So there you have it.
Brit Hume saying, he's waiting wants to inflict pain.
It's not what presidents do.
It's not what we associate.
They fix stuff.
They accept the responsibility.
They take on the challenges.
Obama's getting out of the way and letting it happen, or at worst, making it happen.
And garnering political advantage as a result.
This morning on CNN, the anchorette, Info Babe, Ashley Banfield spoke with John King.
She said, instead of actually getting a budget, we're just getting these band-aids, John.
Is there a sticking point at all anywhere in actually achieving a continuing resolution at this point at the end of the month?
I would say the sticking point is the trust deficit.
Every day that passes gets us closer to 2014.
The Democrats think they have an outside chance of getting the House of Representatives back.
Uh so the Capitol P politics kicks into every one of these conversations.
It's been sixteen years since Washington passed a budget according to the rules, so it's not just this president and this Republican House.
I would say because of that trust deficit and because of the constant campaigning for the next election, they've taken the dysfunction to new lows.
Who is taking the dysfunction to new lows, John?
Who is doing the constant campaigning?
And what is this that we haven't had a budget according to the rules in sixteen years?
That's an effort to not focus on the fact that the Democrats have studiously avoided by law any budget for the past four years because they're trying to hide from the public what their true agenda is.
Somehow we see have to even blame Republicans for the past sixteen years for that.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Your guiding light, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concern, Maharashtra.
Just one more little thing here, then we go to the phones.
Tom Brokaw was on uh MSNBC yesterday afternoon.
You know what he said?
He said that Speaker Boehner was right when Speaker Boehner blamed the implementation of the sequester on the president and the Democrats because they're constantly campaigning.
Tom Brokaw said that Boehner is right.
Obama spent too much time campaigning instead of governing.
So even Boehner's out there now articulating the limbaugh theorem and Brokow, who I'm sure has no idea, uh is uh is agreeing with the premise.
Okay, Joe in Los Angeles, I'm really glad that you waited.
I appreciate your patience and welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Matt.
Um I think you're just the man to find this out to put my mind at ease along with millions of other Americans and make sure that Lon at least got a participation trophy from the NFL.
Uh Lauren Silberman, if she if she got her participation trophy after the event, yeah, because she tried out.
You have to clue me in.
What what is a participation trophy?
Well, you know, I mean, it sounds like it's it sounds like you get a trophy for just showing up.
Yeah.
That's uh kids today get trophies for just, you know, playing in a league at the end of the league, you know, they don't have winners or losers.
Everybody gets a trophy for participating, and I just want to make sure that Lauren got hers from the NFL.
Well, I don't I don't think she got a participation trophy, but she got far more than that.
She got a lot of publicity.
She's getting a lot of credit in the drive-by media for trying.
The only negative is the lingerie football league said that they don't want her.
That she's not good enough for the lingerie league.
They actually said this.
They put out a statement.
That's the only negative that um that has happened.
So participation trophy.
Um I think she got more than that, Joey.
She got famous.
And credit for participating look, fame is the objective in America today, and she got it.
So you'd have to say that her endeavor was successful.
Cameron in Pittsburgh, it's great to have you, sir.
Welcome.
Rush, an honor to talk to you.
I have uh two points or two questions.
My first one is last week during President Obama's uh press conference uh regarding sequestration, he clearly placed blame squarely on the Republicans for any negative economic economic numbers that may come out the next uh three or six months.
My question is when positive economic figures come out in the next three or six months, will he give credit to the Republicans for those numbers?
Um I'm not sure if if when causes of economic wrong the positive economic numbers stiff and when in the next three months positive economic numbers could give No, no, no, no, no.
Why would there be positive economic numbers?
Well, it's quite uh possible.
Sequestration could uh have a positive effect on the economy.
It's it's it's look it.
if there anything positive happening in the economy, if there are any positive numbers uh they're fake.
But beyond that, the regime is going to get credit for it.
The Republicans aren't going to get credit for anything.
That really is my point.
He was ready to place blame, but uh I know he would not give credit if the numbers were positive.
My second point or second question is how is it that Democrats constantly regard America's children as our most sacred resource only when they're outside of the womb.
