All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
March 25, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Get this one, folks.
Get this one.
On Joe Scarborough's show today, Al Sharpton and Mike Barnacle.
I mean, there's a pair.
Al Sharpton, what?
Was Crown Heights, Freddie's, Fashion Mart, Mike Barnacle, Plagiarism, Fame?
They're out there.
You know what?
There's opposition to Bloomberg.
You know, Bloomberg and his gun control, his mad...
I mean, what is Bloomberg?
This guy's like a mad hatter.
He's like a bond villain.
And he's got this idea in gun control.
And he's trying to just enforce all kinds of gun control.
Here you have Sharpton, who knows anti-Semitism when he sees it.
And Barnacle, they're out there.
Anybody who opposes Bloomberg and his gun control efforts in New York is anti-Jewish.
That's why they're opposing Bloomberg.
Nothing to do with guns, nothing to do with the Second Amendment, nothing to do with freedom, the Constitution.
No, it's the typical anybody opposed to Bloomberg is anti-Semitic.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
El Rushbow here.
After a very quiet weekend, I arrive here to find out.
I didn't know this until I got here and I looked at the audio soundbite roster.
And my friends, I'm sorry here.
I am the first nine soundbites.
I.
Now, we only have, how many soundbites do we have today?
Let me get the total number of sound bites.
We have 20, and I'm half of them.
And let me tell you something.
I had a nice, quiet weekend.
I didn't bother anybody.
I was minding my own business.
I went out yesterday, and I played golf for only the third time since last July.
And I went up to Seminole, which is a stunningly fabulous place down here in South Florida.
And I'm not kidding, the winds were a steady 35 miles an hour.
The winds were so strong that you almost needed goggles to protect your eyes against the sand being whipped out of the bunkers and the cart pads.
And I shot a 39 on the front nine in those kinds of wins.
The front nine was our final nine holes, so I played the front last.
But man, I've never played golf, and the gusts were higher than that.
And the only thing that saved me was the short game was on fire.
And I've got a theory about it.
I haven't played golf enough to remember all the bad shots I was making that made me mad.
My memory no longer contains the screw-ups.
And golf is such a mental game.
You know, give me another five or six rounds and I'll be back to stinking up the joint.
But I've forgotten how bad I am.
So I'm actually playing pretty well for my brain catches up to me.
So anyway, I'm doing that.
I'm having some other relaxation.
We had a wedding that we went to late Saturday afternoon and late into Saturday night.
Totally relaxing.
I come in here and I look at the soundbite roster and my friends, you know, it was an effort here.
I've said as an objective to saturate the low information voter market and its mission accomplished.
I'm not going to bore you with these soundbites, but Access Hollywood led off.
I mean, practically half of their show was me and Beyoncé on Friday.
And they are just livid.
Everybody reporting on this.
I don't know.
Get this.
I don't know what I'm talking about.
I purposely get things wrong.
That's my stock in trade.
The reason you people love me is because you know I never get anything right.
You listen to me just to laugh at me be wrong all the time.
They did a line-by-line analysis of Beyoncé's song to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about.
And then I was accused by one of the hosts of plagiarizing the UK Daily Mail story, which I simply reported.
That was the first story that was ripping into Beyoncé for the song.
They accused me of plagiarizing and not doing diligent research to find out that the story was wrong.
I just repeated it and made a fool of myself.
These people are just livid.
It's like the sportswriter crowd when I was working at ESPN.
They're just livid that I have intruded into their little turf area.
They're just beside themselves with rage and anger.
Now, I'm not going to bother you with the sound bites of this stuff.
Oh, maybe one or two, but just it's that the point is not to have soundbites of me on these programs, but there has been this, this, this, I'm just ask you to continue to trust me on this low information stuff.
Just hang in there.
It is working beyond even my projections.
Well, what do you mean threatening their turf with the low info?
Oh, that's true.
That's exactly what the media owns the low information crowd.
Here I am.
I didn't just knock on the door and ask to be let in.
I barged in, and they don't like it.
They don't like there being any competition for the low information voter and a low information person, and I'm in there now.
And they're beside themselves with rage.
They're just so angry.
