All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
April 9, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I'm not so sure.
Some people think that Obama's trying to ram through this agenda of his, and others think that he's not.
I'm kind of in that in that ballpark.
I'm not sure Obama wants to ram through all this stuff and get it approved, right?
Now, gun control, all this other thing.
He could, but I still think he loves the issue.
I still think he loves having the issue unresolved to campaign against the Republicans with and execute the Limbaugh theorem.
Anyway, I will explain what I am talking about as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh back here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Let me start with a couple things here.
The nuclear threat.
The little dictator in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, has announced that Iran has gone nuclear.
Whether it has or not, nobody knows.
But he's saying that Iran has gone nuclear.
And Ahmedine Zad has ordered officials to speedily start five more nuclear reactors.
So it looks like we better try to talk them into a sequester too.
After sequesters seem to be more effective than any sanctions have been.
But seriously, North Korea threatening to launch nuclear missiles.
North Korea somehow feels like they can threaten us with impunity.
You've got Ahmedinezad bragging about the fact that they have gone nuclear now.
And all of this terrible foreign policy news is coming out.
And I don't know how many of you know this.
All of this terrible foreign policy news coming out during the same week where it is being announced that Hillary Clinton has been given a $14 million advance to have somebody ghostwrite her memoirs of her brilliant time as Secretary of State.
$14 million.
If a book by Hillary Clinton earns $14 million, I, for one, will be shocked.
And this is how this kind of stuff works.
Here come these publishers.
And remember now, everything is part of the Democrat Party.
Everything is part of the agenda.
And they're all oriented toward propping up their elites and propping up their leaders.
This is just a way to get Mrs. Clinton $14 million.
It's, yeah, that's what an advance is.
An advance is guaranteed.
Now, in some book contracts, it's an advance against royalties.
And if you don't get there, then you've got to give some of the advance back.
But let's be, nobody's going to come to Mrs. Clinton.
Say, Ms. Clinton, that book didn't sell quite as well as we thought.
And we want some of the $14 million, but it's not going to happen.
So this is the left making sure that Clinton stay rolling in dough.
I mean, what in the world is there that's remarkable about her tenure as Secretary of State, Benghazi?
North Korea, Iran, where is the success?
Where is anything in a book that anybody would want to read about Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State?
What are her monuments?
North Korea, Iran, Benghazi, Latin America, somebody, give me a foreign policy success story.
You know, you go back last four years of the Bush administration and you listen to these same people talk about how we're hated, the world hates us, Obama's going to make the world love us.
We're going to close Club Guitmo.
We're going to fix Iran.
We're going to fix Iraq.
We're going to get all this stuff back to normal so that everybody's happy and everybody loves us and it's all falling apart.
We're still in Afghanistan.
Monuments to her success, where are they?
What is it that she's done that justifies $14 million?
Now, free market, I guess, for some people.
It remains a free market.
If she can get $14 million, some publisher to write her memoirs on her time as Secretary of State, fine.
She can write them down, write whatever she wants, have it ghostwritten, whatever, and people buy it and everybody's happy.
But the working title of this book ought to be, what difference did I make?
I mean, that's the working title of Mrs. Clinton's time as secretary.
Say, what difference did I make?
How I passed off my utter failures to John Kerry.
Is everybody feeling better now?
What an utter disaster.
We're living in an utter disaster, no matter where you look.
We're in the midst of a dying country domestically.
And in the area of foreign policy, we got people who think this country has never deserved to be a superpower.
They presided over what they think needs to be done, which is cutting us down to size.
In the process, our so-called enemies are empowered, entrenched, not curtailed.
The United States no longer seems to stand for freedom around the world.
And yet, Mrs. Clinton, here's $14 million.
We would love for you to write about your years as Secretary of State.
What difference did I make?
Now, speaking of foreign policy and so forth, somewhat related.
In the United Kingdom, following the announcement of the death of Margaret Thatcher, tens of thousands of purely depraved people took to the streets in various enclaves and cities of the United Kingdom to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.
Celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher.
UK Daily Mail dancing on Maggie's grave, how the left celebrated her death with smashed shops and anarchy in the streets.
Two women arrested for burglary after being found inside a shop.
Bernardo's shop front smashed in Brighton, South London.
One policeman seriously injured after being pelted with bottles in Bristol.
