All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:15
April 11, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I checked the email during the break at the top of the hour, and there's some people wanting to know why I haven't spent a lot of time on uh on the latest involving gun control.
Toomey, Pennsylvania, Mansion, and so forth.
It's not that I haven't, folks, and we've got some stuff on it coming up.
There's really only one thing you need to know.
The Democrats want to do away with the Second Amendment, and if they can, they want to end up registering every gun and its owner in this country.
And their ultimate objective is to see to it that nobody has any.
That's what's on tap.
Now no Democrat's going to admit that.
Well, very few of them will, and it's not something that they expect to be able to accomplish tomorrow.
But all of these gun control skirmishes have a long view, you know, long-term policy objective on the left, and that is to get rid of everybody guns, take guns away from people who have them.
They don't like the second amendment.
If they could, they'd write it out of the Constitution.
Barring that, they'll come up with ways to override it.
And if you don't want to admit that that's what this is all about, then you're really not up to speed on it.
All these skirmishes are little, they're just that.
They're skirmishes that are part of the larger Democrat Party objective to render the Second Amendment meaningless, to render it powerless.
They say this in so many words.
Anyway, greetings and uh and welcome back.
In fact, when they deny it, they give up the game.
They oftentimes deny that charge without anybody leveling it.
They often will say, well, we don't want to take your guns away if you're we always love hunting and so they give the game up right then and there.
Anyway, telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
I do want to finish the thought on this, the editor of foreign policy magazine, which is a serious foreign policy magazine.
And then the magazine from the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a left-wing think tank, David Rockefeller trilateral commissional at Black Helicopter, that is foreign affairs.
Foreign policy magazine fashions themselves to be the same kind of players.
And the editor of foreign policy is a guy named David Rothkop.
And he's out there saying that Mitch McConnell is a bigger threat to the United States than the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.
Here's why, according to the editor of foreign policy, because Kim Jong-un, even with his nuclear weapons, is hardly likely to launch an attack on Americans anywhere, given the response would produce the instant certain obliteration of his regime.
What that means is that for all of his bluster, the chubby little autocrat is very unlikely to cost one American his life.
But in vowing to block any vote on even the most modest legislation to rein in America's out-of-control gun culture, the Senate minority leader all but guarantees that the toll in America Street Corner War will continue to rise.
Mitch McConnell, responsible for more deaths, didn't have any to do with Ashley Judd.
It has nothing to do with the illegal wiretap of his office.
This has to do with gun control legislation.
And Kim Jong-un, he's not going to launch any nukes.
And even if he did, and I'm going to reach us, and even if he did, we would obliterate North Korea.
Folks, we have discovered the missile silos in North Korea.
We know where they are.
My question is, why are they not rubble?
If we if we know where they are and we haven't taken them out, what is this automatic assumption that if they launch we are going to obliterate their country?
Do any of you believe that would happen?
Non serious.
North Korea launches nukes at us.
They can't hit us yet.
So they, you know, fall whatever hundreds, thousands of miles short.
But the intent was clear.
Do you think we'd retaliate?
Do you believe that the United States of America, as led today, would retaliate, as Mr. Rothkop says here by obliterating the regime of the chubby little autocrat?
No, he's not even a dictator.
He's an autocrat.
You think we would.
You wrote even we're closer to the midterm elections, you think that we would launch a retaliatory strike on North Korea?
Do you think the president of the United States who has made it his objective to get rid of our nuclear arsenal would use it?
Well, what is obliterate his little regime mean?
What is it?
I just no, it's it's a I guess it's a fair question.
If the North Korean stratonucus, and it's what we're talking about here, right?
If the Norkstranuca, it's the theory here that will obliterate the little guy.
But we're he's not going to do that because he knows we'll obliterate him.
So he's not going to be responsible for one dead American, but Mitch McConnell will be.
Because Mitch McConnell standing in the way of new gun laws.
Now, this was precisely my point when I was talking to Torsa in the previous hour about Michelle Obama in Chicago.
