All Episodes
Previous Next
March 13, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
March 13, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, I am Rush Limbaugh, and this is the EIB Network.
And it's great to have you here.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
That number hasn't changed since our first busy broadcast day back on August 1st of 1988.
Yeah, we could have changed it to 1-800-Rush or 1-Rush-1 or whatever, but no, no, no.
We're not into vanity things here.
That was the number we got.
We went cheap when we started out, and we decided to hang with it since everybody knows what it is.
Anyway, the email address, if you want to go that route, is lrushball at EIBnet.com.
Do you want to hear the Limbaugh theorem in action?
Because I can illustrate the Limbaugh theorem using the president himself.
My friends, a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on President Obama over the White House tours being canceled.
Any number of people have offered to pay to reopen the tours.
Individual citizens, any number of people have offered to do so.
The regime has not relented on this.
They claim it can't happen that way.
But the latest to happen is that Obama says he had nothing to do with it, but is working on fixing it.
That's the Limbaugh theorem.
This sequester is Obama's idea.
Now, we've exposed, thanks to that congressman from Baltimore County in Maryland, Dr. Andy Harris.
Let me tell you something.
That blew the lid off all this.
What Dr. Harris did back on March 5th, we just played you those soundbites.
You know, I think this is profound.
Now, that's just me.
A lot of people think this is politics as usual, and it may be.
But to me, this is far more than that.
We have a sequester.
It's minimal.
Its impact is minimal.
It's 2.3% of government spending, but it's not actual cuts.
The federal government, even with the sequester, is going to spend more money this year than without the sequester.
The sequester does not cut anything other than the rate of growth.
That's all it does.
And yet the regime, the administration grabbed soundbite for.
I want to make this point.
Here's the president back on February 19th, the week of the sequester.
And we're getting March 1st is a due date, and it's approaching.
And this is what the president said awaited all of us.
Emergency responders, like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.
Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.
FBI agents will be furloughed.
Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.
Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.
Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.
Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.
This is not an abstraction.
People will lose their jobs.
The unemployment rate might tick up again.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventative care like flu vaccinations.
Children will lose their vaccination.
All of that was a lie, folks.
I mean, I think this is serious.
And maybe just me.
It is politics as usual, but this approaches the bounds.
And I'm on this kid vaccination.
Again, I'm not going to replay the sound bites.
I just played them.
But Dr. Andy Harris, Baltimore County, Maryland, had the CDC director on the witness stand at a congressional subcommittee hearing and got him to admit Obama's budget cut $60 million from the CDC, and child vaccinations were not going to be affected.
The sequester cuts half of that.
$30 million.
And Obama was running around saying 2,000 kids are going to lose their vaccinations.
It was just made up.
And not only was it a lie, it was a purposeful, strategic lie.
And many of them were told all over the country by any number of bureaucrats, from the Defense Department chief, you name it.
800 people will be furloughed.
All of this.
And the idea was this country can't survive if this government gets even 1% smaller.
And now the lid's off because the sequester is in full force.
And the cops are still showing up everywhere.
And the firemen are still showing up everywhere.
And the kids are being vaccinated.
But the White House tours were shut down.
Seven people in that office.
Self-guided tours.
You put a pair of headphones on whatever audio source they use and you guide yourself through the White House.
There's some people in there.
So individuals, these tours are scheduled well in advance by families coming to town to vacation.
They don't get set up on the day you want to go.
You've got to go through your congressman to get one set up.
And you have to do it well, in some cases, a month or more in advance, and then arbitrarily shut them down.
Totally unnecessary.
A targeted elimination of something to cause pain, to cause suffering.
The purpose of this, from the president, from the administration's point, is to literally inconvenience people.
At best.
At worst, is to actually inflict some harm.
Now, I think this is serious stuff.
I think it's dishonest, it's disingenuous to have an administration perfectly willing to inconvenience people and at worst, hurt them.
And it's just as bad to scare people.
You run and tell parents their kids aren't going to be able to get their flu vaccinations or whatever when it isn't true and you know it isn't true.
This is not what we expect of a president.
I don't care politics as usual.
That's not what we expect.
Well, I take it back.
We do expect it from a Democrat president, sadly.
We do expect it from a progressive president because they can't and never are honest about what they really believe.
They would never get elected because they only have minority support.
But here's the Limbaugh theorem now, perfectly illustrated by the president himself.
It was on Good Morning America today.
George Stephanopoulos, interviewing the president, he said, you've been taking a lot of heat for the cancellation of White House tours.
