All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:18
April 15, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
It's Douglas Urbanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back here tomorrow.
The phone number for the Rush Limbaugh Show is 1-800-282-2882.
Rush will be back tomorrow behind the golden EIB microphone doing what he was born to do, and he will be telling you the numbers, the results of the 23rd annual Leukemia and Lymphoma Society curathon.
A very big cause, and I am told that there are many of you who would still like to donate to this wonderful cause, and you can go to the website rushlimbaugh.com, and all the information is there, and you can give any amount, and it doesn't have to be a lot, just something.
And you can do it, and the phone number for them.
I'll give it out one last time.
It's 1-877-379-8888.
Anyway, I want to deal with, I want to switch topics for just a moment, ladies and gentlemen, indulge me.
I want to talk about Hillary Clinton.
May I?
May I?
Thank you.
There are things that I may have said to you in the past that I want to reiterate today.
And some of them were sort of silly, and some of them are halfway serious.
You decide for your discernment.
But I had two Urbanski rules that I've tossed out there.
And one had to do with last year's Republican primary.
And I felt that nobody who, or that anybody who lost against, who lost to John McCain in the previous primaries should really be eligible to run this time.
Because if you couldn't beat McCain, you didn't deserve to be in the race.
That's an Urbansky fantasy rule.
Now, let's talk about Hillary Clinton, who couldn't get her party's nomination last time.
Now, I've heard Rush's theories on this, and he may be profoundly accurate.
And I've also talked to you about something else.
And I'm going to raise this.
It's another Urbanski fantasy rule.
And it happens to be something that certain countries actually do have as part of their law.
I'll remind you what it was.
About presidential eligibility.
Presidential eligibility.
And Doug Urbanski has said, what about the concept of not having immediate relatives being eligible?
Very simply put, not your spouse or ex-spouse, not your brother or sister, or son or daughter.
In other words, immediate relatives not eligible to run for president.
Now, why do I say such a thing?
And especially in the day and age of the low information voter.
The United States, ladies and gentlemen, has ended up creating political dynasties.
And these political dynasties end up sucking a type of energy, natural energy and gravity from the political system.
We're not designed to have family dynasties.
We want to see the best rise to the top.
And you wonder if Hillary Clinton had been ineligible last time around, who would have risen to the top competing with Barack Obama for his party's nomination.
Likewise, let's go back to George W. Bush.
If he was ineligible from the process, who would have been the person that rose?
Ladies and gentlemen, do not think that somewhere it crosses the minds not merely of Hillary Clinton and Bill to hold on to power, but it crosses the mind of people like Chelsea Clinton, people like Michelle Obama.
We're far, far, far adrift in terms of creating dynasties when I see stories out there that say Hillary Clinton is already the frontrunner in the minds of many.
Who is she?
What has she done?
I think Russia's idea of the name of her autobiography, What Have I Done, is a great name.
Oh, is that the name of it?
What difference did I make?
It's even better.
Well, either one.
Either one.
What difference did I make?
So you see the names of these people thrown around, and then you throw into the conversation this idea that Jeb Bush, Jeb Bush, is being written about in all these stories as a potential Republican contender.
Under the Yubansky rule, he would be ineligible.
So she writes this book.
She's going to go on tour to promote the book.
The book, some are speculating, is a book that sets the stage for a presidential run.
Get this.
Here are the things covered in the book.
It says, according to her publisher's own release, it says she's going to explore the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Okay, fair enough.
It says she's going to explore the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime in Libya, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, and diplomacy pertaining to Iran and North Korea.
That doesn't sound like someone who wants a nomination or to win.
Yes, it's a resume of disaster.
It's a resume of disaster.
The release goes on.
It says the book will also address trends in economics, energy, climate change, democracy, human rights, the critical role of women and girls, technology and innovation, and health and human development.
What?
What?
What does she know about it?
What does she know about it?
She said she, because she had this blood clot near her brain, she's been resting, as you know, she said she needed some time to rest and settle on ways she can help women and children in the United States and around the world.
Is there any talk about helping women in the Muslim world?
Is there any talk about helping women in China?
You could take the leap and say that what George W. Bush tried to do in the Islamic world was more freeing to more women than almost anything in history.
That'll really annoy the left for saying that.
Last Tuesday night, she gives a talk about global women's rights at an event held by a non-governmental agency, organization, and she's there on the stage with a name, you want to start laughing, a name they're talking about as another potential Democrat rival, which is Joe Biden.
Anyway, the polls show that she's a frontrunner, runaway frontrunner.
The polls are showing that she's the thing.