Uh I'm really having trouble hearing you.
I'm not it's it's that's not your fault.
It's the phone you're on combined with my hearing problem, your words are all running together.
Did he say inside or outside the womb?
Um sacred resource outside the womb, obviously.
Inside the womb, they're they're not they're just unviable tissue masses.
On this business of positive economic news, I think uh if I understand the reason for the question, Obama's been out blaming the Republicans for the sequester.
It's their fault.
They created it, they're the architects.
And if all of a sudden the economy shows improvement, are they going to get credit for it?
Um that that's the media is not going to credit the Republicans for anything.
Obama's not going to credit the Republicans for for anything.
And if the American people on their own attribute positive economic numbers to the sequester, which they don't even understand.
I'm not trying to be negative here.
I uh Obama's out talking the economy down now, other than the stock market, which is another, you know, the stock market's doing well simply because the Federal Reserve has been pumping money into it.
The Fed has basically been giving money to investors, institutional people, to go out and invest in securities.
Because Obama's pointing to the stock market.
That's that's the focal point now.
Uh uh it's a show that the economy's rebounded and is uh is is smooth sailing ahead.
And there's even a piece at Business Insider today saying it's all clear for the economy.
We're now on the road to full-fledged unstoppable recovery.
Now what Obama did say his press conference last week was that, and we played the soundbite, anything bad that happens next month, next week, next two months, next three months, next six months, it's the fault of the Republicans.
It's due to the sequester.
He made that prediction.
That's talking the economy down.
He's purposely inflicting pain and suffering on people economically.
Uh he doesn't he doesn't benefit the way he set things up, he doesn't really benefit from a rebounding economy.
Not without a lot of spin, which they're entirely capable of.
Uh where are we headed next?
Well, that helped.
Malcolm South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, hi, welcome to the program.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Uh I wanted to ask you, since the government report on the Keystone XL pipeline has come out, and it said that it would have basically no effect on climate change.
Do you think Obama will quit stalling and approve it or find some other way to have a void dealing with it?
Uh who said that approving the Keystone Pipeline will have no impact on climate change.
I I can't remember whether it was the EPA or but there was a report that he had been waiting on.
But it was some government agency that said that.
Yes, sir.
They're waiting for a review from a government agency on what at a Keystone pipeline, which is simply shipping oil underground or maybe overground in a pipe, would somehow affect climate change.
And somebody came back and said there will be no impact.
How big of them?
Look at what here the answer to your question is.
That's that's that's a a joke and a and a uh a faulty premise to begin with.
There is no man-made climate change taking place out there, Malcolm.
But the bottom line, on the Keystone Pipeline, Obama, what I've heard is that he's open to it in exchange for a carbon tax, that if Congress will agree, which means the Republicans in the House, if they will agree to a brand new carbon tax, then he might consider authorizing the Keystone Pipeline.
Well, carbon tax is no good for you know the reasons you already say stated.
Privatizing is no good.
The carbon tax, sir.
Well, a carbon tax is just going to slow the economy down even more.
It's just going to take more money out of people's pockets big time.
I mean, energy the discovery of oil and its uh many uses is what propelled massive economic advancement, technological invention and improvement and anything.
You know, somebody had a uh great question the other day.
If taxes on carbon reduce energy use by design, Obama wants he wants us to reduce our use of carbon-based fuels because they cause climate change and global warming.
So if taxes on carbon reduce the usage of energy, what do income taxes do?
Well, by definition, they reduce income.
And income tax reduces income, makes people poorer.
I I think that the thing here with uh Obama and and the Keystone Pipeline is absurd.
Here's a chance for energy independence, here is a chance for uh cheaper domestic, refined energy, as I say, less dependence on imports, and he's opposed to it on the grounds that it somehow is dangerous and is going to add to climate change.
That that this Keystone Pipeline is is a great example, by the way, of the whole idea that this administration is not devoted to improving things in this country.
Because that's a no-brainer in anybody's world.
The Keystone Pipeline's a no-brainer.
But not in his.
Brief timeout, folks, sit tight, we're back with much more after this.
And we are back.
El Rochebo on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
This is from the New York Times.
It's from yesterday.