We've got plenty of laws on the books to deal with the perps in Chicago.
The real question in Chicago is why are the gun laws not being prosecuted?
Why are the gun laws not being used to prosecute the perps that are gunning down our kids, quote unquote, in Chicago?
May I be so bold as to answer the question for you?
Why in the world, if you are pushing for brand new gun control laws, and your premise is that we don't have the ability to rein in this gun violence, so we need new laws.
Why in the world would you effectively end gun violence in the middle of that debate?
It's like Wayne LaPierre said about Clinton back in 1990, I think it was uh three or four, that President Clinton was comfortable with a certain level of violence because it kept the issue alive.
My only my only point to you here is that we have all the legal ammunition that we need to deal with the the crime spree, the murder spree going on in Chicago and anywhere else.
But we're not, are we?
It doesn't appear that law enforcement in Chicago is doing very much to bring those perpetrators to justice.
So why?
What what what would be the explanation for that?
My theory is that, well, if you are in the midst of new gun laws, you're trying to get everybody to agree with massive new gun control laws.
What's the premise?
The premise is we need new laws to stop these school shootings, we need new laws to stop the shooting of innocent kids in the streets of Chicago.
So why would you go ahead and use existing law to prosecute perps today?
You would illustrate you don't need the new laws.
You would illustrate you don't need any more gun control.
So why do that?
These people politicize everything, I mean the Democrats politicize everything.
Now the real question has been and should be today to anybody in Chicago and to Mrs. Obama, why aren't you prosecuting that crime?
In Chicago today, the murder rate in that city is a national embarrassment.
Why isn't anything we have plenty of laws on the books to convict and punish the people who are caught and convicted put away.
We have it amply.
But we're not doing it.
But stop and think now.
Mitch McConnell, in in a respected American publication, Mitch McConnell more dangerous than a communist dictator who is threatening to launch nuclear weapons at us.
That doesn't even get a rise out of people.
It's just ho-hum and maybe some low information people agree with it.
Thank you.
Because they're all caught up in this gun control stuff, which, again, has one objective, and that is to separate you from your guns.
The latest on this and vice president.
Joe Biden this morning said that the cultural norm about gun ownership is changed.
Vice President argued that many people buy guns not for protection or hunting, but because it's like driving a Ferrari.
Vice President Biden said, it used to be that we were dealing almost exclusively with hunters.
There's a whole new sort of group of people now who I don't know what the numbers are, that never hunt at all, but they own guns for one of two reasons.
Either self-protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range.
They just like the way it feels.
You know, it's like driving a Ferrari.
And then he raised his arms as if he was shooting a gun.
So the vice president of the United States, this was on MSNBC this morning.
You people like guns?
It's not even about hunting anymore.
You just love the feel of that AR-15 in your hand.
And maybe self-protection.
Maybe self-defense.
But the real reason you want guns is you just love the way it feels in your hand.
You just love the power that that gun in your hand gives you.
Sort of like your hands being on the wheel of a Ferrari.
You just love the power.
And of course, you don't need a Ferrari to get from point A to point B. And you don't need a gun.
An AR-15 to hunt or to protect yourself.
So once again, bitter clingers, impugned, insulted, demeaned in the ongoing effort to separate you from your gun.
And make no mistake, that's what this is all about from the Democrat side.
So when I see Republicans wanting to compromise with Democrats on this to get some kind of an agreement, I just scratch my head in futility.
And I say, yep, well, it's just like we're compromising with them on the border and we're compromising with them on amnesty, and we're soon going to be compromising with them on abortion and life.
As that's what we have to do to get the press to say good things about us tomorrow.
I must take a brief timeout, but I've got some sound bites that go with this.
So sit tight, those coming up, plus your phone calls after this.
Don't go away, folks.
So there are, let's see, some liberals who uh they want to separate you from your guns.
Admittedly, correct.
There are some liberals who want to separate you from your kids, we have learned in the past couple of days, right?
