All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:08
March 6, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Instead of 9 and 10, we're going to start with Rand Paul 2728.
Have those standing by.
Then we'll get to 9 and 10.
And I'm not crazy about doing 9 and 10.
But, well, those are the O'Reilly-Allen Colm soundbites that Mr. O'Reilly went off on Mr. Colms last night over Obama and the sequester and budget, which is fine.
I don't have a problem with that, per se.
I don't have a problem with any.
Well, I actually do, but it may not be even worth it to bring it up.
I'm still thinking about it.
In the meantime, greetings and welcome back.
Well, look at O'Reilly starts out.
Mr. O'Reilly starts out with his talking points memo.
I want one of those.
I want to have a memo that talks.
I've been working on it.
I've got a program on my computer called Speech, a text-to-speech.
And what you do, you highlight the text and you hit a keystroke, and it speaks to you.
So I've been writing memos, my own memos, just to me, and they talk back to me.
So I have a talking points memo.
Anyway, in setting up the segment that was to come with Mr. Combs, Mr. O'Reilly said that he had a big, big problem with President Obama, but he made the point of telling his audience that it wasn't ideological.
The translation for that is Mr. O'Reilly was saying to his audience, don't confuse me with these conservatives.
I'm not coming to you here as a right-winger.
Don't think of me as a right-winger.
Don't think of me as a conservative.
I'm not one of those loudmouths.
My problem with Obama is substative.
My problem with Obama is over his performance.
But I don't have an ideological problem.
And I don't know how you separate the two is my problem.
Obama is who he is because of his ideology.
And if you oppose what Obama is doing, there has to be an ideological component.
But if you don't want to be known for it, if you don't want to stand for that, you know, that's, I think that's one of the problems we've got.
We have too few people.
See, this is where I'm about to step in it.
There's nothing to be gained here.
There's literally nothing to be gained.
So, anyway, that's coming up.
In the meantime, we have a couple of soundbites of Rand Paul's filibuster.
He's on the floor of the Senate.
He says he's going to speak until he no longer can.
He is filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to be the CIA director because the Obama regime is making it clear that they got no problem with drones flying over America.
Drones that could be used to kill American citizens.
And the Attorney General, Eric Holder, wouldn't rule that out.
And Rand Paul says that he's just tired.
He's had it.
He doesn't want to be ideological about it, though.
He doesn't want anybody to think he's motivated by ideology on this.
Let's be clear.
He's tired of the administration shredding the Constitution.
He's simply tired of it.
He's sick and tired of this administration ignoring it or worse, just essentially tearing it up.
So here's the first of two soundbites from the Rand Paul filibuster that is going on now on the floor of the Senate as we speak.
I will speak until I can no longer speak.
I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
I will speak today until the president responds and says, no, we won't kill Americans in cafes.
No, we won't kill you at home in your bed at night.
Until you've been tried, until you've been convicted, and then we'll send the drone over your house.
I know he didn't mean it to sound that way, but because he's filibustering, and these things are tough to do.
But he said, no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime.
What he means is, we ought not to be killing anybody with drones, period.
Would you have been charged with a crime or not?
The administration started flying drones over the country for the purposes of killing people?
That's what he's opposing.
Here's the next sound bite from the Rand Paul filibuster.
I'm not standing down here as a Republican who will never vote for a Democrat.
I voted for the first two.
I voted for the first three nominees by the president.
This is not about partisanship.
I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees, but I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.
I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say that he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking a country.
The answer should be so easy.
I can't imagine that he will not expressly come forward and say, no, I will not kill Americans on American soil.
But up to this point, nobody in the regime will come forth and say that.
Was Holder asked about it specifically?
He was specifically, wait, he was specifically asked about the possibility of using drones to kill Americans, and he didn't rule it out.
It's an unlikely hypothetical, but he won't rule it out.
They're going to reserve that power for themselves.
Of course, they're doing this for the poor.
You have to fly drones over the country, kill people for the poor.
It's all about redistributing wealth.
If you can't raise taxes on the rich, you drone them.
What?
Well, I mean, as far as the low-information voters understand these things, why would we be flying drones?
Obviously, get people like Romney.
I mean, we're doing it for the poor.
We're doing the people that have more than they need.
It's all part of fair balanced approach.
Kind of like Fox News.