Secret Service says it costs $74,000 a week.
Was canceling them really necessary, Mr. President?
I have to say this was not a decision that went up to the White House, but what the Secret Service explained to us was that they're going to have to furlough some folks.
What furloughs mean is that people lose a day of work and a day of pay.
And the question for them is: how deeply do they have to furlough their staff?
And is it worth it to make sure that we've got White House tours if it means that you've got a whole bunch of families who are depending on a paycheck who suddenly are seeing a 5 or 10% reduction in their pay?
Well, what I'm asking them is: are there ways, for example, for us to accommodate school groups who may have traveled here with some bake sales?
Can we make sure that kids potentially can still come to tour?
Traveled here with bake sales in order to tour the White House.
They saved up money via bakes.
He caused it.
This is the Limbaugh Theorem proven.
The White House tours have been shut down.
I didn't do it.
I didn't do that.
Secret Service did that.
I had nothing to do with it.
I'm fighting to get them reopened.
I'm doing everything I can.
I'm just an innocent bystander here.
When I heard they're going to close down the White House, I was upraised.
You can't do that.
Students have been working with bake sales and everything.
Come here to see the White House.
I mean, this is absurd.
But this is it.
This is a Limbaugh theorem.
White House tours are shut down.
Low information voters, oh, look at he didn't do it.
He's trying to get them reopened for us.
Those Republicans and whoever cut the, they're just trying to embarrass Obama.
They're trying to make him look bad.
They cut the tours.
They shut the tours down.
You heard the president say he had nothing to do with it.
And that's it.
That's the president implementing the Limbaugh Theorem right before your very eyes.
Now, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, we had news that the National, let's see, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development was studying the relationship between sexual orientation and obesity.
And it's a subgroup here, the National Institutes of Health.
This is a government bureaucracy.
And what they did was they awarded $1.5 million to study why it is that 75% of lesbians are obese and gay males are not.
And we provided some answers to that question on this program, which are unarguably true.
It's a lot of work to make yourself attractive for a man.
Women know this, but other women don't care.
But gay guys who want to be attractive to other gay guys got to work hard at it.
Men care about looks far more than women do.
We've learned this.
We've been told this anyway.
This was a woman who advanced this theory on the programming.
It was a woman who said the lesbians are obese because other women don't care.
If the love is there, it doesn't really matter.
Men are visual and shallow.
Women are feeling and deep.
And so the looks, surface stuff doesn't matter.
Well, this didn't sit well with people that this study was even being done.
We looked at it and said, what the hell, a million and a half dollars to study this?
We can answer it for a dime.
We just did.
Well, others are not happy that this has happened.
Now, here's a description, by the way, in the grant, the grant of the money.
Obesity is one of the most critical public health issues affecting America today.
Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the determinants, distribution, and consequences of obesity are receiving increasing attention.
One area that is only beginning to be recognized is the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation in obesity disparities.
This is in the grant.
This is when they decide to give the money.
This is why.
It is now well established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic.
Women of minority sexual orient.
It's another way of saying lesbians.
Do you think lesbians like being referred to as participants in minority sexual orientation?
Anyway, I want to figure out why it was that lesbians are disproportionately fat.
In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males.
It's not fair.
It's not right.
And we need to get to the bottom of it.
So the Brigham Women's Hospital first received a $778,000 grant for the study in 2011.
This is two years old.
Followed by another $700,000 grant in 2012.
That's the million and a half dollars.
And it's a five-year study.
The end date, June 30, 2016.
It's not possible to say how this or any other grant will be affected in the long term beyond the 90% funding levels already in place.
The study is examining reasons why the risk of obesity varies according to sexual orientation in order to inform the development of future strategies to prevent obesity.
So the conclusion here is that lesbians are obese because they're lesbians.
And they're trying to figure out what it is about lesbianism that makes them more prone to obesity.
They're not obese because they eat too much.
They're not obese because they have a certain lifestyle.
No, they're obese because they are of a minority sexual orientation.
And they're wondering why.
What does lesbianism have to do with obesity?
If that's what the study is.
When gay males are not obese, it doesn't seem fair.
It doesn't seem right.
It doesn't seem just.
So in the days of a sequester, we're spending a million and a half bucks to try to figure out why.
They have a question.
I'm almost afraid to find out what it is from the official program observer.
What's the question?
The question is, has the Oprah network ever examined this trend or phenomenon?
Got me.
Wouldn't know.
Now, I should point out that the Atlantic Monthly, Atlantic blog, Atlantic Wire, they're upset about this.