The the headline quite interesting.
Obama faces political risks in emphasizing the effects of spending cuts.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this.
But listen to the opening paragraphs of this story.
Now, this is the New York Times and Obama House organ, the epitome of state-controlled media.
As the nation's top Democrat, President Obama has a clear imperative to ratchet up pressure on Republicans for across the board spending cuts by using the power of his office to dramatize the impact on families, business, and the military.
Meaning, as the nation's biggest Democrat, Obama's political job is to make sure the Republicans get the blame for any suffering that is the result of the sequester.
He has got to dramatize the impact, the pain.
He's got to focus on it.
This is his job as the top Democrat.
He's got to go out there and he's got to make the case that the Republicans are killing people, harming people, injuring people, making the country less safe and less secure.
That's his job as top Democrat.
Here's the next paragraph.
But as president, Mr. Obama is charged with minimizing the damage from the spending reductions and must steer clear of talking down the economy.
A sustained campaign against the cuts by the president could become what one former aide called a self fulfilling kind of mess.
The second paragraph is a New York Times red flag.
Because what they're saying here is he's the is as the nation's top Democrat, he's supposed to go out there and he is supposed to highlight these cuts, and he's supposed to talk about all the pain and all the suffering and blame the Republicans.
The next paragraph they say, but that's not presidential.
That's not what presidents do.
Presidents minimize the damage from such things.
Presidents steer clear of talking down the economy.
And so the New York Times is worried here because they say a sustained campaign against the cuts by the president could become a self-fulfilling kind of mess, meaning he's not gonna get away with it.
At some point, people are going to start blaming him.
And the New York Times is worried.
So then the next paragraph is as a result, Mr. Obama is carefully navigating between maximizing heat on Republicans to undo these cuts while mobilizing efforts to make sure that the spending cuts do not hurt Americans.
He is not doing that.
That's where the story falls apart.
Story by uh Michael Scheer.
The story falls apart right there.
We are not seeing Obama do anything, maximizing any effort to make sure that the spending cuts don't hurt.
All we are seeing is that Obama's doing everything in his power to maximize the pain.
Because he is not acting as president.
That's the key to Obama's success.
And that's a it's a tough thing for people to uh understand.
He is the president, but he's not.
He's acting as the top Democrat.
Obama's actually doing what the Democrat National Committee Chairman would otherwise be doing if he were a normal president.
The Democrat National Committee and members of Congress would be out there carrying this water.
They would be the ones trashing the Republicans.
They would be the ones promising pain.
They would be the ones.
Like Clinton during during his years.
I mean, he got close to doing what Obama's doing, but he didn't go nearly this far.
But his surrogates were all over the place doing it for him.
In this case, Obama's the top dog.
The surrogates are very rarely heard from, and when they are, they're merely an echo chamber of Obama.
And this is what stands out.
The New York Times, without fully understanding it, I believe, has nailed here exactly what's going on.
We have a guy who is not acting as president's act.
We have a guy acting as somebody campaigning for the office.
We have a guy who's who is who is carrying himself as though he's outside.
In fact, you want you remember what Obama said in that Univision interview that we all thought in the campaign was going to hurt him?
It was the first time he got some tough questions about immigration, how he hadn't acted on immigration.
He got some tough questions on Benghazi.
And we thought, you know, that might have an impact on him with Hispanic voters.
It it turned out not to at all.
But it was in that interview he said something we all laughed at.
And had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have laughed at it.
He said that he's learned you can't get anything done from the inside.
You remember that?
He said he's learned you can only get things done from the outside.
What's what he's doing?
He's an outsider.
He's not president.
He is not inside.
He is not in the game.
Everybody else is playing the game, and he's trying to fix the mess.
And the masterful stroke is he's creating the mess.
Now, this story in the New York Times is fascinating because now they're getting worried that this trick can't last.
They're getting worried this trick is going to be exposed because it's a uh it's a it's a high wire that he's on that doesn't take much, lose a little balance, and you're finished.
It is the fastest two hours in media.
We already got two busy broadcast hours done, and one more straight ahead.
So be patient, take a quick break, and we'll be back and continue here on the EIB network before you know it.
▲
Export Selection