And I don't know how many of you have done your taxes yet, but if you haven't, have I got a if I guess surprise for you?
You're gonna be hit in ways you haven't imagined.
It's obvious that the American left wants to take away your money.
Some of them want to take away your kids, and a whole bunch of them want to take away your guns.
And that pretty much is the Democrat Party agenda that we find ourselves in the midst of.
While all of that is going on, they want to grow the size of government, they want to raise your taxes, they want to spend even more money.
And they want to pretend that they're cutting Medicare and Social Security when they are not.
Now, I said we had some uh sound bite support.
Let me try to stick to the uh uh gun control stuff first and yeah, let's grab um sound by four.
This is this is Pat Toomey.
This is this morning on CBS.
And he's not with Nora O'Donnell.
Uh she says, Address this criticism.
They say that your compromise will do next to nothing, that it includes no assault weapons ban, no curb on giant ammo clips, no background checks.
That your bill really is a weak compromise.
What's your response to that?
I would so strongly disagree.
Look, the problems that we have are not law-abiding gun owners like Joe and myself.
Uh, and we don't need, in my view, to put restrictions on what law-abiding people can do.
What we need to do is try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerously mentally ill people.
That's the problem.
And that's what our bill will make some progress on.
There's no panacea here.
And I shared Joe's experience separately meeting with the families and was amazed at their strength.
And they understand that there is no panacea, but a measure that helps to make it harder for violent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to get guns.
I think that's just common sense.
Yeah, well, you know what this bill does reportedly.
This bill allows doctors to report whether or not you are mentally ill, whether you know it or not.
And then that information can be used to deny you a gun.
There is, I don't know if it's particularly Tumies, but there's legislation out there that would give doctors all kinds of leeway latitude in simply proclaiming somebody as mentally ill.
And if you have a gun, if you already have a permit, you got a concealed weapon.
Doesn't matter.
You can be thus identified this way by your doctor.
Remember, your doctors are now asking you these kinds of questions as part of Obamacare.
Up next is Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz on the Fox Business Network last night with Lou Dobbs, who said Senators Toomy and Mansion, they're coming up with a with a deal.
Is that deal of theirs between the two of them something that's going to move forward as legislation to be taken seriously by both parties?
Well, I think it will be taken seriously.
I don't know whether it'll pass or not.
You know, I think all of us were horrified by what happened in Sandy Hook.
I've got two little girls at home, and no parent could see children senselessly murdered.
But I think it is also sad that so many politicians are trying to take advantage of that tragedy, not to pass legislation targeting violent criminals, but instead working to take away the second amendment right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding peaceful citizens.
Well, thank goodness we've got this guy and a couple others in the Senate because that is right on.
Thank goodness this guy's not yet afraid to say what he really believes, and he is right on the money.
So many politicians are trying to take advantage of the Sandy Hook tragedy, not to pass legislation targeting violent criminals, but instead working to chip away Second Amendment rights.
That's exactly right, and that's why existing gun control laws are not being prosecuted.
People are being prosecuted, they're not being utilized.
The laws aren't on the books already.
Because the image must be that we don't have enough law to deal with these kinds of tragedies.
They are trying to create the impression that we don't have enough laws to deal with Sandy Hook.
None of what's been proposed would have stopped it, by the way.
Because Senator Cruz is right, it's not about that.
Now, after saying that the the Pat Toomey Joe Manchin bill will be taken seriously, uh Senator Cruz continued.
In 2010, over 15,000 felons and fugitives tried to illegally purchase a gun and were turned down.
Out of those 15,000, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted just 44.
Let me repeat those numbers.
Out of 15,000 felons and fugitives illegally trying to purchase a gun, the Obama Justice Department only prosecuted 44.
I'm introducing legislation to create a task force in the Department of Justice.
We need to prosecute violent felons and fugitives.
We need to go after them to protect ourselves against violent crime, and we shouldn't be stripping away the second amendment right to keep and bear arms of lawful peaceful citizens.