By the way, Rand Paul has been in his office and been calling us since Friday afternoon because the Daily Caller ran a story that was not quite right.
What did it say, H.R.?
It accused Rand Paul of That's right.
Well, basically accused Rand Paul of ripping me to shreds over immigration, which he didn't.
He didn't.
He didn't use my name.
So his office was calling over the weekend to look, Rand wants to talk to Senator.
Senator Paul wants to talk to Rush and straighten this out.
And I sent word back, I don't like the phone.
I don't like talking on the phone.
I really hate the phone other than it's a handheld computer.
And there's no, don't worry about it.
There's no, the media got the story wrong.
I have no animosity towards Senator Paul about any of this.
I know that they misquoted what he said.
It's par for the course, yada, yada, yada.
But the media's got that wrong too, is my point.
They're continuing to spread that.
And then over on PBS on their Sunday morning Inside Washington show had Washington Post columnist Colbert King, known to his friends in the D.C. establishment as Colby.
And they were having a discussion about the Republican Party.
Nina Totenberg said, when you look actually at what the Republican Party analysis of itself was, this Rentz Priebus thing, the fear was that the electorate is a different electorate, and it isn't just much more of a minority electorate.
It's an electorate that wants some serious social and economic safety net that is different from what they're hearing from Republicans today.
And this is what Colbert R. King had to say.
The guru of the Republican Party, the face of conservatism, is Rush Limbaugh.
We all agree that that.
He puts down those results by saying Obama won with the low information voters.
Low information voters.
What does he mean by that?
They're sort of stupid.
They don't understand the issues.
No, that's not.
It's specifically what nobody in the media.
I don't know what is so hard about getting me right.
I'm on 15 hours a day.
You don't need a password to listen to this program.
It's free, over the air.
You can even listen to parts of this program free at rushlimbaugh.com.
You do not have to be a subscriber.
You can access the text of this program at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's free.
It's everywhere.
What is so hard to understand about what I say?
I have never said that low-information voters are stupid.
I just said they don't know what they think they know.
They are prisoners to the media, which has dumbed them down.
Low-information voters can be doctors.
Low-information voters can be scientists.
They can be among all walks of life.
It has nothing to do with IQ.
It has to do with what they don't know because of their media sources.
Low-information voters are clearly people that don't have all the information available to make a voting choice.
That's all they are.
And they're all over the place.
And most of them do vote Democrat.
Most of them did vote for Obama.
It's not a comment on their intelligence, stupid, don't understand the issues.
They just haven't had it all explained to them.
What Mr. King just did here is prove himself to be a low-information columnist.
He is probably a low-information voter himself.
He probably closes off half of his mind to conservatism or anything else that he doesn't agree with.
Just amazing.
There's something else.
Somebody's have to explain something to me.
Again, within the context of low-information voters.
I've had a number of people send this to me, and they think it's a big deal.
And that is Obama gave a speech in Israel the other day underneath a giant picture of Yasser Arafat.
And everybody that's sending me this thinks that it's a major, major, major Obama faux pas, that he's really, really embarrassed himself here.
And how dare he do something like this?
And where is the media calling him on it?
And somebody said, remember when John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, made a speech before a statue with naked breasts and all the hell that erupted.
And there was a lot of anger.
I don't know where Ashcroft's a family values Christian and he is the attorney general.
He's speaking in front of a statue of a nude woman, at least bared breasts, and there was a lot of commotion about it.
But Obama spoke, and there was a giant picture, pennant, whatever, of Yasser Arafat, three times the size of Obama.
I mean, that's how big this picture of Arafat was.
And everybody sending this to me thinks it's a major mistake.
And how come I look at what's the big deal?
Nobody knows who Arafat is, and the people who do don't think there was anything wrong with him.
Arafat was a more frequent guest at the Clinton White House than Barbara Streisand or Kathleen Willey or even Lewinsky.
As far as the low-information voters are concerned, Arafat led the oppressed who are being denied their chance at freedom and gay marriage and clean sewage and whatever else they want by the oppressive Israelis.
We live in a different age.
There's no negative attachment to Obama underneath the picture of Arafat, precisely because the low-information voters aren't revved up about Arafat.
Here's another thing.
