All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
April 2, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, great to have you.
Bick with us and back with us.
The telephone number, you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
I am Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by being here.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
Even though I'm bored silly today, I still can't believe how fast the first hour went by.
Would you believe I didn't care about anything I talked about in the first hour?
You don't believe that?
That's because I am a professional.
I am a deeply talented, highly trained broadcast specialist.
And even when I'm bored silly, you would never know it unless I told you, which I did.
I don't know why.
You know, I'm going to go home tonight.
I'm going to feel very bad.
I'm going to feel bad.
I'm going to feel like I need to come in here tomorrow and apologize for bleeding all over you people and dumping on you because it's just three hours here.
If I can't gut it up for three hours, what am I worth?
You've all got your problems and trials and tribulations.
You don't need to care whether I'm bored silly or not.
It doesn't matter to a hill of beans anyway.
I'm not expecting sympathy, Snerdley.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not trying to gauge or get, provoke any kind of reaction.
Just being there, you know why I'm bored?
Okay, take a look at the Stockton.
We got a city going bankrupt.
I know what's going to happen.
The wrong thing.
The wrong thing is going to happen.
Everything that's happening in this country, the wrong thing, the wrong route, the wrong solution is going to be taken.
Now, we're going to keep plunging forever and down to this abyss that is going to be harder and harder to recover from.
We've ripped up the greatest healthcare system in the world.
We've replaced it with something that isn't even implementable.
And now the implementation of what isn't workable has been delayed.
That isn't going to work.
Obamacare was never, never, ever going to work.
And we just get more and more evidence of this each and every day.
Here we go.
We got a Gallup poll out there.
We have a Gallup poll.
And guess what the number one critique of the Republican Party is in the Gallup poll?
Guess what the two most frequently mentioned criticisms of the Republican Party are?
Take a stab at it.
It's as easy as pie if you stop and think about it and you don't have to think about it too long.
Don't intellectualize it.
What are the two within the public domain?
There's a public poll.
Gallup.
The two most often mentioned problems the Republican Party face.
What?
No, not old men.
Inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
Those are the two things.
Well, right there in a Gallup poll.
And so the political's got this and they're off and running with it.
Democrats, Republicans, Independents all had the same top complaint about the Republican Party in a Gallup poll released yesterday.
It is inflexible.
The poll asked respondents to name two things that they liked and disliked about the nation's political parties.
More people cited inflexibility and the unwillingness to compromise than anything else about the Republican Party.
In fact, 26% of Republicans said that.
That the problem is that it's inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
Now, what does this tell us?
It tells us absolutely nothing.
All it tells us is what the media is saying about the Republican Party.
And so the Gallup poll goes out and grabs average Tom Dicker Harry off the street.
What do you think the biggest problem the parties are?
Well, the Republicans, you know, they don't compromise.
They're too partisan and they're inflexible.
They won't move at all.
You know, they're just stuck in stone out there.
12%, the third claim, the third thing on the list of what's wrong with the Republicans is it's a party for the rich.
So it's inflexible, it's too partisan, and it is focused on the rich.
The Washington Post did a story on this.
The poll asked respondents an open-ended question about one or two critiques of the GOP, the top response: 21% party inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
What came in third was not the rich, though.
What came in third was get this now.
I'm not making this up.
The first two complaints, the party is inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
The third complaint was it doesn't stand up for its positions and it gives in too easily.
Now, how does that fit with the first two?
Well, it doesn't.
It makes no sense.
And in my mind, it relegates the poll to the heap, to the ash heap.
The poll is pointless and worthless.
If the first two complaints are too inflexible and too partisan, doesn't compromise enough, and then a third problem is doesn't stand up for their positions enough, it gives in too easily.
That was the preferred description of 99% of respondents, including 14% of the Republicans.
Now, how do you fix the third one if you are the first two?
If you're too partisan and you're too inflexible, how do you fix the fact that you don't stand up for your anyway?
They're running with this out there in the drive-by media.
It's actually not a poll, it's a word association game.
What Gallup did was ask people to name one or two things that they like about each party and one or two things that they dislike.
As far as what the complaints are about the Democrats, I have no idea.
I can't find that.
The only thing I can find, and they ask Democrats, what are the first top two complaints you have about the Democrats?
I can't find that anywhere.
I can't find it in Gallup.
I can't find it Politico.
I can't find it in the Washington Post.
But I can find everywhere what everybody thinks is wrong with the Republicans.
But I can't find anybody that has anything bad to say about the Democrats, or at least identify what their problems are.
Other issue-based critiques of the Republicans named by at least 3% of Democrats, including its positions on social issues, abortion, immigration, favoring big business, gay marriage.
That's down at 3%, by the way.
Only 3% of the respondents cited gay marriage and the position the Republican Party has on that as a problem.
The only policy-oriented criticism that as many as 3% of Republicans had at their own party is its broad position on social issues.
Still 3%, insignificant.
Those top two things, inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
And all it is, is a repeat, rehash of what people hear about the Republican Party in the media.
CBS New York, New York may be first in taxes, but a survey has ranked New York dead last in one important characteristic, and that is freedom.
That's the verdict from one conservative think tank according to CBS2 Eyeball News.
Their reporter visited the Byram River on Friday.
It's one of the many borders that separate New York and Connecticut.
A new study says that the New York side of that river is part of the least free place in America.
The study in question is talking about mostly taxes and business regulation.
New Yorkers enjoy less freedom than residents in any other state.
And guess what?
They continue to elect the people that are encroaching on their freedom.
So they're perfectly fine with it.
You know what I heard about Karl Marx today, by the way?
I don't know what made me think it is.
I was reading in Shoprop desperately trying to find something that wasn't boring to me.
You know what he really got me ticked off?
Apple hadn't released anything new since October, and I think that's what's really got me ticked off.
At any rate, I found out there's a new biography on Karl Marx.
Apparently, the guy was an absolute reprobate, lived with his parents practically his whole life, stunk body odor out the wazoo, was horrible when it came to hygiene.
The guy was an anti-Semite to boot, did not like Jewish people.
This is the father of modern liberalism, the godfather of communism, was a reprobate, could have been a member of Occupy, Wall Street.
Sounds exactly like one of their members.
And yet he's held up on this pedestal as one of the great thinkers.
He was a sponge.
He lived off his parents.
He never took a bath.
And even when he did, he didn't use any anti-perspirant or deodorant.
Well, they might not have had anti-perspirant back then.
And even if they had, he wouldn't have used it because some capitalist tool would have probably invented it.
But he sponged off his parents.
Do you realize, folks, the Democrat Party, I had this in the stack yesterday.
I didn't get a chance to get to it.
The Democrat Party overall has a fear that Obama and his new campaign organization, Organizing for Action, is going to siphon money away from them.
This is a McClatchy news story.
Obama's decision to launch his own political organization has some Democrats wondering, is he just in this for himself?
Obama's group, Organizing for Act, it's not a new group.
It's just a new name.
It used to be called Organizing for America.
It was the website that he used to get elected in 2008.
When they got into the White House, they turned it into an extension of the campaign because his presidency has just been a campaign.
It hasn't been a presidency.
It's a campaign that continues.
And now in the second term, they've renamed it to Organizing for Action.
It's nothing new.
It's just a continuation of an already existing political action group.
And it is, by design, organizing for action will focus on his policy agenda and not on electing Democrat candidates.
It seeks to raise unlimited amounts of money by accessing the president's secret list of 20 million supporters, volunteers, and donors, none of which is going to be shared with the Democrat Party.
Now, we're into the fifth year of this guy, and the Democrats are just now starting to ask themselves this question.
The operation Organizing for Action will not share any money or resources.
It will not share what is called the priceless Obama email list with the Democrat National Committee or any of the campaign committees in the House and Senate.
No governors, no legislators are going to have any of the information or money that this group has access to.
It has no plans to coordinate any efforts with the Democrat Party.
And this has led some Democrats to worry that it's going to take money and manpower away from the party, the Obama group, as it heads into the 2014 elections for control of Congress.
What's their first clue?
When has Obama ever shared anything with them?
When has Obama ever given the impression that he has any interest in their success?
There isn't any evidence of that.
So what are they expecting?
The Organizing for Action organization exists for one reason, so that Obama can continue to position himself as outside Washington.
So he can continue to position himself as somebody running and behaving every day as though he opposes everything that's happening.
While he's literally causing it to happen, he will escape any such attachment by virtue of the existence of this organization, which allows him to have a perpetual, never-ending campaign.
And what's he campaigning against?
What's happening in America right now?
He's campaigning against the debt that he caused.
He's campaigning against the deficit that he caused.
He's campaigning against health care that he fixed.
And this is all done brilliantly so to say to make sure that nobody attaches Obama or his agenda to the direction the country's going.
It's so that Obama can continue to portray himself and be portrayed as somebody deeply troubled by everything going on and working very hard to fix it.
It's to allow Obama to be able to blame all of this on the Republicans, the never-ending campaign.
He will not be seen as actually governing.
This is why he has not presented a budget that ever had a chance of being enacted.
This is why there will never be any compromise with the Republicans on anything significant because that would put his fingerprints on what then follows.
And that is what hasn't happened and won't.
And the objective is to win the House of Representatives in 2014 and keep the Senate and then have unopposed control of the government for two years and never become a lame duck.
And to keep himself in a higher profile than the actual presidential race for 2016.
Make no mistake.
Obama has made it his mission to not be Rendered insignificant because of the next presidential campaign.
He is going to keep himself more visible, more present, higher profile than even that campaign.
He is not going to be a lame duck if he can help it.
I mean, this may not pull this off, but this is the objective: to avoid any of this lame duck business, to avoid having two years where nothing happens.
He's gunning for 2014.
Democrats win the House.
He owns everything in the legislative branch, coupled with the executive branch, unopposed, whatever he wants, executive action, executive order, for whatever the Democrats won't give him.
And at that point, he may then start talking about sharing some money with them.
If he has to buy their votes, he probably won't have to, but at that point, he might engage in such.
Let me take a brief time out.
We'll get back to your phone calls.
We come back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the phones.
Who's next?
John in Indianapolis.
John, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hey, Conservatarian Dittos Rush.
Thank you.
I want to make a quick point about blame and Obamacare.
And I believe one of the most insidious aspects of all of this is as it fails, the people who will be blamed will be the doctors, the hospitals, the insurance companies.
And as it fails, then we will be moved, or the attempt will be made to move us toward nationalized health care for everybody, universal health care.
I think, yeah, that's right.
That's by design, actually.
It's designed to get people ticked off for the doctors, the hospitals, particularly the insurance companies.
And it's fascinating.
The insurance company signed on to their own demise by agreeing.
They bought off this guy.
They bought him off, I think.
For how long, though?
I mean, it gave them two more years of validity before they're out of business.
Big whoop.
Right.
But my main point is, and the press is the key element here.
They will be the drivers who continually blame elements of the private sector.
And every time the government gets involved, it distorts everything.
And then when people actually try to act in their own interest as the private marketplace dictates, they get blamed.
Profit is evil.
The government is good.
Lawyers are good.
Politicians are good, except unless they're conservative.
And the private sector is bad because they want evil profit.
And it makes me sick.
And I just wonder if our generation can get it back or will it take the next generation?
I think it might, but what do you think?
I don't think our generation is going to do it anymore.
Our generation is, my estimation has too many members that are in the process of caving to this.
I don't think our generation has a majority of people who want to fight any of it.
Right.
Right.
But there are young people who are.
No, I don't know.
Because the problem is, as you have etched out the scenario, you know, I don't know how many people are going to come to this conclusion instinctively.
Okay, here you have a provision that's designed to help small business.
Of course, that's never, there's nothing about this plan that's going to help anybody, other than big government people who are going to benefit from a bigger government.
But so it's designed to take care of first small business and small business employees.
Okay, they can't implement it in time.
They're running way behind.
Well, what do people do?
You can't delay your need for health treatment.
You can't delay your need for insurance.
So what do you do?
They're just arbitrarily moving this.
I don't care what, people are going to run into all kinds of bottlenecks, bureaucrat obstacles, and nobody's going to have any answers for them.
And that's when you're right.
The people they're interacting with are going to get the blame.
The insurance companies who are going to say, look, I can't do anything.
There's a government law here.
People aren't going to hear that.
And it's all designed to get people further dissatisfied with the private sector and turn to government for help.
Now, look, let me tackle the real question our last caller asked.
We're all descending here into government-run everything.
And his question was: people in our generation, and I assumed that he meant mine, the baby boomers, he was asking, are there enough of us that are going to stand up and stop this?
Now, I know polling data indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.
An overwhelming number of people know what Obamacare is, and they don't like it.
Now, it's a different question to think: okay, they don't like it, but what are they willing to do to stop it?
And that's what I don't know.
One of the problems with this is that since this is a legislative reality, there are two ways of stopping it: either counter-legislation, legislation that doesn't pay for it or repeals it, or simply public protest and refusing to go along with it.
And that gets kind of dicey because how willing are people going to be to make a stand on something where health care is concerned, particularly for their children?
They also see that in Washington, their own elected representatives have provided lip service to repealing Obamacare, but not much else.
And the most often asked question I get from people is, what can I do beyond voting, which doesn't seem to be enough.
And so there's public protests, simply refusing to participate with enough people participating to make a real difference in refusing to allow the program to implement.
I have really no idea how many such people that there might be.
Now we turn to the young people who are millennials, people who are Gen X.
They have an entirely different outlook on things, particularly social issues.
They are perfectly comfortable with the government intruding anywhere if what's at stake is equality and fairness and being nice to people.
Now, you would think that when the actual responsibility of paying for this hits them, that they will awaken and realize what's happened.
Theoretically, yeah, I would fall into a camp that suggests that that will happen as well.
But when I look at some of the younger generations and I look at them issue by issue by issue, I don't find nearly the distrust, problem with, dislike for government that I have.
I literally, I think the federal government is an absolute disaster.
I think it does much more harm than any good that it does.
But I also think I'm in an increasing minority that looks at it that way in terms of the entire population of the country, not generation.
It'll be just adding them all together.
I think it's an absolute disaster, fiscally alone.
This is utter irresponsibility.
We've got people, we've got a federal government that gets away with things that no one in the private sector would be allowed to stay out of jail for a week doing.
The irresponsibility in spending money that's not theirs, the redundancy of programs, the absolute waste on the front, all of this.
And I've got no problem saying any of it, but a lot of people, even if they think what I think, are not going to dare say this.
They're too afraid of what might happen to them by the authorities.
I'll never forget, I've talked to people that live in the Soviet Union.
They would retreat into their bathrooms to have real conversations with each other because they figured the bathroom wasn't bugged.
The least chance of being overheard was either outside or in the bathroom.
I can't tell you the number of places I were, people whispering to me about things, and I can't hear people whispering or don't want other people to overhear what they're saying because they're afraid of what reaction it's going to get.
So I really don't know what younger generation's reaction to costs that they have no idea are coming.
I have no idea what the reaction is going to be.
Common sense would say that I'm going to put up with it.
Common sense would say at some point, because this does happen generationally, every third or fourth generation comes along and some of them at some point say, you know what?
We don't want to live the way that our parents and grandparents live.
We don't want to live what they're bequeathing us.
They change it all around.
It's how you got the Victorians, for example.
And it has been, you know, cultural rot has tended to be self-correcting in that way, illustrated, scientifically studied and proved every third or fourth generation.
But we're to a point now where this government is so big, so massive, and so involved in the most mundane things in people's lives that getting it out and reducing its role is a major, major, consistent, long-term undertaking.
Not something that one election can fix, for example.
One election can stop the direction we're going.
Another election can turn it around.
Another election can create energy in the right direction.
Now, that means winning three elections.
And not just for the presidency, but having like-minded people in Congress and state legislatures.
You heard the call yesterday.
Know how many people have learned how to profit from government as it exists rather than spend that time and that creative energy into making something of themselves in the private sector.
They have spent all that time and creativity and energy in gaming, and they don't think that's what they're doing, by the way.
The system.
It's just like I said on the day after the election last November, it's just really hard, folks, to beat Santa Claus is what this all comes down to.
It was really, really difficult to run an election against Santa Claus and win.
Who's next?
Brian in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Hi, Brian.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
It's a privilege to speak with you, Rush.
I was calling about the poll that you had mentioned earlier regarding, I guess, the perception of Republicans as being inflexible and unwilling to compromise.
And I think that's a fallacy on two levels.
First of all, it's simply not true.
I wish that it were.
I think, as you mentioned leading up to this call, the Republican Party in recent times has proven itself all too willing to compromise and not stand on principle.
And so that's the first problem I have with that.
And second, there's this lie, and you've done a masterful job over the years of highlighting this.
These lies about America that seep into the public consciousness long enough and they eventually become perceived as being true.
And there's this lie that America was built on competing factions compromising and coming to the table and hammering out an agreement.
And it's an absolute bald-faced lie.
If that were true, I submit to you that the United States of America wouldn't even exist.
We've gone from men like Patrick Henry who said, give me liberty or give me death.
There was no compromise when it came to liberty and individual freedom.
And I think if the Republican Party of today were around back then, they would have hammered out some agreement with the king and put us into further subservience and this country would have never been founded.
It's a lie.
We need to stand against that.
This nation was not built on compromise.
It was built on standing firm on principle.
And we need more men like that today, not less.
That's a good point.
You're right.
We've come from Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death, to I did not have sex with that woman, not a single time.
I never lied to anybody, ever.
That's a massive, massive jump.
Now, to illustrate his point, I want to grab, I'm going to take this out of order.
Grab audio soundbite number four.
I have three of these, but I'm going to grab this one.
Maybe I ought to do...
Nope, grab number three.
Gloria Steinem was on a Nickelodeon TV show, Nick News with Linda Ellerby.
It was a special on women's history entitled, Are We There Yet? Women's History, Past, Present, and Future.
Linda Ellerby is Nickelodeon.
These are young girls watching this show.
Linda Ellerby says, Gloria, what would an equal rights amendment give girls that they don't already have today?
Equal access to the Constitution.
I mean, so that discrimination based on sex would be as much suspect as a category as discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin.
When the Constitution was written, it didn't include women.
It didn't mean women.
It didn't mean black men.
You know, it did mean white men.
And so the good thing about the Constitution is that we have continuously amended it and expanded it so that we can have a democracy.
So you see, these young kids are taught that the Constitution is a flawed document, that the country's founding was flawed, unjust, immoral, and was for the benefit, exclusive benefit of white guys.
Everybody else didn't matter.
Everybody else was nothing more than a second or third rate entity.
And these white guys set it up for themselves and their ancestors in perpetuity.
But only until courageous freedom fighters like Gloria Steinem came around did we ever have a real democracy.
And you can find this belief echoed in people who are 35 years old today.
No, the women didn't have it, and they don't have access to the Constitution yet.
Blacks don't have access to the Constitution yet.
We're not finished.
We're not through with getting rid of white man's greed running a world in need.
When the President of the United States go to Easter Sunday services and listen to a preacher in an Easter Sunday sermon accuse the Republicans and find a biblical route, R-O-U-T-E, a biblical route to modern times where Republicans want blacks on the back of the bus and women still in the kitchen.
In 2013, the President of the United States goes to church on Easter Sunday and hears that sermon and does not walk out speaks volumes about what the president believes,
what he wants to hear, how he is governing, what it is that he thinks of the country, in addition to what's being taught to people from kindergarten on up.
Anyway, I appreciate the callout.
I got to go.
Back in just a second.
Don't go away, folks.
And we're back.
Rush Limboy here, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And where are we going?
This will be Blaine in Lexington, Kentucky.
Hi, Blaine.
I'm glad you called.
Yeah, hey, Roche, Lexington, South Carolina.
Listen, you've placed a heavy burden on my shoulder.
Snirtley said if I asked you a boring question, I would answer to him personally.
So I hope I don't do that.
Well, let's find out.
Okay.
The question is, how can, you know, you were talking about border security yesterday.
Now, how can we possibly have border security unless we address the question of anchor babies, not only address it, but settle it?
None of the gang of seven have mentioned this, and the only way that it will be resolved is to repeal that part of the 14th Amendment that says that persons that are born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.
We'll never control our borders, the number of people coming in or who comes in, unless we repeal that part of the 14th Amendment.
Anybody talking about doing that?
Not one person.
I haven't heard it anywhere.
Nowhere, and not only from politicians, but on talk shows.
You know why it won't be talked about?
And why is that, sir?
Well, because they're all Democrat voters or thought to be.
They're all thought to be potential future Democrat voters.
Well, no, I understand that part, but at least the Republicans ought to be saying we've got to address the question of anchor babies.
No, I know why they're.
No, no, no.
The Republicans would be portrayed as anti-Hispanic if they ever said something like that.
Oh, Lord, have mercy.
Oh, well, okay, I can't win that one, I guess.
But we've got to go to the next one.
Well, no, just the Republicans, they're in the process of a new program of outreach to the Hispanic community.
So that wouldn't dovetail with repealing that provision of 14th Amendment that says if you're born here, you're a citizen.
But again, Rush, we have got to secure the borders.
And if we are going to secure the borders, that to me is step number one.
So I understand what you're saying, and I understand the reason.
Well, let me just tell you this.
I just want to prepare you for the fact.
The question has not been boring.
Well, I'm just going to tell you that at some point we are going to be told that border security has been achieved, an agreement on it has been achieved, and it's going to be part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill, and it will not include anything about anchor babies.
Oh.
So you better prepare yourself for that.
Border security is going to mean one thing, and that is the impression is going to be created that we've finally gotten a handle on illegals succeeding in getting into the country.
Whether we do or not, that's what we're going to be told.
That's how it's going to be defined.
There will not be any such action as you have expressed here on anchor babies.
I could be wrong in it, but I just don't see it at all.
Man, oh man, the fastest two hours in media going, well, the fastest three and two of them are already gone and in the can.
And we have much more straight ahead, my friend.
So be patient.
Hang in there and be tough.
▲
Export Selection