That's why we have to do it.
Eric Holder said that a drone strike on American soil on an American in the United States could be, quote, necessary and appropriate under the Constitution.
Close quote.
And that's why Rand Paul is filibustering.
You ever think you'd see the day?
And I know some of you, well, what's the difference in that?
And Sheriff Arpaio rounding up prisoners with a gun and making them wear pink underwear.
Well, what's the difference?
So we're going to use a drone to kill bad guys instead of a shotgun.
So what?
People who support Obama, don't be surprised.
They'll come up with all kinds of stuff.
Okay, here.
Here we go.
This is last night of Fox News Channel, the O'Reilly factor, Mr. O'Reilly, speaking with syndicated radio hosts.
Everybody's a syndicated radio host.
Alan Colmes about President Obama's agenda.
And O'Reilly said, not being ideological.
His problem with the president is not ideological.
Do not confuse him being a conservative.
His problem with Obama is substance and procedure and behavior.
And then he said, he said to Mr. Colms, the president is willing to have Americans suffer for the greater good of trying to have Nancy Pelosi be the new Speaker of the House.
And you also hear syndicated radio host Monica Crowley in this bike.
It's one thing to say he wants to flip the house.
It's another thing to say he purposely wants the American people to suffer.
He's making it impossible to get anything done.
Do you agree with that for a second?
I disagree with what's being said here.
He's offered $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar in taxes.
He's not officially six cuts.
He's offering cuts in Medicare.
He's offered.
That's not specific.
Hold it because now I'm getting tea off of you.
Give me one damn program.
He's sitting cutting entitlements.
He's costing me.
Entitlement.
What are you doing?
He's a program.
Why do you want to yell at me?
Because you're lying.
I'm not lying.
You are lying.
You're a little liar.
Don't you sit there and call me.
No, you're lying.
I'm not lying.
Here's the truth.
You don't like the person.
We can have a disagreement with him.
No, you're calling me a liar.
That's not a personal attack.
And that's how it went.
You don't like the president.
We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar.
That's not necessary.
That's a personal attack.
That's what Mr. Colms said to Mr. O'Reilly.
And Mr. O'Reilly was naturally upset because Combs either was lying or saying stuff he has no clue about.
Well, Obama's not cutting anything.
Obama's not cutting entitlements.
There are no $2.50 in cuts for every new dollar in taxes.
None of that.
And Mr. O'Reilly was admittedly frustrated to have to hear all this.
Because Mr. O'Reilly is right.
Obama is inflicting pain.
I think people missed the point.
At least the people sent me emails about this.
I think Mr. Colbs was the target.
But what set Mr. O'Reilly off is that he has suddenly realized that the president is willing to let the folks suffer in order he gained politically.
And you don't hurt the folks.
And Mr. Obama is willing for the folks to suffer.
And he just figured that out.
And that is undeniable, folks.
In fact, people suffering is almost a required aspect.
Don't forget the email that we shared with you yesterday from the guy at the Department of Animal and Fish Welfare, whatever the hell it was.
He asked, he was in North Carolina somewhere, some satellite office outside of Washington.
And he sent them a note in Washington asking what the proper procedure was here during the sequester.
And the answer he got back was, whatever you do, don't contradict what we're saying about the severity of the cuts.
And we're saying they're severe, so don't you go telling anybody it doesn't mean anything.
Don't you go saying it any big deal?
Washington told the local guy, the satellite guy, follow our lead on this.
They are purposely wanting the news to be bad.
They want this sequester to be reported.
They want it to sound like, want people to think that it is draconian out there and that there is mass suffering going on because of these minuscule.
You couldn't find these cuts with the Hubble telescope.
And you know why?
Because there aren't any cuts.
All there are, even with the sequester, is reductions in the rate of spending.
Even with the sequester, folks, the government's going to spend more money this year than last.
So I guess in Cole, Mr. Combs is saying that he's lying as a personal attack.
Anyway, it continued.
We just paused it there to break this up, but the high energy between Mr. Combs and Mr. O'Reilly didn't end there.
It kept going.
You're accusing the president of wanting the people to suffer in this country.
That's absolutely untrue.
You can disagree with him that sitting in an Oval Office for five years with a $17 trillion debt and refusing to say one program that he cut.
You don't think that's putting a burden on the American people?
