All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:30
March 6, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So what are you bored in there?
You tired in there?
I'm being greeted with this wide open yawn right as the program starts.
I look on the other side of the glass.
Really inspiring.
Well, anyway, here we are, folks, documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
You know, the latest opinion audit, we don't have it yet, and it is going to feature the Limbaugh theorem.
That's big.
I mean, the Limbaugh theorem and attachment, the accuracy, the audit of my opinions, that's got to have a lot of weight, I would think, in jacking up the rate.
And it's still documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
As I said yesterday, folks, I have, in all seriousness, I'm not trying to be funny.
You know, over the years, I've seen all the criticism.
I lie just to advance my cause.
I lie.
I get things wrong on purpose to cover up embarrassing things on what is supposedly my side.
Now, what am I doing here?
All I'm doing, I'm going to do a radio show, and I have several reasons for doing this program.
I've got the business reasons, I've got the programming reasons, and I've got the country as a reason.
And I just want there to be, I've always believed in, the idea, maybe it's Pollyannish anymore, but I've always believed that the most effective way to have a functioning, thriving, great country is to have as many educated, informed, confident, happy citizens pursuing excellence as possible.
And so all I have ever sought to do is inform people.
It doesn't benefit me to lie to people.
It does not benefit me to fill people's heads with a bunch of things which aren't true.
They're eventually going to find out.
And then where am I?
If it's ever thought that I am purposely lying just to advance some, what good is the cause if it can only be propped up by lies?
It isn't any good.
That's the problem with liberalism and socialism.
It has to be propped up by lies.
It has to be propped up with optics and false images and perceptions.
I'm not into that.
I want all this to be genuine.
I may make mistakes.
I may get something wrong, but it's never on purpose.
And I certainly don't lie to anybody about anything.
It doesn't serve my purpose here at all.
It'd be very harmful, in fact.
I'm not here to use you for anything.
I look at the opportunity to do this show every day as just that, an opportunity to affect the kind of things I think are good.
Now, what's wrong with an informed, educated bunch of people?
A growing group of people who are informed, educated, and want to learn more, happy, content, eager to spread their own happiness and contentment to other people.
That to me is the objective here.
So it doesn't help me at all to have anything here built on untruths.
But it's not that way with the left.
For example, this Twitter business, my source for this is Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner.
But there's a quote here from the Pew Research Center, which actually did exhaustive work for a year to find out who's on it, who's using it.
And here's what Pew, and Pew, by the way, is no conservative bunch, as you well know.
Twitter users are not representative of the public.
That's not me saying it.
It's not Paul Bedard saying it's not the Washington Examiner.
That is from the Pew Report.
Twitter users are not representative of the public.
Most notably, Twitter users are considerably younger than the general public.
They are much more Democrat or lean toward the Democrat Party.
It's simply Obama's action army which has overpopulated the thing and in the process they've corrupted it.
It's those people that are into presenting false impressions.
Optics make you think one thing is true when it isn't.
It is they who are lying to you and trying to fool you about things.
And they succeed.
They have, of course, the willing accomplices in the mainstream media spreading it around.
And that's the point.
The media quotes Twitter.
The media quotes all kinds of, because the media is treating Twitter as simply a microcosm of America.
And now we know that it isn't.
So just keep that in mind.
The next time you're watching a news or reading something and some reporter tells you what he just saw on Twitter or a thread that's on Twitter, understand that there's a good chance it's totally manufactured for your consumption.
Now, I want to go back to Hugo Chavez and his assuming room temperature.
When thugs like Yasser Arafat and Chavez become enormously wealthy while representing the downtrodden, you know, you might think that the left would treat them worse than Mitt Romney.
And Hugo Chavez and Yasser Arafat both became obscenely wealthy, to use the left's own language.
And what did they do?
They were known for representing the downtrodden, protecting the poor, standing up for the little guy against these powerful forces of greed and the corporate culture.
And they were making sure that those people didn't get away with raping the people and raping the countryside and whatever else they were raping.
And they saw to it that money was taken away from those evil corporate entities and returned to the rightful owners of that money, the people.
Except one thing always went wrong.
The people never got the money.
The thugs ended up with the money.
Do you think it might bother somebody like Sean Penn or what's his name?
No, well, Danny Glover.
Yeah, he's another one.
But I'm thinking of Stone, Oliver Stone.
You think it might bother Diane Sawyer?
You think it might bother Piers Morgan or Barbara Walters or Larry King or anybody else that Monte, you think it might bother them that while the country of Venezuela is basically a sewer, that Chavez is worth $2 billion that he did not have when he assumed the presidency.
And we know that the presidency of Venezuela doesn't pay that kind of money.
You think they might be bothered by it.
And you think they might treat them worse than, say, Mitt Romney.
But then you would miss the point if you thought that.
You'd miss the point of anti-capitalists.
Because apparently, folks, if wealth is obtained, confiscated, skimmed, or pilfered in the name of the poor, then it's okay.
If you get rich in the name of the poor, if you get rich in the name of the thirsty, if you get rich in the name of the hungry, if you get rich in the name of the downtrodden, if you get rich in the name of the forgotten, if you get rich in the name of the homeless, fine and dandy.
The problem is when you earn it.
If you earn the money in the private sector by starting a business and hiring a lot of people, that's when you become the enemy.
That's when you become the focal point of derision.
That's when you become an enemy of the state.
You can take all the money from anybody you want as long as you're doing it for the poor.
But if you actually do something for the poor, if you actually start a business and you hire people and you help people escape poverty, then you become a target.
That's what it appears to me.
Now, why would that be?
Well, the only thing I can conclude is that if you're really serious and you really succeed in helping people step out of poverty, then you are doing great damage to the dictator.
You are inflicting great pain on the totalitarian.
You are an enemy of the state because you are showing people that they don't need the state in order to escape poverty.
You are showing people they don't need a government in order to have food, that they can do it themselves.
That makes you an enemy.
The Democrat Party, the American media, ran ads that blasphemed, that smeared, that libeled and slandered Mitt Romney and his family.
The same people hoist up on a pedestal a thug like Hugo Chavez who never did anything to help people, but he made them think that he did or was.
The private sector, if you happen to be involved there, if the private sector is growing, then what must be happening?
Somebody must be stealing from somebody.
The private sector is evil.
The private sector is the focus of evil.
The private sector is where all the mean people are.
The private sector is where all the greedy people are.
So stealing from them is heroic.
Targeting them for derision, successful people in the private sector, targeting them, must be done.
Targeting them, making them your enemy and everybody else's enemy.
That's what gets you success in a socialist or totalitarian state.
What'd they say about Mitt Romney?
Mitt Romney made his money by denying insurance to sick people.
Mitt Romney made his money because he was a tax cheat.
Mitt Romney made his money and kept it all because he put it in the Cayman Islands where U.S. authorities couldn't get to it.
Well, that's what we were told by the Obama campaign.
They spent millions of dollars spewing those smears, folks.
Mitt Romney got rich by causing other guys' wives to die.
Mitt Romney got rich denying people health care.
Mitt Romney got rich by keeping all that money in the Cayman Islands, cheating his fellow citizens on tax revenue.
Hugo Chavez got rich by stealing money from his own country in the name of the poor and is a hero and is charismatic and is a wonderful, huggable guy.
And Mitt Romney and other Republicans are the focus of evil.
They may as well be the devil with horns.
Hugo Chavez, a hero to the left.
To me, folks, this is just another reason why you don't compromise with these people.
We have nothing in common with them.
There is no area of commonality.
There is no place where we can be bipartisan.
There's not one thing we believe that they believe.
They're not even interested in it.
We foolishly are.
Anybody who honors immoral, illegal, and unethical behavior, in my mind, can't be trusted.
And I wouldn't want to enter into a deal with anybody like that anyway.