There you go.
There it is.
This is the point that I've been making.
We have plenty of law already on the books, and it isn't being used.
Fifteen thousand felonies and fugitives tried to illegal buy a gun illegally buy a gun in 2010.
Out of those fifteen thousand, Obama justice prosecuted just forty-four.
And there's a reason why.
We don't want to catch too many people.
Because we don't want to make it look like we have sufficient legal resources to deal with this, because after all, we're asking for no gun laws, new gun laws.
We're asking for even more restrictive gun laws.
And one of the best ways to get them is to have this apparently unstoppable cycle of violence going on.
But if you have existing law that would shut it down, you would indicate that you don't need the new law.
So this is really hideous what's happening here.
And congratulations, Senator Cruz for honestly calling them all on it.
Okay, back to the phones we go, and this is uh Gene in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Hi, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, thank you.
I'm surprised I got through.
Well, I'm glad you made it.
Okay.
Um I have a comment about the gun control bill.
Um, and I called the NRA this morning, my senators, and then I thought I'd that I needed to call you.
Um the woman of the NRA told me, please to try to to bring this to someone's attention.
I woke up at about three o'clock this morning and thought, why is no one looking at the fact that the mass murders have all been committed by men?
I believe that.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ones that are currently um part of this issue have been men.
Why did the NRA want you to uh publicize that?
Because it was a young woman that answered, and she said she had the same question.
My question is, why is nobody asking?
Because I don't what does it got to do with it?
What is uh So the legislation is being directed at me as a woman.
It's being directed at everybody.
What what what maybe uh what legislation are you referring to specifically?
The uh Toomy Manson bill.
Their bill would only take guns away from women.
No, yeah, it will take guns.
It's going to require um the same uh restrictions on everybody.
Yeah.
And which I think is unconstitutional.
I don't agree with the bill.
I don't think it should happen at all.
And that's why I called Toomey, because I think he's totally caving in and helping to destroy our constitution.
Yeah, it's kind of curious, too, because th this I don't see how this is going to help him, particularly Central Pennsylvania.
I what what what to me appears to be angling for votes, you know, the the whatever remaining Republican votes there are in in suburban Philadelphia, but he's he's he's he's literally angering the central part of the state.
They take this stuff very seriously there in Pennsylvania.
I do.
I do.
I'm just shocked that he's doing it.
And I'm still are you trying to be funny and I'm missing it on the No, no.
I think that nobody part of the conversation has never been these murders have only been committed by men.
They're talking about the mentally ill.
They're talking about the criminals, but nobody has asked why is it men that do it, not women?
I as a woman feel I should have the right to carry a gun because I have less defense and strength.
And if I'm less dangerous.
Okay.
I um Do you get it?
Or am I still not getting through to you?
Well, uh no no, I'm not sure that I understand because it sounds like you it's okay to take guns away from men because they're committing the crimes, but let you women keep yours.
No, it isn't okay if it violates the second amendment.
It has to go forward.
I guess what I don't get what's the day the so mass murders are committed by men.
Abortions are committed by women, so yeah.
Uh but if you bring the abortion issue into it, that's a whole different discussion, and I'm pro-life.
Yeah, but I mean I uh maybe I'm just having a bad day because I'm really distracted and depressed here today, but I don't understand the d I I I I really don't understand what you want as a woman.
What the point is mass murders are committed by men or boys.
Don't forget the boys.
Sure.
It's not just men.
I want to ask Congress why they're not...
There's a lot of prepubescent little acne-faced kids in there doing this.
Yeah.
So why is it why has I'm just wondering why no one has ever asked?
Because it would what difference would it make?
Makes a huge difference to me as a woman.
Not if you're not part of the the group that's committing the mass murders.
My gender is not the one that's primarily responsible.
The men are doing it.
And so that seems to be a real social problem.
And nobody's asking that.
And I think they should be asking everything.
For what purpose?
For what purpose?
Yeah.