I never watched this show, The Great Race.
You ever seen that show?
It's Sunday nights on CBS.
We do watch The Good Wife, and I have it set to record every night at 9 o'clock.
So I checked it last night just to make sure that it was recorded.
I also get it off Apple TV the next day off of iTunes, but I want to make sure it recorded because half the time in the football season, it doesn't.
CBS has a late game, late game goes long, everything in the primetime schedule is delayed, but the DVR schedule is not delayed to accommodate it.
I forgot that the NZAA basketball tournament was on and that CBS has that.
So I turned it on and a great race is on at 9 o'clock on my DVR and not the Good Wife.
So it took about two seconds for me to figure out what happened.
A basketball game ran long and everything else was delayed, but the DVR schedule at DirecTV wasn't changed to accommodate it.
I had never watched The Great Race, but I did see fast forward about 30 minutes of it at four times normal speed just to find where in my one-hour recording The Good Wife began, where it started.
I just make sure it got recorded.
I didn't see anything.
I just never watched the show.
I get up to the NFS.
CBS apologized for last night's episode of The Great Race.
You know why?
Because they used the wreck of a B-52 shot down by the North Vietnamese as one of the obstacles in the Great Race in North Vietnam.
The Great Race was in North Vietnam, and they used a shot down fuselage wreckage of a B-52 as one of their obstacles.
And apparently there was hell to pay overnight emails because they apologized.
Or maybe they even apologized during the show with a crawl on the screen.
I'm not sure which.
But I think, who cares about that either?
Vietnam War?
Didn't we deserve to lose that?
Didn't we deserve to get our butts kicked on that?
We had no business being over there anyway.
B-52 shot down.
Big whoop.
Who cares about veterans these days anyway?
I mean, the current low-information crowd, the U.S. military, focus of evil in the modern world.
So we got our just desserts in Vietnam.
So what if the great race used to be?
The fact of the matter is, the real interesting point here is that whoever produces that show and whoever writes it didn't think a thing about it, folks.
Didn't think a thing about it.
Oh, look at a wreck of a B-52 from the Vietnam War.
That'd be a great visual for our show.
And they used it.
And it was not until they heard some protests in their audience that they can imagine the Purdue.
Well, what do we do wrong?
What was this a B-52?
You realize you might be insulting veterans.
Oh, oh, yeah, well.
Screw them.
Who cares?
It's our show now.
But they did apologize, nevertheless.
The New York Times has a story today.
This is curious.
Very, very curious.
Obama has lost advantage over GOP on economy.
Now, all this story is, is an aggregation of recent polls, which show Obama's approval number falling.
And in a couple of the polls, Obama's approval number is plummeting.
Now, we've already discussed those, so there isn't a whole lot new in this story informationally.
But the thing about this is that if the New York Times says it, that makes it official with everybody else in the news business.
You may not know that the rest of the news business feeds off the New York Times.
Whatever the New York Times says is the news on any given day is what every other news organization then assigns a reporter to or discussion topic to, if it's a cable news channel or what have you.
It's what other newspapers and wire services bounce off of.
So if the New York Times has a story which basically says that Obama's sequester gambit has been a flop, that this was not the way it was supposed to work, that the sequester and the threat of a government shutdown were supposed to destroy the Republican Party once and for all, the New York Times says that didn't work.
And hence the headline, Obama has lost advantage over GOP on economy.
And the only thing newsworthy here is that the Times is saying it because that will flavor and shape the way the rest of the media begins to ask questions about it.
You can watch today and tomorrow.
You'll see if this is true.
See a discussion, maybe a panel discussion for five minutes or so on some obscure cable show at 2 in the afternoon.
Has Obama lost his mojo?
Did the Republicans surprise people surviving the square?
That kind of thing.
It'll be inspired by this story in the New York Times.
Now, why is this happening?
I think it's because we've exposed Obama, the Limbaugh theorem, in part.
But I have to take a break right now.
We'll continue with more on this after this.
Don't go.
And we are back, Rush Limbaugh, cutting-edge societal evolution.
By the way, Colbert R. King, Washington Post, I just want to remind you that the term low-information voter, I'm pretty sure that we coined it.
I'm pretty sure that we made up that name, but we're not the only ones to use it.
Richard Stingle, Time magazine editor, explaining why Obama was named person of the year.
Mr. King, do you remember what Mr. Stingell said?
He went on TV and he said, and he also said a press release, they named Obama person of the year because no information voters love the guy.
And it's no information, low information voters transforming America.
It's remarkable, Time magazine said.
He's the guy that ended up being able, the first politician, to get votes from people who don't care about anything and who aren't paying attention.
And that was worth honoring the president as person of the year.
Time magazine, Mr. King.
And greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you.
And the EIB Network.
And we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And I'm thinking this picture of Obama in front of Yasser Arafat.
Did you realize most people in America see that?
They're going to think it's a picture of Ringo Starr.
They're not even going to know who Arafat is.
It's only people like you and me.
We're going to remember that Obama was making a speech at Georgetown, and he demanded that a religious symbol be covered.
Picture of Jesus, something to do with Christ.
He demanded it be covered up or moved out of the way.
But the Arafat thing was no big deal.
By the way, not only is CBS apologized, Ford Motor Company has apologized.
And I wish they hadn't.
This is great.
They had a new commercial.
You heard about this, Snerdley?
Ford had a commercial.
It's a cartoon-like commercial.
Series of drawings.
Paris Hilton in the driver's seat and the Kardashians in the trunk, bound and gagged.
And of course, the ad was supposed to be a joke, but it's got Paris Hilton driving the car, Kim, Chloe, Courtney Kardashian, bound, gagged, and stuffed into the trunk as Paris Hilton is gleefully in the driver's seat, heading on down the highway.
The ad has been pulled because somebody was offended by it.
It was the product of an advertising agency called JWT India, and they produced the campaigns for Ford cars in India.
And the tagline of the commercial was, Leave Your Worries Behind with FIGO's extra large boot, meaning the car, the FIGO, or F-I-G-O, FIGO, FIGO, I assume it's FIGO.
Ford has apologized for the images, saying it was the result of individuals acting without proper oversight.
I mean, it was the ideal low-information commercial.
It had everything that the low-information people talk about.
You know, the low-inform, it is hysterical for the low-information crowd.
You know, they run around talking about how Paris Hilton's got to hate the Kardashians because the Kardashians have stolen her media thunder.
So here's Paris Hilton getting even, driving a Ford with a large trunk with the Kardashians in it.
Gagged, bound, tied up.
What else they apologized?
Oh, yeah, yeah, that another version, Italy, with Berlusconi and some of a bunch, yeah, well, not girl hookers.
A bunch of hookers in the trunk with Berlusconi driving.
That was the one they did for Italy.
Ford has pulled both of them.
Oh, they don't need to apologize.
Let me grab Teresa in Harrisburg because she wants to correct me on something.
Let me give Teresa in Harrisburg.
We'll take her first.
Teresa, thanks for the call.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, sir.
I'm not correcting.
Never, never correct the master.
I'm just expanding on it.
Okay?
Okay.
The problem is this.
The show wasn't aired yesterday.
It was aired last week.
Which show?
What are we talking about?
The Amazing Race.
The Amazing Race, the B-52 episode.
Exactly.
It's just a rock group.
Most people think, well, the B-52, what do they apologize for?
Okay, so the problem was I've been trying to reach you for a week to tell you what the problem was.
So it wasn't yesterday.
It was the week before.
All right.
Well, I didn't see it last night.
I just heard about the apology today.
I just assumed it was last night, but I stand to be corrected now.
No, they had a whole week to apologize, and they were just looking for Going onto the radar and investigating how many people were going to really get upset about this.
But the problem was that prior to that, the participants of the show had to listen to a tune put on by the youth communist group or whatever, praising the virtues of communism.
And you see the participants clapping, laughing.
I mean, these are the Americans, not the Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese are singing the song.
The Americans are clapping, laughing, having a ball.
They had to, at the end of the song, they put a communist slogan on the flashcards.
And then the participants had to go back to a mural and pick out the right slogan from a whole bunch of other communist slogans plastered there.
Now, I was a teacher before I retired, and believe me, this is the way you start teaching kind of like indirectly communism and how it is have a great communism is fun.
Look what happened to communism.
You can be on TV.
You can be sent to Vietnam and you can be on TV and you can win prizes.
And all you have to do is find the greatest communist slogans and accompanying pictures.
And then when you finish, we'll go have a barbecue at a crashed B-52.
Aha, exactly.
And it was funny because, well, not funny, but I mean, you know, adding soul to the wound, it was a U-turn.
A U-turn is when you do something bad to somebody at the B-52.
So they were kind of putting, you know, the screws on, if you pardon the friend.
Right, right.
It was the B-52's fault.
Aha, exactly.
Well, let me tell you something, Teresa.
As a school teacher, I'm sure you'll agree.
You'll know exactly what I'm referring to here.
I'm ashamed to say it, going on what's going on now, but that's the reason I retired because I wouldn't, I mean, I took early retirement because I would not do the kind of nonsense that is being aware of education.
Now, let me tell you something.
This episode of the Great Race, which was last week, not last night, that we're talking about.
Yes.
What happened on that show is nothing different than what our current Secretary of State once did.
Yes, you're right.
And Jane Fonda once did.
I mean, Jane Fonda went over and pretended to shoot down an American fighter plane.
And John Kerry went over there and he celebrated the communists.
And he came back here and he ripped his own country and he threw artifacts or fake versions of his own medals across the White House fence.
So CBS, having the contestants in this show run around and sing praises to and clap hands for a bunch of communists is no different than what members of this administration have done in their young lives.
Yes, unfortunately, you're right.
Yes.
But where is the end?
I usually am.
Where's the end?
When are we going to, I mean, how much more are we going to be rammed down our throats?
You know, this is ridiculous.
Well, let me ask you a question.
What are you actually asking?
Seriously, how much more of this are going to happen?
I'm asking people to.
I mean, they would never dare to do this, you know, if instead of B-52, we would have gone to and put Rashman Rusty.
You're asking a larger question.
You are asking a larger question.
When you say, how much longer are we going to have to put up with this?
What you're asking is, when are the American people going to wake up on the street?
What happens?
Well, that is something we have been discussing on this program.
And I have offered a theorem about that.
And that theorem, by the way, has been confirmed by a political consultant.
Not a political consultant, a political scientist, Stu Rothenberg, talked to a Republican about this very thing.
And this Republican told Stu Rothenberg, you know what?
We're beyond the point now of being able to change people's minds ourselves, meaning the Republicans.
There's nothing we can do.
We're just going to sit around and wait for something to happen.
An event.
And he means the same thing I meant when I first said this, not a cataclysmic weather event or act of God kind of event, but rather something that embarrasses and angers people about Obama or the Democrats.
I know people say, well, if what they're doing now doesn't anger them, what's it going to take?
What's it going to be?
And like I said last week, it's going to be something like Obama speaking on an open mic.
He's not aware people can hear him.
And he's going to diss Justin Timberlake's latest CD or something like that.
And he's going to really tick off all these low-information people and they're going to have had it.
And they're going to think that Obama's betrayed him.
It's going to be something silly.
It could be something profound in politics that goes wrong, that wakes people up, but nothing that's happening so far is on the low information side.
Anyway, Teresa, I appreciate the call.
I really do.
We got to take another brief obscene profit break here, folks, but there's always more.
So don't go away.
We keep waiting for the American people to wake up and they keep hitting this news bar, folks, but something, someday, will wake them up.
Of that, I'm confident.
I don't know when.
It could be 10 years.
For example, you would think something like this would.
And by the way, this is fascinating, the way this happened.
Cyprus has gone ahead and done it, except it's worse than what the original plan was.
The original plan in Cyprus was for the banks to be bailed out by the EU if the banks would simply confiscate between 6 and 10% of everybody's bank deposits.
Didn't matter.
Everybody, rich, medium, poor.
There was such a cacophony of opposition that they put the news out that the idea was shelved.
And the last we heard about this was that they weren't going to do it.
And then out of the blue, over the weekend, they did it.
And it is worse than ever.
Now, when it was originally opposed, the EU, the Eurozone, and the banks said to the people of Cyprus, okay, okay, how about if we just take 10% from the rich?
No, you're not taking anything from anybody.
They steadfastly opposed the whole thing.
So they let everybody believe that the idea had died and they were going to try to find some alternative.
And then out of the blue, Cyprus secured a 10 billion Euro bailout package.
That's $13 billion.
This is rescue loans.
Last ditch negotiations early today.
In return for the bailout, Cyprus must drastically shrink its banking sector, cut its budget, implement structural reforms and privatize state assets.
But before they did that, they announced a 40% tax on savings accounts of $130,000 or more.
Now, it originally was 6% to 10% of everything, not just savings deposits, but checking deposits as well.
It went away when everybody opposed it.
Now, early today, rich in Cyprus is defined as $129,000 a year, and those people have now been taxed.
They're calling it a tax.
40% of their deposits have been confiscated.
40%.
And a companion story says that Spain could well be next.
It's in the Wall Street Journal, and it's unreal.
Now, we said last week that Cyprus was just the beginning of this trend.
And I thought it would happen fast, but not this fast.
Remember, Spain and Italy were targets last week.
Spain, in a nutshell, is going to overhaul its nationalized banks in an effort to boost its flagging economy.
And they are going to impose losses of up to 61% on Spain's largest nationalized banks, which means, in the words of the Wall Street Journal, shareholders in these banks will be nearly wiped out and junior bondholders will lose around 30% of their original investment.
Meaning the investors in these banks have just been their holdings have been confiscated.
They will be if the plan happens.
In Cyprus, 40% folks.
Now, I'm sure that the low-information crowd here doesn't know this yet.
And when they find out about it, they'll hear Cyprus, where's that?
Then somebody will point it out to them and they'll say, oh, it's just a little tiny island over there next to Greece.
Screw them.
Don't they have an archbishop?
Aren't they religious?
Screw them again.
And then that'll be that.
They won't care.
But it's just the rich defined as 130,000.
40,000.
That's what had to happen in order for the banks to get their bailout.
Can't happen here, Mr. Limbaugh.
Simply cannot happen.
The public is too aware.
The public wouldn't put up with something like that.
Oh, really?
Public wouldn't put up with, say, Warren Buffett having 40% of what he has taken away from him.
Anyway, back to the phones.
We go.
This is Will in Minneapolis.
Hi, Will.
Glad you called.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
I'm so happy to be on the show.
Thank you, Rush.
You bet.
Listen, I just want to serve as a witness for you this morning.
I watched the Access Hollywood article by mistake.
It just happened to be on during my break at work.
And I think I understand the outreach to low-information voters.
I think I get it now.
And I just wanted to talk about that real quick.
Okay, you saw Access Hollywood on Friday, where I was practically the whole, well, the first half of the show, me and Beyoncé.
Exactly.
Okay.
Well, what do you think?
Well, listen, I found it completely hilarious.
I've laughed continuously to the interview because it was so serious.
It might have been their lead story.
It was very condemning of you.
It was their lead story.
He's right, folks.
Because this was dead serious.
You would think that somebody just dropped a bomb on this country.
You're exactly right, Will.
You're exactly right.
And I think the main guy is Billy Bush.
Yeah, that's right.
He was very, very serious, and he had some woman next to him, and they were bantering back and forth.
And then they cut to this young 20-something writer who happened to be a self-appointed Beyoncéologist.
And he had to break down the lyrics, and he talked about who Beyonce is and what her objectives are and what she's all about and how that completely conflicted with what you were talking about.
Right, and what you're talking about.
Totally dumb and stupid, I am, right?
Yeah, exactly.
And so my theory or my premise, you don't talk a lot about the outreach, but I think what it really comes down to is just these small little morsels of truth and getting that out to the menu.
Yeah, you're close.
You're really close, Will.
I got to applaud you for a low information guy yourself.
You're getting it.
You really are.
That's great.
That's great.
Look, folks, it's all wrapped up in the film.
The Kardashian crowd, the Beyoncé, no sense of humor.
I mean, these people are like they're gods to them.
And if anybody comes along and treats them as anything less than godlike, then the long knives come out and these people have to be destroyed.
▲
Export Selection