To me, it would seem like an obvious point.
So what do we do in this country?
We praise Hugo Chavez.
We put him up on a pedestal.
He's a great man, like Castro's a great man, like Mao was a great man, like Stalin was a great man.
And we destroy Mitt Romney, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Sarah Palin, you name it.
And to add insult to injury, we have several Republicans helping along the way.
Sing the praises of Hugo Chavez, the man who helped the poor by making them poorer.
Celebrate and sing the praises of Hugo Chavez, the man who helped the poor by amassing billions of dollars for himself while in office.
Celebrate and sing the praises of Hugo Chavez because you envy the kind of totalitarian power that he had.
Of course, ladies and gentlemen, you'd have to know these facts to make these judgments about Hugo Chavez.
But when all you hear is how much good Chavez did for the poor in Venezuela, you might miss little details like massive corruption, anti-Semitism, denial of rights, rule by intimidation, and plundering public money.
You might miss all that.
You might not notice that the number of people in poverty increased in geometric proportions under Chavez because he was trying to help.
And just like Obama, there were powerful forces in Venezuela that Chavez was fighting.
He was trying to rescue people from poverty.
That those big oil companies, other multinationals, they were doing everything they could to keep people poor.
And Chavez did everything he could.
And sadly, he only got $2 billion.
He didn't have enough time to redistribute it.
The real tragedy of the death of Hugo Chavez is that he didn't have time to give that $2 billion to the poor.
Because we all know he intended to.
We all know that he was a man of compassion and understanding and love and devotion for the poor.
And he intended to give every cent of that $2 billion away.
Sadly, the American people, the American government, CIA, George Bush gave him cancer.
You'll read this on Twitter today.
You'll read on Twitter that we poisoned Hugo Chavez, that we killed Hugo Chavez.
The American government did.
Now, Barack Obama has run the government the last five years, but it wasn't he who did it, obviously.
It had to be Boehner, probably maybe even Rubio, maybe Ted Cruz that did it.
Wouldn't be Romney.
Romney was too busy running for president to have time to kill Chavez.
Some of these other Republicans did.
We all know he intended to give that money away.
We all know he intended to redistribute that $2 billion.
He didn't mean to keep that.
But we killed him before he had a chance to do it.
He was a great man.
Listen to Barbara Walters.
Last night, Piers Morgan tonight, CNN.
Yes, he could be.
I mean, he certainly wasn't the most physically attractive person, but he was very welcoming.
He could be very warm.
He was very vulnerable, complained that he'd been married twice, Pierce, but had no time for relationship because he was married to his country.
Oh, married to his country.
See what I mean?
He intended to give all that money back.
It just died.
You know, even CNN had to admit that Venezuela is sitting on one of the world's largest oil reserves.
Even CNN had to admit that Venezuela is among the biggest oil exporters.
And even CNN had to admit that oil production has declined in Venezuela.
My question is, does the standard of living in Venezuela match the fact that it is one of the richest oil states in the world?
No, it doesn't.
But Hugo Chavez's family does.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Here is Wolf Blitzer reminiscing about one of their favorite Chavez moments with their United Nations reporter, Richard Roth.
Richard, all of us remember when he referred to the President of the United States as the devil.
What was it like?
That was an incredible day in U.N. history.
And of course, depending on your political viewpoint, if you were on the West side and along with the United States, it was disgusting, according to diplomats.
And if you were among the dozens of countries here who believe that the big powers run roughshod over them, you kind of privately at times secretly supported what Chavez was saying about the U.S. president.
There wasn't anything secret about it.
He got a standing O.
He got a standing ovation.
He got a room full of laughter in the United Nations when Hugo Chavez, I'll never forget it either, he strode to the microphone and started sniffing the air after Bush had spoken earlier in the day, sniffing the air, said that he could smell the sulfur.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that's a reference to Beuzebub, the devil.
The devil had just spoken.
The place erupts in a standing O later that afternoon, there was a Chavez photo up in an ante-room at the UN.