What purpose to ask about the mentally ill?
What purpose for any of it?
Exactly.
You're you're you're you're trying to y the what the what I'm hearing you say is that you want women exempted from whatever gun control laws passed because they don't do mass murders.
No, that's not what I said.
Well, then why does it matter?
I'm asking why nobody has raised the question of why don't women commit mass murders.
Okay men do.
I'll do it.
I'll do it.
Stand by just a second.
Three of them do it to one.
Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever wondered why it is?
Somebody call Senator Toomey and ask him this.
Why is it that women do not commit mass murders?
And you ask him about that in his bill.
You call his office and you ask him what the hell is going on.
Women don't commit how's that?
That's perfect.
And uh can I make a comment about what you said about Nixon?
And went after him and the and the um Well Um Yeah, this could be fun too.
Uh well he was an ugly old man.
And he didn't have any charm in his smile.
So he couldn't get away with anything.
Barack Obama has a big sparkly, charming smile.
And he can seem to be able to do it with anything.
If Nixon had a gun and Obama had a gun, would you be okay with Obama keeping his and Nixon being forced to give his up?
No.
No, I wouldn't.
What about Pat Nixon had a gun and Richard Nixon had a gun?
Who's which one of them would have to give their gun up?
If they had to?
Yeah, if they had to.
Which one?
Oh, you're not gonna back me into that court.
You already backed yourself into it.
Is this really happening?
I I can't, folks, I can't I have not shared.
I just I can't tell you what an odd day this is.
Okay.
Jean, thanks.
El Mucho.
Don't please folks, don't call Toomey's office with that.
I was just No, it's no, I just you know, I don't I don't urge people to call to me.
I I I meant to ask the question about, you know, has anybody ever stopped to consider that women are not mass murderers, at least with guns.
But I never say call people.
I don't don't call him that please, it's not I didn't mean to say that.
It's not gonna accomplish anything, and that's not at all gonna be useful here.
It would just kind of slipped out.
Do I feel better asking the question, pointing out that why there are no women or pointing out no women mass murders?
Much better.
I feel totally cleansed.
I I feel like I'm immersed in swimming in a in a twenty-foot deep pool of logic.
Yeah, here's uh here's Sean in Forest Hill, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Thank you, Russ.
Great time hearing from you, big time fan, longtime listener.
Thank you, sir.
Um I wanted to bring up the fact that, you know, I see this as definitely a left-winging thing.
I see the whole agenda falling together.
If you look, what my major issue is that another part of this is how quickly they're they're diagnosing our children with ADHD and uh depression disorders.
I mean I have two daughters myself, and my oldest daughter, they originally diagnosed with ADHD, though she never had it as a child, and then they switched it to minor depression, and they put her on an SRI.
An SSRI, which is an antidepressant, right?
But the idea is that the putting all this together this way, your children are already diagnosed with mental disorders, so they could already be barred from being able to get guns.
That way it eliminates a big portion of the society from being able to get guns in the first place.
And it's all it's I see it as a big plan coming together, really to take guns out at everybody's hand.
All they had to do is diagnose you as a kid.
Which is in one of the pieces of legislation out there now that permits doctors to to randomly declare you or anybody mentally disabled in one way or the other without you knowing.
Doctors can rand it in a piece of legislature, it's not law yet, it's not the law of the land yet, it's in a piece of legislation that has uh that has been proposed.
Anyway, Sean, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
We'll take a brief time out and be back.
Folks, uh none of it makes sense to me either.
It really so don't worry about it.
All right, here's what I was uh could could you turn my audio level down here in my microphone level check to yeah, thanks a little bit better.
Do it myself.
Um there's a piece at at uh redstate.com, Eric Erickson, about what he has found in the in the Toomy Mansion proposal, and it is that the proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the national instant criminal background check system in ICS without ever telling the patient he or
she has been added.
There would be no due process requirement.
Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will.
Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place.
And worse, if the doctor does so and then makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed.