Hundreds took to the streets as Thatcher death parties were held across the country last night, organized by critics of the Iron Lady.
In Bristol, seven cops were injured, one seriously as violence erupted at a street party of 200 people.
Officers were pelted with bottles, cans, and rubbish, heads in out the riot cops.
Now, folks, Margaret Thatcher saved that country.
Margaret Thatcher, I'm going to give you A little historical perspective.
Margaret Thatcher took over the leadership of Great Britain at a time when that country was in almost an identical situation as we are in this country today.
Liberalism seemed to be empowered forever.
There wasn't any opposition leadership to speak of.
There were no efforts to curtail the Labor Party and its march.
The economy of Great Britain stunk.
The unemployment rate was sky high.
Tax rates were sky high.
It was an absolute disaster.
And she took over that country and she reversed it and she turned it into an actual competing top five worldwide power economically.
Now, in the process, one of the things that she did was to bust a bunch of unions.
And that provides, I think, the ammo, if you will, for these.
What kind of meaningless life must you have?
I mean, Margaret Thatcher hasn't been in office over 20 years.
Margaret Thatcher hasn't been a factor in anything in 20 years.
If Margaret Thatcher ruined these worthless, endless parade of human debris lives, then why haven't they improved in the last 20 years?
Why haven't these people's lives gotten better in the last 20 years since she's gone?
You would think that if she's the reason their lives are so miserable, she hasn't been in power for 20 years.
Sometime in this 20 years, their lives would have improved.
But no, they continue to be miserable, unhappy, mired in disappointment and squalor and whatever else dominates their daily existence.
And so she dies, and she has to take to the streets.
They take to the streets to celebrate this with all kinds of parties.
Must have a lot of free time.
Must not have very many responsibilities.
They must not matter much in Great Britain if all these people can go on this kind of a so-called celebration.
Blaming her, blaming her for whatever misery their pathetic lives have become.
I mean, you would think, you would think if you look at the videotape and read the accounts of these death celebrations, well, you would think some dictator had just been dispatched.
You would think that somebody who came in and seized power and put people in prison had just died.
But it's just the opposite.
A great liberator.
A woman literally saved Great Britain from the abyss and turned that country around and made it a world power once again.
They celebrate her passing.
And if it hadn't been for Meryl Streep, they'd hate her even more.
Meryl Streep bought her some good vibes, you see, because people like Meryl Streep.
Meryl Streep portrayed Lady Thatcher in a movie that was an abomination, but still it was a good portrayal.
And so people say, yeah, she could have been too bad.
Meryl Streep didn't mind being her for two hours on screen, so she couldn't have been that bad.
But they still, when you laugh, that's how they look at it.
Well, Thatcher couldn't have been that bad if Meryl Streep agreed to be her for two hours.
But nevertheless, we're looking at people celebrating her death, their lives utterly meaningless, in ruins.
They're blaming her.
She hasn't been around in 20 years.
So long after she's gone, these people can't.
Can you fathom the kind of hate people like that must be harboring?
Can you understand that?
Can you imagine the hate that these people have to be holding on to, that has to be festering, effervescing, coursing through their veins and arteries and limited brain cells?
And her death gives these people a reason to celebrate.
My gosh, how utterly miserable.
Who's been running that country for the last 20 years?
Why in the world is there such misery?
Hasn't a Labor Party been running this country for the most part, the last 10 anyway?
They accused her of creating grand international larceny for the rich.
The greatest case of international larceny in history, far harsher than even Ronaldo's Magnus' economic policies.
They say that Thatcher destroyed whole industries in places like Wales and Scotland just to be rid of the unions supported by those industries.
Destroyed whole industries, places like Wales and Scotland, got rid of the unions.
All she did was save the British economy.
But this, folks, is an illustration right there for everybody to see.
This is what happens with a brainwashed young population, which we're dealing with in this country.
Same kind of brainwashing, same kind of poisoning of the mind has taken place.
Everything seems 180 degrees out of phase, but I just want to reiterate she took over Great Britain at a time when that country was in a similar circumstance to what the United States is in today.
And members of her own party didn't think she had a chance at winning.
She told them when she was running, she was dead serious.
She said, well, what are you going to do when you lose?
She said, I'm not going to lose.
I'm going to win.
Well, what are you going to do when you win?
as though it was irrelevant.
She spelled out what she was going to do, and then she went and did it.