Maybe it was the Venezuelan embassy.
You know what it was?
Hugo Chavez with a bunch of children surrounding him, sitting on his lap.
He was taking care of Venezuela's children while at the UN after that speech.
Now, what a great guy.
How come nobody in the drive-by media is fondly remembering when Hugo Chavez told his people to take three-minute showers?
One of the world's richest oil nations ordered its people to take three-minute showers because they were having trouble supplying water and electricity.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
I'm going to recall that.
He did that for the good of the people.
Nobody needs to take a shower any longer than three minutes anyway.
That's actually a great move for climate change.
Hugo cared about the planet.
And he cared about climate change.
And he knew.
He knew that the Republicans were trying to destroy the climate.
Everything he did was for the good of the Venezuelan people.
Here, let's, who we got next?
CNN Situation Room.
Wolf Blitzer speaking here with the international correspondent, Shasta Darlington, about the death of Hugo Chavez.
Wolf Blitzer said, the reaction on the streets, a lot of people are mourning right now.
There's a bitter division within Venezuela over Chavez, but he did have a tremendous amount of support down there at the same time.
Right, Shasta?
They wanted this charismatic leader who'd led this socialist revolution and really reduced some of the class differences that had characterized this country.
They wanted to see this man recover and come back and get into power.
On the other hand, by reducing these class differences, Chavez had also taken a lot of power and money away from a lot of people who were used to running this country.
He also reduced some freedoms.
Well, that's not a big deal.
I mean, you have to take freedom away if you're going to get rid of class distinction.
You can't make everybody the same and still have freedom.
Everybody knows that.
Yeah, you got to break a few eggs and make an omelet.
I mean, everybody knows this.
You can't have freedom and people in different classes.
Look at what she said.
He took a lot of power and money away from a lot of people who were used to running the country.
And he also reduced some freedoms.
Now, who were these people that he took the money away from?
They were people that owned businesses.
They weren't thieves.
They were people that owned businesses.
He just took the money away from them.
He nationalized one industry after another.
And now we know where the money went to him and his family.
But yet, here he is praised.
Oh, he reduced the class difference.
That's right.
He made everybody poor.
You know how he reduced class differences?
He lowered everybody's economic scale.
Here's Katie Couric.
This is December 8th, 2009.
This is some of the Rachel Ray show.
And Katie is the CBS evening news anchor at the time.
She's the guest.
And an audience member said, you know, your interview with Sarah Palin was a defining moment in the presidential campaign.
I'm just wondering who would be at the top of your dream interview list next, Katie?
Fidel Castro.
I would love to interview him.
He's in failing health, as we all know, and possibly could do an interview maybe to talk about his legacy.
Kim Jong-il would be fascinating.
Of North Korea, that's probably never going to happen.
But a girl can dream.
Hugo Chavez would be so interesting.
I think there are a lot of world leaders.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Well, that's her dream interview list.
Mass murderers, socialists, thugs, authoritarians, dictators.
That's who Katie Couric's dream interview list was.
And by the way, it wasn't to expose them.
Oh, no.
She wanted to expose their greatness.
She wanted people to understand what it was that made them such wonderful men of the people.
David Asman at Fox, last night, Fox Business Network, the Willis Report, Jerry Willis, the hostette.
And she said, David Asman actually interviewed Chavez once.
What's your reaction tonight to his death, David?
He became president by pointing out the corruption in the Venezuelan economy.
What he did was he turned it into, I own it all, but under the ruse of socialism, I'm doing it for the people.
I'm giving all this oil to the people.
He learned from Fidel Castro, who really was his mentor.
Fidel taught him how to use PR to make it look like you're doing everything for the people when, in fact, behind the scenes, you're doing a lot for yourself.
So in one place, one place in the U.S. media, we happen to get the truth of Hugo Chavez.
The Fox Business Channel, Fox Business Network.
That was David Asmund.