Now, she's made no decision, not only no decision on the title of her book, she's made no decision whether she's going to run or not.
And I am told that when she makes a decision over at the Clinton House, there's going to be a puff of white smoke that comes that's going to tell us she's in.
Yes.
No, no.
I mean, what has changed?
What has changed?
What makes her so talented?
What has she done that's so good?
Going back to Rubensky's McCain rule, she lost the nomination to an inept, to an inexperienced, incompetent, socialistic agitator who absolutely beat her in the primaries of 2008.
What exactly has changed since then?
I mean, if she gets in, Russia will have a blast because you can go back to Operation Chaos.
All Hillary would have to do to make this country successful, by the way, would be to stop the left's war on business.
She'd be successful.
But nobody knows where she stands on anything other than prototypical leftist stances.
I'm not sure the country wants a woman president, by the way.
I'm not sure we want that.
Not because she's the right woman.
Maybe the right woman could win.
Like Obama, like Obama, hear me, folks.
Hillary is the creation of the progressives in the Democrat Party.
They have an agenda, and the only thing that they need with their agenda is someone who can front it for them.
And how she has had a, she leaves with a 70% favorability rating when she leaves being Secretary of State, this disastrous Secretary of State, it's laughable, really, ladies and gentlemen.
The Americans are supposedly okay with the Secretary of State letting four men die, begging for help.
The word Benghazi doesn't come up.
Will it dog her?
Probably not, because there's no such thing as a media.
Ladies and gentlemen, this country elected Barack Obama two times.
Two times.
Do you really, really think that the average Obama voter knows about Benghazi?
Even knows the word?
You may ask where was she during the Benghazi murders?
Why the consulate wasn't protected?
Ladies and gentlemen, she is a definition of someone who's propped up.
Someone who, for sure, has ridden her husband's coattails into whatever positions she has found herself, not proven herself terribly up to any of it.
Under her watch, the Middle East has fallen into the hands of the most dangerous people.
Very dangerous dictators.
And I, for one, don't understand why people think that she is so formidable.
Imagine her as the representative of the United States all over the world.
Just imagine.
Do you want that?
She was not able, ladies and gentlemen, to clear the field last time.
I can't think she'll do it this time.
They're going to have a lot of people who want that office.
She was the favorite in 2007.
She was the favorite in early 2008.
Remember that?
And then the machinery found someone else.
Now, Obama's appeal to the low-information voters, I mean, we have to accept this.
They perceived him as the low-information folks perceived him as cool.
His demeanor was cool.
He's soothing.
To them, they heard an authoritative voice.
To them, they got the all-state man as the presidential candidate.
You know, Hillary comes across, Hillary reminds me of that fourth-grade teacher who I hated, by the way.
When it comes to Benghazi, of course, she answered the phone at 3 a.m. and did nothing.
That's out of fair joke.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's Doug Grbansky.
The phone number here is 1-800-282-2882.
Filling in for Rush Limbaugh today, we'll be right back.
Rush Limbaugh will be back tomorrow doing what he was born to do, hosting the Rush Limbaugh Show.
It is I, Douglas Urbanski, filling in today and enjoying every second of having the opportunity to be with you.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take a personal moment here.
As many of you know, in my day job, I'm involved in the production of motion pictures in Hollywood.
I'm connected with some of the biggest movies that Hollywood puts out.
And I am friendly with many Hollywood liberals.
I'm friendly with Alec Baldwin.
I'm friendly with Aaron Sorkin.
And I have never experienced being shut out of my job.
I mean, I've heard other conservatives say that they're victims in Hollywood.
They can't get their films made.
They can't get their calls returned.
I'm definitely in.
I'm definitely a Hollywood insider, and I love my work, and I love the people I work with.
And so the question will often come up: how do you end up on the Limbaugh Show?
Or more than that, how can you be involved with a man so hateful as Rush Limbaugh?
Or what is Rush like?
Well, when someone asks me the question, the first question, you know that they've never listened to Rush because I've been a listener for over 20 years.
And I've never heard anything, anything, ever, ever, ever that is hate speech on this show.
Never.
And in fact, when they say, what's he really like?
I will tell you something else, ladies and gentlemen.
I have an answer for that.
Rush Limbaugh is a very good friend of mine.
And yet, I've never spoken to the man.
We've never communicated via email or telephone or in any way, shape, or form.
But he invites me to come here and speak to you because they have great interest and concern that the people who come here will hopefully be representative of what he tries to deliver to you himself every day.
Very hard, in fact, impossible to do.
But the man I know who's become my friend is the man who is the exact same man who is your friend.
I am a listener.
I have been a listener more than my son has been alive, which is, he's going to be 23.
I've been a listener his entire life.
He's been a listener since he was born.
That's how long the Limbaugh Show has been part of my life.
He has been a helpful teacher, a friend, and an instructor.
Many of my ideas about conservatism, about the world situation, about this country, are created at the School of Limbaugh, at the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, you may call it.
That's how I know he's a friend of mine.
And like many of you, when Rush lost his hearing, I tell you this: the hand on my heart, ladies and gentlemen, I prayed very hard for this man because I think he's crucial to the country.
His ideas are crucial.
His articulation is crucial.
So that's the man.
I am you.
I am just like you.
I'm a listener, and I get invited to come here.
And when I'm not here, I'm producing Hollywood movies.
Now, on that point, on the point of producing Hollywood movies, I come here and I have a chance to speak to you.
And for the next two weeks, my mailbox, my email box, and my phone are going to be chock-a-block with many of you well-intended people sending me your scripts and your film ideas and your television ideas, ladies and gentlemen.
No possible way.
I have no infrastructure for handling the onslaught that comes.
Hundreds and hundreds of you send me material.
And to be perfectly honest, I don't have a chance to look at it.
And I don't have a chance.
I would love to be able to write back to each and every one of you and say, oh, we read your script.
We saw your television show.
The fact of the matter is that when I am finished here, I step straight back into what is a very full, busy professional life.
And I know that when you send me these projects, that somewhere in there there are wonderful things and that you're all well-intended, but it's just not possible.
The polite side of me wants to respond to it.
Listen, you know my obsession with dogs, if you know anything about me.
I'm the sort of person who wants to go to the pound and take them all home.
I want to read all your ideas and help you get them all made.
I can't do it.
Can't respond to them all.
Would love to.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to touch on something else that we touched on earlier in the show, which is the Obama's living this 1% life.
Yes, because it's important.
Look, if we're in a day and age where we have a vanishing workforce, and this vanishing workforce is something of a mystery to economists, they have some answers as to where it's gone, some answers, but not all.
But it's a vanishing workforce.
Here's the uncomfortable irony part.
When you have not leading by example, I mean, you may very well say the Obamas are leading from behind, not leading by example.
They're not the 1%.
They're the, as I said earlier, the 0.0001%.
Non-stop vacations.
You know the litany of things.
Almost a vacation a month, enormous expense, enormous expense of the taxpayers, separate vacations, kids going different places.
Ladies and gentlemen, Russia has talked about this.
We have 48 million people on food stamps.
The real unemployment is one out of six Americans, which is the worst since the 1930s.
Most people in poverty, I think, than we've ever had.
The economy is six years in really bad, bad shape.
And Joe Biden, Joe Biden represents this administration, goes off and charges a lot of money staying in these foreign hotel stays.
Record deficits, record unemployment, record spending, record spying, record U.S. troop death toll, gas prices out of control, food prices up, Obamacare starting to pop up.
What is it that leftism has done for any of us that's been any good other than parties, vacations, vacations, and more vacations?
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Doug Gerbanski here.
It is true.
I don't expect the liberal media to change their views on this.
No, they don't report these vacations in any detail anymore of the Obamas, of the 0.0001% leaders.
They don't point this out at all.
Now, look, the Obamas live like the 1%ers.
They live like the 1%ers.
They live exactly like the ones they tell us that we should despise.
And Obama says to us, you better go eat your peas, go eat your peas.
Hypocrites are liberals.
Liberals are hypocrites.
The irony here is that if you stop and think about it, the hippies of the 60s and 70s, they were all about freedom from government.
They were all about less bureaucracy.
Now, they're all about controlling every part of everyone's life and their money and their money.
Let's take Obamacare.
Obamacare.
If you really, really, really took the premise that Obamacare was there to ensure those who couldn't afford it or who otherwise couldn't have health care, or even the illegals in this country, you could actually do that on one or two pages without upsetting everything for everyone in the whole healthcare system.
So the Obamas are living like the 1% who we should despise.
The Clintons are watching with admiration.
The Clintons look at the Obamas and they see possibility.
The Clintons, of course, were just looking for power, access to wealth.
The Obamas, they seek the power, access of wealth, but they also seek to redesign the country.
By the way, I'm not so sure that Buffett and Gates live as high as Obama does.
There were people who said that George W. Bush was the first imperial presidency of the United States.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, you, of course, those words were very poorly used.
I think you are actually watching the first real imperial presidency of the country.
He's very much, he and his ilk, they desire to make citizens subservient to government, to elevate the president, the role of the presidency to that of a ruler.
Watch, by the way, how they attack Dr. Ben Carson every time they can, the 1%ers, these 1%ers, and the other part of this 1% lifestyle that's being led.
The 1% lifestyle that they're leading is all being led without having really earned a penny of that money.
In other words, it's all being done without the sweat and work that any of us would have to go through to become 1%ers.
Like CEOs of giant corporations.
Now, do you remember?
I don't know, none of you are probably old enough to remember this.
Eisenhower was blasted for playing golf.
He was blasted for playing golf.
Just like some on the right blasted Obama for playing golf.
There's an enormous difference between Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama.
Dwight Eisenhower was the general who had won World War II.
He was a man of accomplishment.
A lot of accomplishment.
A lot of accomplishment.
And Barack Obama living 1% at your expense mostly.
I want to ask you: if Mitt Romney were president, just fantasize with me, would he be taking all these ski trips and Bahamas breaks and golfing outings and trips to Florida to see Tiger Woods and spending Christmas at $8 million Hawaii states that are not his home, by the way?
The Obamas don't go to Chicago.
They don't go to their home at all, ever.
Ever.
I mean, this is not really about the media getting you facts.
This is all, of course, about an agenda.
You've got a decadent lifestyle.
You've got Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, all of them leading this decadent lifestyle.
And what do you have in the backdrop?
You have this thing we are supposed to reckon with called a vanishing workforce, ladies and gentlemen.
Put in plain English, millions of Americans are missing from the workforce.
Where did they go?
Where did they go?
Economists just scratching their head.
The Labor Department last week reported that the U.S. labor force, everyone who has a job or is looking for one, shrank by 500,000 people, half a million people, in March, in one month, in one month in March.
That brought the civilian labor force participation rate to 63.3%, in March, the lowest level since May of 1979.
They thought this would happen because baby boomers were beginning to retire.
That turns out to not be the case.
The people who are vanishing from the workforce are people in their prime working years, people between the ages of 25 to 54.
It is that group who have vanished from the workforce.
It is that group that disappeared during the recovery.
And there's an article I've got here.
And it's a Washington Post article.
And it indicates that this shrinking workforce has been happening for a decade.
Do you know in this entire article, Obama's name is not mentioned once?
Democrat Party is not mentioned once.
Taxation is not mentioned once.
The causes of this are not mentioned.
Regulatory agencies are not mentioned once.
And do I have to point the obvious out to you?
The fewer workers you have, the less growth is produced.
So where?
Where does everybody go?
Where are the economists scratching their head?
Well, they have discovered that between 2007 and 2011, they are ending up in one of two places.
They either have gone back to school or, more worryingly, they have gone on disability.
This, however, does not account for those vanishing, for all the vanishing workers.
We give you unemployment numbers that are all dolled up and jazzed up and saucied up so you can think things are good.
But they do this by rigging the numbers.
500,000 people vanishing in March, as if a spaceship landed from the Twilight Zone and took all these Americans away, real people with real rent and real bills and real families, vanish.
And you are told, and the low-information voter buys it, that the unemployment numbers are getting better and that there's growth and things are getting good.
There's a declining labor force, ladies and gentlemen.
Articles are being written saying this is part of a trend.
Rather than anything to do with Obama, who's not mentioned in these stories, there's no mention ever of how Obama's anti-job, anti-growth administration is the cause of this malaise.
So once again, the mainstream media, the drive-bys, they turn the economy or the vanishing workforce into sort of third-person animate objects with wills all of their own.
The economy does what it does.
The vanishing workforce goes and does what it does.
It all just happens on its own.
Bad news, but it happens on its own.
No, it doesn't happen because of any cause and effect.
It doesn't happen because of Obama.
It doesn't happen because of any Democrat or any Democrat policy.
No, no, no, those things don't.
No, no, no.
Anything bad that happens must be linked, by the way, to conservatives and conservative policies.
Can I give you a definition of vanishing workforce?
Can I just give you an Urbansky definition of vanishing workforce?
I'll give it to you.
Vanishing workforce.
Obamanomics.
Look it up.
That's what will be in my dictionary when I publish it.
Decade-long trend.
It is a useless observation, designed as these things are by the mainstream media to purposefully distract the low-information reader and voter from the root causes that the liberals in Congress and Obama in chief have propagated.
I'm going to finish talking about this in a few moments when we return.
It's Dugabanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be right back.
And you know, ladies and gentlemen, the low-information voters are not the only problem here.
So are the single-issue voters.
The Obama campaign was absolutely brilliant at exploiting these guys as well.
They really, look, single issue voters don't care at all about the unintended consequences of their narrow reasons to vote a certain way.
They don't care.
And a majority of single-information voters have no idea about unintended consequences to begin with.
I have a lot of friends of mine that are single-information voters, and they have no idea of the ramifications of their actions.
Now, look at the generations that have followed the greatest generation.
You have an entertainment nation, you have a tattoo generation, you have the government instead of family generation.
The country is going where the majority of people right now are taking it.
So I hypothesize: if you ask the average 20- to 40-year-old voter on the street where the solution of the country's problems are, there may be a huge percentage of them that say, well, the government.
You ask them, you say, who's looking out for you?
Well, the government.
Most of what they look towards when it comes to providing for the needs, they are a generation taught that it's the government who does this.
And that gives you a very good idea of how and why we're heading today.
Barack Obama says, our plan is working.
Yes, unfortunately it is.
Unfortunately, it is.
You've got massive numbers of illegal immigrants who are displacing Americans from their jobs.
You've got the suffocation from the litigation and the regulation of industries that consequently costs jobs when in fact they should be otherwise adding them.
You've got the stifling explosion in non-workers dependent on government for welfare, for food stamps, disability, retirement, healthcare.
The last time you had numbers like this, Jimmy Carter was president, 1979.
I don't have to tell you that Obama is now officially worse than Carter, because you already know it.
And yet, the liberal talking heads, the mainstream media, talking to the low-information voter, they keep spinning, spinning, spinning that things are getting better, better, better.
Welcome to Obama Nation, my friends.
This is what you get when you promote the government-first approach.
Record debt, record unemployment, record number on food stamps, other government freebies, an amazing record amount of printing of the currency.
It is a fact.
Let's go back to Thatcher.
Let's go back to Reagan.
Let's go back to Coolidge.
Pouring money into poverty only grows poverty.
Actually, I don't need to go back to any of those people.
Obama proves it.
He has managed to lower the percentage of working Americans by nearly a percentage point for every year he has been in office from 66% range to our current 63% range.
Do you have to ask me now what happens when you invest in poverty?
That's what you get.
It works.
Now flip the question around.
How about investing in wealth instead?
Eliminate the incentives to stay out of the workforce, like low-threshold disability payments with no sunset to them.
Unemployment, never-ending unemployment.
Universal school vouchers.
Eliminate public unions.
How about that one?
The private sector has already done very well at fixing things that are outdated about unionism.
Scott Walker's done a wonderful job in his state.
Eliminate non-competitive franchising of our health care by our politicians.
Look, when healthcare executives are spending more of their time in D.C. lobbying the state than researching consumer demand, there's something terribly askew, and wealth is being wasted.
Any guess why the healthcare industry supported Obamacare?
The answer is very simple.
It becomes a government-protected monopoly that makes it nearly impossible for new players to compete, makes it easier to ignore consumer needs, to ignore consumer needs versus political needs.
Yeah.
So instead of pouring wealth into the government to be dispensed and dispersed by these Mandarins for good political will, yeah, you and I think wealth should stay in private hands.
And yes, I always hear this, people say, well, the government has spent money on good things.
We built the Hoover Dam.
They built the interstate system.
Yes, yes, that's true.
But the Hoover Dam generated cheap energy.
The interstate system gave us dramatically increased transportation efficiency.
Those were things that had a remarkably positive return on investment, far beyond the short-term jobs they created, as would, by the way, the Keystone Pipeline, a great example.
But we're in the day and age of building bullet trains to nowhere and other make-work projects.
They're a net loss for this country.
They generate more debt for future generations to deal with.
That's the sum of the whole game.
It's Dugurbansky.
Got a scoop.
We'll be right back.
Ladies and gentlemen, final segment of the show here.
Dugurbanski filling in for Rush.
I was mentioning about half an hour ago that my relationship, my friendship with Rush is identical to yours.
And I wanted to share something with you.
I had a lost a friend of mine to cancer a month or so ago.
Big Jim was his name.
Wonderful man.
The reason I'm mentioning this to you is he was also a fan and friend in the same way that you and I are of Rush.
And when he went into the hospice, honest to goodness, he had a smile on his face and he was listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
And that's the bond that Rush creates.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a wonderful time having the chance to speak to you.
Maintaining liberty is a never-ending struggle.
There is always somebody who is willing to try and take it away from you for a, quote, better society.
I don't care if it was the implementation of Social Security, which is now treated like a national Disney e-ticket to cover supplemental income or Medicare and so on.
Everyone has a problem and everyone has a government solution.
It is a never-ending struggle.
▲
Export Selection