The point is, she had people in her own party not thinking it was possible.
People in her own party thinking it was a pipe dream.
People in her own party thinking that it couldn't be done.
And there was no reason.
Same kind of people then as exist now.
Do not do anything to make the media.
You know, don't do anything on Monday going to make the media hate you on Tuesday.
And don't do anything Tuesday is going to make the media hate you on Wednesday.
Same kind of people that she was dealing with in the Conservative Party in the UK as exist in places here.
She doesn't care.
And she revived that country.
That takes me to this circumstance with Obama that I led with.
You know, we've got some sound bites here.
The media not happy that Obama's underwater in the polling data on all these issues, immigration, gun control, whatever else.
He's under 50%.
Media worried about this.
They're not accustomed to Obama being underwater.
They're accustomed to Obama, no matter what's happening in the country at 55%.
They're accustomed to whatever's happening in the country not attaching itself to Obama.
Now it looks like some of it might be attaching itself to Obama, and they're a little bit concerned about it.
And it may even be that Obama's concerned about it.
Did you hear what he said in Connecticut?
Let me find this exact quote.
No, no, not the worst day of his president.
No, it was something really, something about we can't make it as easy for them to gun down our kids or some such, I mean, it was the most.
Is that a number three?
Play this soundbite.
Well, here, let me take a break.
If I don't take a break, then we're going to be in deep trouble.
But this quote is so, I don't know.
I don't even know how to characterize it.
It's not presidential.
That's for one thing.
Back here in Jesus.
Imagine what would have happened if a bunch of people had taken to the streets in this country to celebrate the death of Ted Kennedy.
If they had engaged in violent civil disobedience, started throwing death parties to Ted Kennedy.
Can you imagine the reaction would have happened?
Now, here's Obama.
This is Hartford, Connecticut.
And to me, this is disgusting.
And it's another illustration of the Limbaugh theorem.
But what are these, can you imagine what these parents are going through in Connecticut still?
And to be trotted out as props for the advancement of an Obama policy.
I don't know what that must feel like, but here's what our president said.
We have to tell Congress it's time to restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines to make it harder for a gunman to fire 154 bullets into his victims in less than five minutes.
Let's put that to a vote.
I don't think there's anything on the table, no proposal on the table that would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary.
But here's the, this is the, and this next bite contains the quote that just has me puzzled.
I've also heard some in the Washington press suggest that what happens to gun violence legislation in Congress this week will either be a political victory or defeat for me.
Connecticut, this is not about me, bull.
This is not about politics.
It's all about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence.
That's what this is about.
This is not about politics.
Yes, it is.
This is not about politics.
This is about these families and families all across the country who are saying, let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
What in the hell does that mean?
Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
Why don't you go to Chicago and drag those people into your speech?
What in the name of Sam Hill, boy, in the list of quotes of great presidents, can you see this one?
Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
I mean, if we're going to get gunned down, let's make it really hard to do.
What in the for crying out loud, folks?
Where are we here?
It's a politician, a politician with a capital P, a politician in front of a crowd that he has arranged that is made up of parents of victims of random gunfire in a school says this isn't about politics.
Right.
A politician, the country's leading politician, the country's craftiest, the country's most adept politician, The country's slickest politician.
This isn't about politics.
What else is it about then?
I mean, who are you?
All you do is politics.
This isn't about politics.
Right.
It ain't about me.
It didn't about me.
It didn't.
It ain't about you.
But I still, ladies and gentlemen, this is about these families and families all across the country who were saying, Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
Fourscore and seven years ago, our forefathers.
Ask not what your country can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your country.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Hey, let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
Now, maybe I'm alone.
Maybe in today's lost culture and in today's lost society dominated by low-information people, maybe that sings.
Maybe that is a great melody.
Maybe that is a profundity.
Maybe that's a great president of the United States with family members of kids killed at a school.
Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
A little harder?
Let's acknowledge our kids are going to get gunned down.
Let's just make it harder.
Our kids are going to get gunned down because there are too many guns.
But let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
Does anybody really care why this is happening?
Is it just me or is there an acknowledgement, if you will, an acceptance of the decay and deterioration of the culture that kids are going to get gunned down?
And so, since kids are going to get gunned down, let's make it harder for the gun-downers to get away with gunning down our kids.
And how are we going to do that?
Well, we're going to get rid of those 10-clip magazines, and we're going to get rid of 45-clip magazines, get rid of magazines, get rid of clips, automatic weapons.
And these clowns have no idea what they're talking about.
And they're not even getting a root problem.
Do you think the existence of guns is what drove Ryan Lanza into that classroom?
Or could it be the kid was zoned down on drugs that maybe he didn't need to be on?
Could it be the kid's just mentally ill and ought not have been walking around free as a bird?
Is anybody really interested in getting to the bottom of why Gabby Giffords got shot?
Why did that trigger puller do what he did?
What was it?
Was it the existence of the gun?
Was it the fact that there aren't enough laws in Washington covering guns that enabled it?
Of course not.
So once again, we have a series of tragedies being utilized, purely politicized by the Democrat Party for the express advancement of their agenda, which is a growing government and less freedom for every citizen.
That's what this is about.
It's being made to look like it's about saving kids.
It's being made to look like it's about safety.
It's being made to look like it's about the fact we care about all this.
But what it really is about is the same thing Obamacare is about.
And the same thing the stimulus was about.
And the same thing Fast and Furious was about.
The same thing Solyndra is about.
The same thing, same thing.
All the green policies are.
It's all about expanding the government, shrinking the private sector, taking away economic prosperity and liberty at the same time.
And all of that taking place under false premise.
Let's make it a little harder for our kids to get gunned down.
I don't know, folks.
That one, I saw that.
I didn't hear it.
I heard it with you the first time today.
I just don't turn the TV on to news much anymore.
It's too depressing.
Just, I don't care to see a bunch of human debris celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death.
I just don't want to watch it.
And it's getting harder and harder to watch what passes for news and all that on cable networks when it's just an endless parade of stupidity and ignorance.
So I watch real Mayhem and Murder, Game of Thrones.
Yeah, I got into it.
Over the weekend, I decided I did.
I started season one.
I wanted to find out what all it's all about.
So I had seen episode one, the first 20 minutes of it, and I don't like medieval stuff.
And, you know, when they start gutting animals and ripping the intestines out, okay, time to change the channel.
Just not my company.
But I stuck with this.
And it's, I understand why it has captivated people.
I haven't read any of the Game of Thrones books, but I've caught up.
And I went back to episode one, season one.
Watch all where am I on my a bad omen, though.
I got to episode one, season two late yesterday afternoon, and I found myself doing other things while it was on without hitting the pause button.
So it may be harder for me to stick with it during season two, but I shall endeavor.
Ladies and gentlemen, have you—oh, no, I'm not going to go to gay infertility yet.
Oh, wait till you hear about this, though.
I want to play you an audio soundbite.
Let's go back to soundbite number one.
Listen, Good Morning America today.
Yes, gay infertility.
It is – it is – It's about mandated insurance coverage for the inability to have babies.
I know you're scratching.
Wait, wait, wait.
There's no such thing as gay infertility.
Oh, yes, there is now.
Language doesn't mean anything anymore, folks.
Truth doesn't mean anything anymore.
Language doesn't mean anything.
So if a bunch of activists want to create the concept of gay infertility and then tax all the rest of us to compensate them for the fact they can't have babies, then that's going to happen.
You haven't missed anything yet.
I'm just teasing you as to what's coming.
Gays now think it's not fair they can't have babies.
So they're calling that infertility.
And it will require mandatory health insurance because of it.
I know they're not infertile, but that doesn't mean they can't have babies.
Even after they're married, they can't do it.
And that's not fair to them.
That is culturally unfair.
Well, you mean the guy with the artificial womb?
Oh, that guy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That guy.
Well, I don't think they all want to go through that.
See, that's the point.
They want to have to do mastectomies, chop addictomies, add addictomies.
They don't want to have to do all that.
It's just going to be easier to folks.
If you're thinking this never going to happen, time to wake up.
Time to wake up.
All right, here's this sound.
I mentioned this.
I've got to play this now just to make sure I don't leave it behind.
It's Good Morning, America.
George Stephanopoulos and Jeff Zelany, the New York Times, worrying, fretting over Obama's approval numbers being underwater, particularly on gun control.
We're going to turn down to President Obama's all-hands-on-deck push for gun control.
He flew in families of the Newtown victims on Air Force One last night, hoping they can convince lawmakers to back some kind of compromise on the key issue of background checks for gun buyers.