Yeah, Fidel taught him all this PR stuff.
Fidel taught him how to make it look like you're doing everything for the people when behind the scenes you're doing it all for yourself.
Yeah, under the ruse of socialism, I'm doing it for the people.
I'm giving all this oil to the people.
The people got squat.
The people got poorer.
No, I'm spending so much time on this because this is our future if we're not careful.
This is our, and some people might say it's here already.
In fact, are we not watching the people of this country become poorer under the guise of everything being fair?
Are we not watching the people of this country become poorer under the guise of equality?
Are we not watching people become poor under the guise of making sure that all the unfairness and bigotry in the past is being fixed?
We most certainly are.
And are we not watching a president administer policies at this very moment designed to inflict pain on some Americans?
Yes, we are.
So to some people, the future's now.
And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, I'm spending time on it.
It's an abject lesson, an object lesson, actually.
Now, I'm getting a lot of emails from people who are you going to talk about Bill O'Reilly really, really hammering at Alan Combsless?
I've got it here.
And I might.
I might.
But I'll be flirting with danger if I do.
Well, not flirting with danger, but Castro cannot be worth $980 billion.
Castro not worth a trillion dollars.
That can't possibly be.
$980 billion?
Bill Gates only got $60 or $70 billion.
There hasn't been a trillion dollars worth of wealth for Castro to steal in Cuba.
Not that much.
Even after all these years.
Rand Paul, ladies and gentlemen, is actually doing a filibuster.
As we speak, he's doing a talking filibuster.
He's actually on the floor of the Senate trying to shut it down.
This is over the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director.
And what Rand Paul is upset about is the domestic drone program that everybody in the regime says is perfectly fine.
Obama and the boys are saying that, and Eric Holder says, yeah, we're perfectly content with the program of having drones in the air domestically.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General, refused to say that Americans cannot be killed on American soil by a drone.
Obama runs the kill list.
They've really hyped this.
You know, the media made a big deal out of Obama personally choosing targets on the drone kill list.
And they did that because, as a liberal, Obama is considered to be a panty waste when it comes to the military and foreign policy.
All liberals are, not just Obama.
And so they want to make him look like a big, tough guy, John Wayne.
He's got the kill list.
He's not afraid.
Well, now it's been learned that this Brennan guy at the CIA and others in the regime want to fly drones over the United States for the purposes of killing people.
And Rand Paul has actually taken to the floor right now as we speak of the Senate, and he's vowing to stay there at length in order to filibuster Brennan.
And I hope he means it, and I hope they bring in a port-a-potty, which has happened.
It's a brief timeout, and we'll come back, and we'll start with your phone call.
So don't go away.
I want to know how Rand Paul made it into work today.
You know, Washington is shut down today because of a blizzard.
Only probably the blizzard hasn't happened.
They announced they're going to shut down because of snow, and they did.
Except it hasn't snowed.
That's how he was able to make it to the Senate.
Okay.
Look, a lot of people are asking me in the email.
None of you on the phone have, but I'm being hit with this quite a lot, actually.
What do you think of the Yahoo CEO refusing to let people work at home anymore, demanding they all show back up at the office?
Well, I happen to know why she did it.
She did some research.
She checked the VPN network, the private network that the employees at home use to do their work.
She found out that they weren't working.
That people at home are taking care of the kids or running around shopping.
They weren't doing nearly the amount of work that they would be doing if they were in the office.
Just found out they were sloughing off.
A lot of them.
Enough of them were that she had to change the policy.
Now, Yahoo is not exactly at the top of the heap.
They're going to have to make some changes if they're to recapture lost glory.
But she's taken a lot of heat for this, and she hasn't backed off the decision.
A lot of people expect her to crumble at the onslaught of pressure, but she hasn't yet.
But she apparently did enough actual research, actually acquired data, and made a decision based on that rather than philosophy or emotions.
All right.
Okay.
Jay and Dayton, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Rush, thanks for letting me lead off.
You bet, sir.
Hey, I'm a former general manager for Northwest Airlines, and I'm far from a fan of the TSA.
And, you know, I heard you talking about the petty White House canceling the tours at the White House.
And then, on the other hand, I'm hearing the TSA agents are getting new uniforms at something like $1,000 a pop.
It's going to come out to $50 million.
And I was kind of wondering how many tours the White House could run for $50 million.
The TSA is that same group that spent, what, $700,000 for an award ceremony three years.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, wait a minute.
I had not seen that a TSA uniform is $1,000.
I don't know if they're getting multiple uniforms or what, but $50 million has been appropriated to the TSA for the agents to get new uniforms.
Well, if they've been wearing the same uniforms for the last, say, 10 years, it might be time for a change.
It's not.
They've had several uniforms, and the TSA is the same group that spent $700,000 for an award ceremony three years after they started Rush, and they handed out lifetime achievement.
After three years?
After three.
So those of us in the industry knew that we were in trouble.
And I mentioned I was a former general manager for Northwest.
I lost my job in 2001.
And I wanted to tell you that your show has been just daily encouragement for me to keep going.
My 25-year airline career was over.
I decided to go to day trading, actually moved into a motel room.
And I lived there for seven years.
And Rush, you have no idea how much your show meant to me then as it does now.
And currently, I'm in the top 1%, one of those dreaded people that Obama's after.
I'm living the dream, and I'm thrilled to have the chance to say thank you for all that you've done for me, for my family, and for the students I teach.
It means everything.
You're a football fan.
Jay Ratliff is the defensive tackle for the Cowboys, and he and I have the same name.
And I used to think living in that motel room, how neat it would be to be him.
And I don't think that anymore.
And you've been a huge influence in my life, Rush, at 50, and so many millions of people.
Well, thank you.
Why did you move to a motel?
Is that all you could afford?
That's all I could afford.
Yeah, and I spent seven years trying to learn how to day trade, and I sold everything I had.
I figured I'd be there a few months.
I lived there for more than seven years.
And, you know, you talked about how people that are after something, they don't need a government handout.
They just need an opportunity.
How are you doing with Apple stock?
Oh, actually, doing quite well.
Yeah, I don't hold it for long.
I don't hold anything for long.
To me, risk is having money in the market for a long term.
And, you know, the volatility that exists right now in the market with things just going absolutely nutty.
It's kind of a target-rich environment for all of us.
And it's a fun, exciting time, and there's certainly some interesting things coming up.
Well, I appreciate it.
I thank you.
I thank you very much, Jay.
I really, really appreciate it.
And you are a life lesson for people.
You certainly are.
Speaking of the amount of money being spent, it does work out to $1,000 per uniform.
By the way, the uniforms I have learned are partly made in Mayco.
The uniform contract for the TSA workers, $50 million.
And divided by the number of TSA employees, it does work out to about $1,000 per employee per uniform.
Now, you people, you might have heard Texas Congressman Louis Gomert attempted to attach an amendment to a forthcoming budget resolution bill that essentially said, as long as the White House tours are shut down, that the federal government will not spend a dime transporting Barack Obama to play golf.
And the Republican leadership shot it down.
The Republican leadership did not permit the Gomert amendment to have any life whatsoever.
They thought it was petty.
They thought it would attract undue attention and would focus people in the wrong areas and make the Republicans look petty.
But Louis made his point.
And it's a good point.
All right, if you're going to shut down the tours where seven people work, seven people, these are self-guided tours the way they work out now.
People have to make arrangements for these things, in many cases, a month in advance.
It's not something you just walk up and do.
And so Gomert said, okay, fine, you're going to shut down the White House tours, then we're not going to pay for you to go play golf on the weekends or whenever you go.
And the leadership said, we can't, that, that, that, we can't.
That's silly.
We can't do it.
It's not silly.
It is actually a good point.
He had a story yesterday on women dying prematurely in America.
Life expectancy is plummeting.
▲
Export Selection