I.e.
guilty before being proven innocent.
In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purchased guns.
Now, this is in the Toomey Mansion proposal.
Pat Toomey Joe Mansion, according to Eric Erickson, who's looked at it, and this is what Ted Cruz was just talking about in the in the sound bites.
And all of this, folks, is oriented toward one objective.
And it's again, this is not new either.
And that is people on the left want to find ways to separate citizens from their guns without amending the Constitution and without having to pay any attention to the second amendment.
That is what every piece of liberal gun control legislation is about.
Now you may not want to admit it to yourself.
That may be too big a concept to grasp and believe, because my God, that's that's really I don't I can't let that happen.
The call to arms or call to something.
But if this is true, if if if a bipartisan proposal will allow a doctor to randomly add a patient to the national instant criminal background check system without ever telling the patient he or she's been added with no due process, then that could lead to somebody who currently legally has guns, having them taken away.
And it could also lead to somebody not being able to pass a background check and get guns.
And that's why people are scratching their heads.
What in the world would a Republican put his name to this for?
What is to be gained by this?
Elizabeth Warren made it clear yesterday in an email to supporters that not only would she oppose Obama's plan to cut Social Security benefits through this cost of living adjustment known as chained CPI.
Boy, that that's another thing.
It's Obama's creation.
The chained CPI is like the sequester.
His idea, it's in his budget.
And wait till you hear it.
I've got three or four sound bites with Jay Carney and Obama denying it, accusing the Republicans of doing it.
And I dare say that 99 out of a hundred low information people don't have the slightest idea what it is anyway.
What do you mean, chain CPA?
Well, what is that?
It's the consumer price index.
It's a it's a technique for being able to manipulate inflation the way you want it in order to either keep costs down or send them skyrocketing.
When it turned comes to uh benefits being provided or being cut.
Chained CPI would link whatever benefits we're talking about, their increases or decreases to the consumer price index would link them inexorably.
Hardly any flexibility whatsoever.
It's Obama's idea.
It's in his budget.
And he and Jay Carney and a bunch of Democrats, no, no, no, no, that's a Republican idea.
They came up with it.
Anyway, Elizabeth Warren made it clear yesterday in an email to her supporters, not only would she oppose Obama's plan to cut Social Security benefits through this chained CPI, thereby admitting it's his idea, but that she was also shocked to hear that it was included in the White House budget proposal at all, because the effort is underway to make this a Republican idea.
And it's in Obama's budget.
And even though it's an Obama's budget, Jay Carney is out trying to say it's a Republican idea.
Well, Elizabeth Warren, what she said next is the point here.
Elizabeth Warren said that her brother David lives on the $13,000 a year he gets in Social Security benefits.
I can almost guarantee you that you know somebody, a family member, friend, or neighbor, who counts on social security checks to get by.
My brother lives on $13,000 a year.
Now, Elizabeth Warren net worth is $14.5 million.
Her brother lives on $13,000 from Social Security.
And she's up bellyaching about the chain CPI because of the limits in the increase in benefits her brother and other Social Security recipients are going to get.
her brother lives on $13,000 a year she has millions of dollars now Now, are families not supposed to help each other anymore?
This is totally The government's job, and what that means is that Mrs. Warren says that you need to pay for her brother.
Because where does the government get its money?
It gets it from us.
So you ought to pay for her brother.
She's not gonna help her brother.
Obama doesn't help his brother, who lives in a hut in Kenya.
So you have a senator from Massachusetts actually complaining about the chained CPI and the limit.
The way of the limit increases because her brother lives on 13 grand while she and her husband have multiple millions of dollars.
So I'm sorry, that that just in a pure compassion realm, that doesn't compute with me.
I thought these people owned compassion and understanding and charity and sharing and so forth.
But I keep forgetting, not with their money.
It's always everybody else's they spend.
She's not gonna spend a dime of her money on her brother.
Okay, folks, that's it uh for this exciting busy broadcast hour.
▲
Export Selection