I keep telling you.
No, you're not telling me anything.
It's Jack what you're saying.
There's another word for it, but it's an upset.
I'm not going to have to disagree.
No, it's not about a disagreement.
This is just bullshit.
Cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals.
You waste the time.
You talked about.
This is bullshit.
Bill.
I'm answering your question.
Okay.
So that's how it went.
And it happened with Mr. O'Reilly yelling at Mr. Combs.
Mr. Combs was lying, talking about all the massive budget cuts the president's engaged in.
And that's like what's on Twitter.
We talked about earlier.
That's the kind of crap that's out there on Twitter.
All these massive things.
Obama supports budget cuts.
He's proposed this.
He's agreed to that.
None of the sort has happened.
Folks, this is exactly my point.
These people cannot get into a debate on ideas.
They will lose each and every time.
They can't do it.
They are the ones that make things up or lie or what have you in order to advance their position.
They have no choice because their ideas cannot stand alone, stand on their own and by themselves.
They don't hold up.
Okay, a brief timeout.
Sit tight.
Back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Fastest, three hours in media.
I don't know where the time is going.
It is just racing by.
All right, let's go to the audio sound bites because it appears, Mr. Snerdley, that Ted Cruz actually goaded Holder into admitting that killing Americans with drones on U.S. soil is unconstitutional.
We've got three bites.
I don't think I can get them all in.
But we'll get started because these are great.
Ted Cruz is fearless.
Ted, this is a lesson for conservatives everywhere.
They've been writing Holder letters.
They've been doing all kinds of things.
But Ted Cruz challenged him face to face this morning in Washington during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force.
We would deal with that in the way that we typically deal with a situation like that.
With respect, General Holder, my question wasn't about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion.
It was a simple legal question.
Does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who doesn't pose an imminent threat to be killed by the U.S. government?
I do not believe that, again, you have to look at all of the facts, but on the facts that you have given me, and this is a hypothetical.
I would not think that in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate because the post-Inglani.
General Holder, I have to tell you, I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are unable to give a simple one-word, one-syllable answer.
That's exactly right.
Exactly right.
And then Cruz said, You keep saying appropriate, Mr. Holder.
My question isn't about propriety.
It's a simple question about whether something is constitutional or not.
As Attorney General, you're the chief legal officer of the country.
Do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil in those circumstances using a drone?
A person who is not engaged, as you've described, this is the problem with hypotheticals, but as the pro the way in which you have described this person sitting at the cafe, not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate, would not be something.
I find it remarkable that you still will not give an opinion on the constitutionality.
Let me move on to the next topic because we translate round and round.
Let me be clear.
Translate my appropriate to no.
I thought I was saying no.
All right, no.
So he got him to say no.
It wouldn't be constitutional, but he didn't want to.
But this is how you do it.
Cruz isn't afraid.
He wasn't afraid of public opinion.
He wasn't afraid of what would be said about the fact he was attacking an African-American Attorney General.
He had no fear.
These guys want to kill American citizens with drones, and he wants them to stand up and admit that they think they've got the right to do it.
Okay, so Eric Holder, in the last soundbite, okay, you want a one-war answer?
No, it isn't constitutional to kill somebody sitting in a cafe that's not provoking anybody with a drone.
Ted Cruz takes a little victory lap in the next soundbite.
Well, then I am glad.
After much gymnastics, I am very glad to hear that it is the opinion of the Department of Justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual did not pose an imminent threat.
That statement has not been easily forthcoming.
I wish you had given that statement in response to Senator Paul's letter asking you it.
And I will point out that this week I will be introducing legislation in the Senate to make clear that the U.S. government cannot kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, absent an imminent threat.
And I hope, based on that representation, that the department will support that legislation.
Yeah, we'll see.
We'll see.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Eric Holder wants to take away our guns.
Oh, oh, speaking of that, let me see if I can find this real quick.
Oh, I've got so much paper here, folks.
There's a, I've got a story here.
A guy named John Lott Jr. Knew Obama back in the early 2000s.
Here it is.
This is a story from the CyberCast News Service.
In his new book, At the Brink, economist and author John Lott Jr. assesses the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama and recalls conversations regarding gun laws that they had while they worked together at the University of Chicago.