ABC's Jeff Zelany is covering all this from the Capitol.
And Jeff, the president needs all the help he can get.
Resistance continues to grow.
That's right, George.
The White House is facing stiff headwinds on its gun control plan, with a new CNN poll this morning showing that 52% of Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling gun control.
But now the president is hoping that a bipartisan agreement can be reached before the momentum slips away.
Oh, see, they don't like this.
They've been operating under the theory, the narrative that the country became 100% liberal when Romney lost.
And they've been operating in a theory that a massive majority of Americans support everything they want to do.
They are learning that that isn't the case.
Not that it will matter, not that it will stop them, but it still has them discombobulated.
It just means you're going to have to take another route to get what they want.
If the people don't want it, to hell with that, we'll just have to take a different route, such as an executive something or other.
Or, yeah, just what they did with Obamacare.
Nobody wanted that, but they found a way to get it done.
But they're a little worried because they want Obama to be loved and the number one celebrity in the country and all that.
And 52% of people do not support his gun control.
Oh, that's going to be a difficult thing for them to compute, to comprehend.
Because if, in their view, the public, if they're going to support Obama on anything, it would be his gun control bill.
They just can't believe that 52% of people do not want this.
Same thing with immigration.
They don't care.
Same thing with health care, but gun control.
I mean, this, you know, this is gun control is that latest orgasm they're all waiting to have.
And it's almost like they don't have a willing partner here.
So it ain't going to be as much fun.
Jay Carney, the White House press briefing this afternoon, a question from ABC Radio White House reporter at Ann Compton.
She said, in President Obama's talks with the Newtown parents, would background checks have made any difference in Newtown, Jay?
There would still be gun violence in America, there's no question.
But it is incumbent upon those lawmakers who were sent here by their constituents and coming upon the president, the vice president who were elected by the entire country to do whatever they can that is sensible and common sense that will reduce gun violence, that will save the lives of children like the children of Newtown.
It won't eliminate the problem, but the problem needs to be addressed.
Right.
It won't eliminate the problem, but that's not the point.
We're talking about it, and that's all that matters, so shut up.
Don't ask me whether what we're doing is going to work.
That's not the point.
The point is we're talking about it and we care and we got to make it harder for our kids to get gunned down.
And that's what we're doing.
And shut up.
We need common sense.
We need sensible common sense that'll reduce gun violence.
And we need the president working on it, vice president working on it, all these state and local legislators working on it.
Everybody caring.
Still going to be gun violence after we do this.
There's still going to be gun violence.
No question about that.
But we still got to do something.
Why don't you tax it?
You want to tax it?
Tax gun violence.
You know, go tax the family of Adam Lanza, whatever.
Yes, I'm a little testy today.
I have reasons for it, but I'm not going to bother you with it.
Now, gay infertility.
Are you paying attention?
This is from Front Page Magazine.
It's David Horowitz's great publication.
It's interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations.
It's hard not to notice during these readings that the last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that couldn't be explained in any way outside of a total collapse of reason.
And boy, are we seemingly there?
You know, most societies die of suicide, not attack.
Did you know that?
Most societies wipe themselves out.
And it's interesting to read about the last days of past civilizations.
You'll note that the last days of past civilizations were filled with idiotic, irrational ideas and behaviors that couldn't be explained by reason.
Now, in entirely unrelated news, there's a new proposal to mandate coverage for gay infertility.
Now, the problem is that gay infertility is just biology.
Two men and two women are not infertile.
They're just not capable of impregnating each other.
Not a medical problem.
Well, it's a mental problem.
It's a physiological problem.
Infertility coverage is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems.
Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as a part of a larger set of natural couples.
What they're getting at here is that infertility coverage for heterosexual couples, it's not fair that coverage is not available to gay couples.
And you say, well, wait a minute.
Gay couples are not infertile.
They just, by definition, can't have babies.
Doesn't matter.
It's not fair that they can't have babies when other people can.
Not fair that gay couples can't have babies.
And so we want access to infertility coverage.
This is going to be the next push, according to this story in the magazine.
Come on, Rush, it's never going to happen.
Right.
Never going to happen, right?
Yeah, like.
So I'm watching CNN.
It says here that Hallie Berry has decided to fight hunger.
That's all it says.
What is she going to start gorging herself?
What does that mean?
▲
Export Selection