They think this is being reported by a bunch of conservative news services in a slanted way.
And they've got a piece here called Debunking the Myths of the National Institute of Health's $1.5 million Lesbians or Fat Study.
That's their headline at theAtlanticWire.com, debunking the myths of the lesbians or fat study.
And they point out that this study is also studying heterosexual guys.
So you can't say it's just about homosexuals.
But they don't offer any more than that.
I mean, there are no answers provided here.
They just attack the way the conservative media is reporting.
I got to take a quick timeout.
We'll be back and get to your phone calls when we resume.
So sit tight back before you know it.
Jay Carney at the White House just now, mere moments ago, just contradicted the president who said on ABC this morning that he had nothing to do with the White House tours being canceled.
Jay Carney said the White House did get involved in canceling the White House tours.
Now, that doesn't mean Obama.
Obama said the Secret Service did it.
He didn't know about it.
Now he's trying to fix it.
Jay Carney went out and said, well, no, no, no, the White House was involved.
What is happening here?
This charm offensive, you know, that's being undercut now.
It's been revealed the charm offensive was a bunch of phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and roller BS.
The charm offensive was aimed at the media to make them think the president was reaching out to Republicans.
But a White House aide said to the media, there's nothing, there's nothing going on here.
This is just an attempt to fool you people.
And now Carney blows the lid on Obama's claim the White House wasn't involved in the decision to cut the White House tours.
Let me grab a phone call, as I promised.
John in northern New Jersey.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, how are you, sir?
Good to be on with you.
Thank you.
So I'm a medical device rep in northern New Jersey, and I want to talk to you real quick about the excise tax that has been forced on us.
Yes.
What it does is it, you know, the whole point of medical devices is to help patients.
And what this excise tax does is the companies are forced to pay 2.3% more.
So they then, in turn, raise their costs to the doctors, who then in turn raise the cost to the endpatient.
So what I don't understand is why we live in a country where people allow this to go on.
They didn't know.
John, the people that elected Barack Obama didn't know.
The media did not spread the word on this.
You had to dig deep to find, you had to read the legislation to find this excise tax.
We did.
Friends of ours did.
That's why we were able to tell people what's in it.
But conservative media has been mischaracterized as a bunch of liars and exaggerators.
And if you're a low-information voter, you might not have believed this.
The media wasn't telling anybody about that.
It's new news.
It's not.
I don't know.
I can't put my finger on it.
There is something about this that's demeaning this entire process of choosing the next pope.
The media coverage of this is just demeaning it.
It's every do you know how many journalists have been credentialed for this?
It's over 6,000.
And we got all these networks and anchors and analysts and desks, and they're all over there, St. Peter's Square, and they're all looking at the smokestack.
And they'll all tell you that they're there because they want to be on site when history is made.
And they want to be the first to tell you.
So they all got their eyes on the smokestack.
And CNN's got a graphic up, expecting smoke this hour.
I don't know.
I can't put my finger on it.
It's just something cheapening all of this.
I remember watching this when I was a kid.
It was far different.
The camera wasn't on the smokestack 24 hours because there wasn't 24-hour news for one thing.
You only saw the smoke.
You only saw the smokestack when there was smoke.
And you saw a five or ten-second clip of it.
And I'm not suggesting we go back to that.
I'm not pulling out the old fuddy-duddy attitude on you.
I just, it just, the way it's being covered cheapens the whole thing.
As though it's just, I don't know.
I can't describe it any better than that.
I guess part of it is that I just know, I just know this, that over half the journalists covering this hate this institution.
They despise religion, the Catholic Church.
They think the Pope and the papacy is a joke in the first place.
And so they're over there and in a way mocking this whole thing.
When over half of them don't even have a rudimentary education and knowledge, understanding of what this is and why it takes place and why it is meaningful to people.
It's just the latest popularity contest.
Just the latest celebrity news.
And of course, to the people involved, it's far more than that.
There it is.
Smoke expected this hour.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to go back and play for you, President Obama.
Oh, the medical device.
This guy's question.
It is true.
During all of the pressure-packed debates, congressional votes, all of the year and a half to two years spent, there were two camps of media.
There were us in the conservative media who read the 2,700 pages.
We had people writing articles and columns providing details of what was in it.
The other media, the state-controlled media, did nothing but approach Obamacare in the most general of terms.
It's going to increase coverage to 30 million people.
Oh, that's wonderful.
It's going to reduce your premium by $2,500.
President said that.
Oh, that's wonderful.
Health care is going to be more affordable to more many, millions more people.
Oh, that's wonderful.
And they gave us this little bullet point list that was a wish list that was a utopian panacea that wasn't true.
And then the other media, us, we're telling people about all the bureaucracy, all the rules and regulations, the death panels.
We're telling people about the medical devices.
Do you know when Obamacare was first written and for a long while afterwards, condoms were considered a medical device?
Q-tips were considered a medical device.
Contact lenses were considered a medical device that would be subject to this 2.3% excise tax.
And we're out there telling everybody this.
Everybody in our audiences.
So who was it?
What was the senator?
Kent Conrad, some senator, Max Baucus.
Max Baucus said, you know, we're going to have to, we can't have condoms be a medical device or contact lens or Q-tips.
So they wrote an exception.
Any medical device that costs less than $100 was exempt.
So now a condom is not a medical device, but it was at one point.
Q-tips, contact lenses were medical devices at one point in this bill.
Now, the people who voted for Obama didn't know this, and they probably today don't know about the excise tax.
They'll hear about it when they learn that it applies to treating their pets.
That's how they'll learn about it.
My point is the media has known all of this and chose not to cover it.
I'm telling you that in all the criticisms you can offer or make about the media, one of the biggest and one of the most important, one of the most telling is to point out what they don't cover as much as the bias in what they do cover.
What they ignore and what they don't report is just as important.
And this sequester business, they knew from the get-go that these cuts were not really cuts, this sequester stuff, and it wasn't going to be a lot of pain, but it didn't matter.
The regime was saying there was going to be a lot of pain.
So they were simply, well, we're just reporting what the officials are telling us.
Well, where is your suspicion?
Where's your curiosity?
Where is your doubt?
There wasn't any.
So now all of a sudden we're getting stories on the 15-page, 21-step form that we're all going to have to fill out just to see if we qualify for Obamacare.
And then after that, we have to pick our plan.
And now we're learning about the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices.
And I want to go back to President Obama with Stephanopoulos answering the question about White House tours and why did the White House decide to do it.
Now, I'm going to play the whole thing, Mike, just a couple, three sentences.
Here it is.
I have to say this was not a decision that went up to the White House, but what the Secret Service explained to us was that they're going to have to furlough some folks.
Okay.
Stop the tape.
I have to say this was not a decision that went up to the White House.
Secret Service explained to us what they were going to have to do.
Here's Jay Carney's quote the day at the press briefing.
He said, the Secret Service came to us with a decision that because of the sequester cuts, it would be impossible in their view to staff those tours.
It was our job then to cancel the tours.
The Secret Service can't.
Those are White House tours.
So Obama, again, I don't know how do we characterize this?
Yeah, he lied, but some say it's unseemly to accuse a president of lying.
And it may be unseemly.
People don't want to believe that, but that's exactly what happened here.
The amazing thing is that Jay Carney contradicted his boss within eight hours.
Obama's on Good Morning America today saying, nope, nope, the White House had nothing to do with it.
Carney said, well, we did.
Secret Service came to us with their decision that it would be impossible to staff the tours.
It was our job then to cancel them.
Now, I'm sure what Carney is saying is, well, they told us that they couldn't do it, but we had to make the decision.
I don't care, you know, if they want to play around with words.
The fact is, Obama said it was not a decision that went up to the White House, and Carney was saying, we did make the decision.
We're the only ones who can.
So, and then there's the lie about child vaccinations that we've exposed today that happened back on March 5th during congressional testimony on all of this.
Now we got Paul Ryan out there with his effort to balance the budget in 10 years.
And Obama is now parroting Bill Clinton.
It's amazing how things never change.
Obama says he could balance the budget, but he doesn't want to.
Bill Clinton said the same thing back in 1995.
You know, we could balance that budget.
We could do it five years.
We could do it eight years.
We could do it 10 years.
We could do it.
Yeah, we could do it.
Maybe 12 years.
But that's an arbitrary period, seven years.
But the fact is that I don't want to balance the budget.
It doesn't mean that much.
In fact, the more you balance the budget, the more you harm the economy.
And Obama's not saying the exact same thing.
So I've been doing this long enough now.
I hear these cycles and I see there's nothing new on the Democrat side.
There's literally nothing new.
But here's the worst thing.
Precisely because there's nothing new, there's no excuse for the Republicans not having been able to, in 25 or 30 years, come up with a strategy to defeat this stuff.
That's what blows my mind.
We've been through a budget argument in 1995, budget shutdown.
Clinton cleaned our clocks.
We haven't learned it.
The Republican Party has no more idea how to deal with the Democrats now than they did in 1995.
And it's the same stuff, and we know it.
We know what they're going to do.
We know what they're going to say.
We know how they're going to approach the American people.
We know how they're going to try to yank people's tears and heartstrings and tugs and so forth.
And yet, 25 years cannot come up with a way to defeat it.
I take a break, and we're going to get more of your phone calls in when we get back, which will happen before you know it.
And just a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, we are expecting Pope Smoke this hour.
CNN's cameras are trained on the smokestack, even as we speak.
And right there, it's smoke expected this hour.
Will it be black or will it be white?
Or will it be?
And what if it's blue?
CNN on the case.
A record 18.7 million students in 2012 got free lunch, according to the USDA.
New data.
During the average SCRUL month, fiscal year 2012, 18.7 million students in U.S. hat screws and grammar scruples were given completely free lunches.
Courtesy of the department's national school lunch program.
Back in 1969, it happens to be the year that I fooled everybody and graduated from high school.
Back in 1969, the average monthly number of screw children getting free lunches was 2.9 million.
As recently as 1990, it was 9.8 million.
So since 1990s, doubled.
And the 1990s were boom years, the Clinton years, right?
They had a booming economy.
Double the number of, you know, speaking of 1969, I remember junior high, this would have been, I don't know, 66 or 65, whatever.
I'll never forget the principal of my screw, a guy named Fred Withrow, by the way.
I don't know why I remember, well, yeah, I do remember why I remember his name.
It was because of an STD lecture he gave us in the gym one day.
I'll never forget that.
That's when we learned about Gongaria and blue balls in seventh grade.
Anyway, I'm not kidding you.
This guy had an in-depth, detailed explanation of the stuff.
We all went home and told our parents about it.
And there was hell to pay.
Anyway, I remember over the announcement, the announcements before you're in the home room one morning, I think it was the, I think it was Withrow, whoever, does it, they announced the SCRUL Breakfast Program.
And it was a sales pitch.
If any of you don't get breakfast at home, or if you do and want more, the SCRUL will be open for a nourishing breakfast.
Please show up.
Here were the times and so forth.
And back then, I hate to date myself.
Back then, it was a stigma to show up for it.
You didn't want to be seen in there picking up a free lunch or whatever it was.
I never went to it.
I have no idea what a breakfast.
I have no idea.
I didn't want to get to school any earlier than I had to.
I wanted to skate in there just at the last minute.
I'm certainly not showing up to eat breakfast.
It's just amazing.
Now, a record, almost 19 million students free lunch.
Here's Robert, South Lake, Texas.
Great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Good afternoon, Rush Limbaugh.
Hello, sir.
Listen, I need to say one thing, and I thought I would never say this in my lifetime because I'm a diehard, well, I was a die-hard Democrat.
And I need to apologize to you because I was led to believe and thought that you were just a far-right nut.
And I voted for Obama the first time because I thought he would make a great role model for young black Americans instead of these P. Diddies and these other rap artists and all these other clowns.
You have converted me, and I am a true believer in the conservative principles.
No kidding.
Yes, and I think you're getting to not just only me, but my whole family.
I have them listening to you, Mark Levine, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and a few others.
And I'm just calling to tell you that I really appreciate you, and I need you to keep doing what you're doing because I believe that you guys are reaching more people than you think.
And I used to be, and I hate to say it, a low information voter, and I consider myself a very astute person.
But I have been fooled.
There's something sinister about Obama, and I don't know why, and I don't understand it, but I don't know what he's doing.
It bothers me to see what he's doing.
To me, it's appalling.
What was it?
Was there a moment where you realized this, or it was a slow discovery process?
It was kind of a little of both.
When you came out and said that about the Obama theorem and about the sequester, I started thinking, what is going on here?
And you were absolutely correct because I started seeing something right after he got won the election.
Robert, can you hang on?
You are an asset.
I need to pick your brain, but I've got to go to a commercial break.
Can you hang on?
Most certainly.
All right, don't go away.
It's going to be a while because I got a top-of-the-hour commercial break.
But we're going to come back.
If we have to, we'll get your number, call you back if you'd rather.
But I got to find out what's in this guy's head.
Okay, Robert in South Lake, Texas is on hold.
And I want to ask him some more questions.
Because what he said was profound stuff to me.
He was hoping Obama would be this role model.
It turned out not to be.
A number of other things.
▲
Export Selection