And in chapter three, Mr. Lott discusses gun control, and he takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then Professor Barack Obama spoke a lot of times about guns.
And Lott quotes Obama as having told him one day at the University of Chicago Law School, I don't believe people should be able to own guns.
So this would be back in the early 2000s.
I don't believe people should own guns.
I don't think, I don't believe people should be able to own guns.
Obama told Lott.
Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.
Lott says he did not come across as a moderate who wanted to bring people together.
Well, makes sense.
He's not that.
He doesn't want to bring people together.
I got to tone it down.
I realize, you know, trying to reinvent myself just a bit to be less threatening to 24-year-old women.
And I realize I raise my voice and say he doesn't want to bring people together.
Don't scare me.
I want to hear that.
Please don't.
The evidence is clear.
We've looked at this now.
We're into our fifth year.
The country's more divided than ever.
No bipartisanship.
President said that he wanted to get rid of the old politics, bring in this new era.
It's only gotten worse.
He's not interested in bringing people together.
And he's got this quote from Obama.
And we've got all kinds of Obama interviews from back then where he's told his union buddies how he's going to get single-payer health care, how he's going to worm this and worm that if he ever became president, how he would do it.
And he's doing it, doing everything that we've heard him say at earlier periods in his life.
And now, John Lott quotes him in a new book, I don't believe people should be able to own guns.
You think he's changed his mind?
So my point is, Eric Holder and Obama, if they could, I'm convinced if they could, they would eliminate the right to own weapons.
And until Ted Cruz forced the issue, they wanted to try to make the case say kill Americans with drones.
And yet somehow I'm the extremist.
Somehow American conservatives are the extremists.
When it took Ted Cruz a half hour to get Holder to admit it's unconstitutional to just randomly kill an American with a drone.
I'll tell you there's another conservative out there that is two, actually three, Rubio, well, Jeff, four, Jindal, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio.
We've got Ted Cruz here and Ken Cuccinelli, who is running for governor in Virginia.
I interviewed him for the upcoming issue of the Limbaugh Letter, interviewing Angelo Cotavilla today, of the ruling class article fame, interviewing him this afternoon for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
Cuccinelli was great.
And I have a couple of sound bites from him, but Cuccinelli, Ted Cruz, these guys are take-no prisoners.
They're exactly what is necessary.
They're fearless.
They're unafraid to define Obama and the Democrats as they are and for who they are, what they're doing.
They're fearless.
You just heard Cruz not afraid of Holder at all.
He wasn't afraid of being called a racist.
Anyway, let me go back to the phones.
It's been a while.
I think an hour since we took our first call.
Am I right?
This is our second call of the day.
It is Elizabeth in Baltimore.
Elizabeth, I appreciate your patience.
Thank you for holding, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yeah, my name's Elizabeth.
I am 23 years old.
I live outside of Baltimore, Maryland, one of the most liberal states in our country.
And I just wanted to call in and say, I mean, my mom's listened to your show for as long as I can remember.
And I wanted to say that I am a low-information voter, in all humility, but low-information voter no more, I guess.
To say that by listening to your show, I've no longer become a single, single-issue voter.
I'm trying to become more knowledgeable about other issues besides.
I mean, I've never liked Obama.
I'm extremely pro-life, and that was the issue that I always voted for.
But after listening to the show, there's other things, economics, the sequestration, everything.
So I just wanted to say thank you.
I got to tell you, I just, I love this.
You are no longer a low-information voter.
That is music to our ears.
See, that proves it can be done.
It proves that we can take a low-information voter and turn them into an informed citizen.
And you like it, don't you?
You like being informed.
Knowledge is power.
Knowledge is power.
And when you live in Maryland and when you work with a bunch of liberals, you have to be able to back it up.
You know, you have to be able to back up your opinions.
And when every third car I pass on the beltway has a 2012 sticker for Obama, I mean, I get in conversations in the workplace, wherever I am.
I just, knowledge is power.
And to be able to talk about it in an informed manner and articulate it feels good.
Well, that is we're on a roll today.
This is a good day for conservatives.
This is a great to have you be part of it.
Yeah, thank you.
And I mean, you mentioned it yesterday.
You said there's low-information voters listening right now.
I just wanted to call in and say, yeah, I mean, thank you for.
Well, this is incorrect because most low-information people don't think of themselves that way.
Yeah, it's yeah, in all humility.
Most people don't.
It's a part of the phenomenon.
Well, Elizabeth, I appreciate it.
How would you like, Elizabeth?
Would you like, let's see, what do I have?
I've got an iPad mini.
I've got a full-sized iPad or maybe a full-fledged laptop computer.
I want to give you something.
Since you're not low-information now, this stuff will be of use to you.
A low-information voter would not know what to do with this other to play games.
This will come in handy.
What would you do?
Have an iPad or anything like that?
Oh, my gosh, I don't know.
No, I don't have one.
Well, take your pick.
You want a retina iPad, the full size, which is about a 10-inch screen, or the mini, which is 8 inches.
Oh, my gosh, the first one sounds great.
All right.
All right.
I want you to hang on.
Mr. Snerdley will get your color preference or just black and white to choose from and your address for us to FedEx it out.
So make sure you hang on.
Okay.
Rush, thank you again.
God bless.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
You know, folks, last Saturday, I went over to a friend's house, and their grandchildren were visiting.
And they're 25 years old.
We started talking about things.
And they started asking me about issues like, well, cultural things.
They want to know what I thought about gay marriage.
They wanted to know What I thought about Obama and the economy and their future.
And I answered their questions honestly.
And they said two things to me that were interesting.
One is, if there were a Republican who could explain this as you have, everybody we know would vote for him.
All of our friends would vote for him.
Now, they happen to believe that gay marriage is the most important thing around.
Well, their friends do.
Their friends think that's the only thing that matters.
And by the way, that demographic of 18, you know, college, freshman, high school, freshman, college, freshman, on up to the late 20s, it has become, for many of those people, the most important thing going.
Gay rights and gay marriage.
And it's all rooted in this belief that it's wonderful to love somebody.
And if you really fall in love, it doesn't matter with who.
And it's unfair that some people shouldn't be able to get married.
So they asked me what I thought about it.
And I told them what I thought about it.
And then economic things and so forth.
And they said, if there were a Republican who explained it like this, everybody we know would vote for him.
And then they said, why don't you ever talk like this on the radio?
And I said, I do every day.
Now, they didn't listen much.
They assumed I didn't talk that simply because of the way they see this program reported on as filled with braggadocio, arrogant, bombast.
I'm right.
Everybody else is wrong.
I yell at people.
I shout at people.
I don't give people a chance to say what they think.
This is what?
What are you laughing at in there?
Yeah, that's what Snerdley does on the phone.
Screening calls.
Anyway, I thought those two observations were fascinating.
They were.
If the Republican explained things like you just did, we'd all vote for him.
And why don't you talk like this on the radio?
I do every day.
Just like I'm talking to you.
I explain it every day.
Well, we've never heard it explained this way.
I said, well, I'm not surprised to hear that.
Anyway, a brief break, and we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Sit tight.
What I tell them, I just, look, folks, I don't have time to go into it.
I just said, look, there are two kinds of liberals, basically.
You got the leaders, you got the rank and file that don't know what they're doing.
They're just following their hearts.
They think they're doing good things.
They think they're being compassionate.
The leaders of liberalism are trying to corrupt every institution in the country.
And they get people to follow them under the guise of compassion, fairness, love, equalness, equality, whatever.
I said, the thing you have to remember about liberal leadership, liberalism, left statism, it's about corrupting time-tested institutions, traditions, all of them that have made this country great.
They're trying to tear everything apart, tear everything down, care what it is.
And they get young people to go along with it because they're idealistic and they think it's sweet.
They think it's kind and fair and so forth.
But that's not the objective.
That's what I told them.
Basically, there were, of course, details provided.
Would you get this guy's phone number so we call him back?
We've got a call from a guy in Lansing, Michigan.
I sadly haven't got time to get to it now.
But he has an interesting point about the regime's attempts to make the public feel sorry about the sequester.
It's a fascinating point.
I could steal it, or I could tell you what the point is right now.
That would not be fair.
So we'll talk to him tomorrow because it is fascinating.
It may not be working, and he's got the theory as to why.
Folks, I'm sorry.
We're just out of time again today, and I really feel bad.
It just zips by here.
But as I always say, there's always tomorrow.
And we look forward to it.
I know I do.
I hope you will.
And thank you so much for being with us today, as every day.
And see you again tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection