All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
April 17, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Hi folks, greetings.
Great to have you here, Ilrushbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Fun frolic and frivolity for all.
As well as a serious discussion of issues.
A telephone number if you want to be with us today, 800 282, 2882, the email address, Ilrushboat EIB net.com.
I'm looking at Wolf Blitz up there on CNN.
He's got a he's got a beard going.
There's a story out there today.
I didn't print it out just off the top of my head here.
I don't know where it's from.
But there's a story out here.
I need to ask you women about this.
The man with a beard is the sexiest thing going right now.
A mustache or beard sexy.
Makes a guy look young, virile, sexy, uh, and and uh actually it's healthier than not having it.
I got this story here.
Anyway, folks.
This is the news coming out of Boston.
Well, it's not the new, there isn't any news coming out of Boston.
The speculation that continues in the drive-by media is becoming ridiculous and absurd, even more so than yesterday, if that's possible.
Like I have this here from CNN.
And the uh the headline, Boston Marathon Bombs have hallmarks of lone wolf devices, experts say.
Now listen to this.
The devices used in a Boston Marathon attack on Monday, typical of the lone wolf.
The solo terrorist who builds a bomb on his own by following a widely available formula.
In this case, the formula seems very similar to one that Al Qaeda has recommended to its supporters around the world as both crudely effective and difficult to trace, but but wait for it.
It is also a recipe that has been adopted by extreme right wing individuals in the United States.
Right wing individuals utilize the same tactics, techniques as Al Qaeda.
Nowhere, no in any publication on any website, will you read anybody speculating about the possibility that an extreme left wing wacko did this?
They don't even consider the possibility.
Let me throw one out for you.
One of President Obama's close friends is Bill Ayers.
Bill Ayers got his start blowing things up, such as what happened at a Boston Marathon.
Bill Ayers is well known as a bomber.
He's well known as a former terrorist, and Bill Ayers teaches.
What if one of Bill Ayers' students is out there trying to emulate him?
Mr. Limbaugh, that is absolutely irresponsible.
You can't just openly spec.
Why not?
The left is out speculating that it's got to be an extreme right winger doing all this.
Why can't I pose the possibility?
You know, this got this guy Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorn, and they're out there teaching people and they're ex-bombers.
They're well known as bombers, they're friends of the president, they're very proud ex-bombers.
They're very proud of the fact that they bombed.
The Pentagon and police departments.
What in a teach kids?
What if the terrorist happens to be an acolyte of Bill Ayers?
I mean, it could be the ultimate extra credit project.
It could be the ultimate polishing the apple for the teacher kind of thing.
You are reaching new laws of what do you mean new lows, Mr. New Castradi?
I mean, if you guys are gonna open this door and go in and start playing around with who might have done this and who they are, why can't we?
I think it's rather fun to think that maybe one of Bill Eyre's acolytes did this.
Or one of Bernadine Dorns.
Or maybe that professor at Columbia, who's well known as a bomber and a killer.
They all got their start doing stuff like this.
By the way, do you know I found that well, actually, Drudge found it.
I saw it on Drudge.
There's a um a story from 2010, some manual, some website, some publication exclusive to Islamists, jihadists, instructions on how to use pressure cookers.
Yes, sir Bobkin, it's out there.
It's it's instructions and ways to use pressure cookers to create bombs.
I've got it all here in the in the stack of stuff.
Right wing, and they even went out see, and anyone who dragged up this uh this troll is this Mark Potok guy.
Is that his name?
Yeah, Po Tuck.
This is the guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Now, Potox got a beard, and I I guarantee there's no way this guy can be considered sexy to anybody.
I think I heard this out.
Where is PoT?
Yeah, Potok.
Potok uh, even Pota, he can't Potox is now it can't be a right winger, it can't be it can't be any of that because uh nobody targeted the government.
They didn't say they're angry at blacks, Jews, gays, Muslims, and the government, so it can't be a right winger.
I got the audio soundbite to support all this.
Terry Francona, the former manager of Boston Red Sox.
Grab soundbite number 11.
Terry Francona, the former manager of the Red Sox, now the manager to Cleveland Indians, yesterday in Cleveland, before they played the Red Sox, Francona Hill a press conference, and a reporter said, given your roots in Boston, how tough was that whole day for you yesterday?
You know, you turn on the TV and you you hear right wing, left wing.
I wish there were no wings.
Just wish people would get along.
I don't understand it.
Uh and I don't pretend to.
I hope that there's people way smarter than me that are somehow someday able to figure this out so stuff like this doesn't happen.
Back to soundbite number one now.
This is Terry Francona.
I hear left wing, I hear right wing, I wish there were no wings.
That, by the way.
Well, I was going to characterize that as low information.
I don't think this guy's a low information guy.
I think he's just.
You know what?
Francona probably epitomizes people, it's sick and tired of the kind of coverage an event like that.
Who started all this speculation left wing, right wing?
Who does this?
Who is it that politicizes everything?
It's the people in the media and the people on the left.
Again, I just want to remind you what I do.
I get up every day.
I do show prep.
I read, I absorb, I see, I listen, and I every day see people and issues and traditions and institutions that I love and revere under assault, and I come here and I defend them.
I never open the newspaper.
I never go to a website, I never turn on the TV hoping to find something I can't attack.
It isn't what I do.
I defend.
And it's an everyday thing because we are under constant assault from the people in the media, from the Democrat Party, from the left, we are under constant assault.
American conservatives, Republicans, constantly under assault, every day.
It basically is just defending.
And that act of defending what we believe gets mischaracterized as attacking people, and it isn't.
But I'm I'm I don't have it in me just to let some of this stuff go by without commenting on the attacks that deal with me, I do let them go.
I don't recognize those, but the things that I believe in, the people that I believe in, if they're under assault, I defend them.
Now here's um special agent, FBI special agent in charge, Rick DeLaurier, he was in Boston last night at press conference to talk about the marathon bombing.
At this time, there are no claims of responsibility.
The range of suspects and motives remains wide open.
Importantly, the person who did this is someone's friend, neighbor, co-worker, or relative.
We are asking anyone who may have heard someone speak about the marathon or the date of April 15th in any way that indicated that he or she may target the event to call us.
Someone knows who did this.
Folks, this isn't comforting.
They don't have a clue.
They don't know anything.
It's wide open.
It's a cold trail.
They don't have any idea who did this unless they do and are withholding it for some reason, but that doesn't sound like it from Salon.com.
Salon Magazine.
A piece by David Sorota.
Headline.
Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a white American.
Let me read that to you again.
Salon Magazine.
David Sorota, S-I-R-O-T-A headline.
Let's hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a white American.
Why should we hope that the Boston Marathon Bomber is a white American in a nutshell, the author claims that if the bomber or bombers turn out to be anything but white Americans, it will set back the cause of liberalism.
That is, it will set back amnesty.
It will set back gun control, about which I should note there's a vote on the gun control bill at four o'clock this afternoon.
We uh Harry Reed's been caught.
Harry, in the in a in a verbal slip up where he actually admitted what's on the agenda.
Harry Reed, Dingy Harry actually admitted what the Democrat Party objective grab audio soundbite number thirteen.
Yesterday morning in Washington on the Senate floor, here is Dingy Harry.
The anti-gun legislation before the Senate.
We're making good progress in the effort to schedule series of votes on amendments to the anti-gun violence legislation before the Senate.
Anti-gun.
Anti-gun.
They may maintain they're not anti-gun.
They maintain they don't want to take our guns away.
They maintain they want people to continue to be able to hunt.
They're not anti-gun, except that they are, and dingy Harry let it slip.
They talk, for example, the assault weapons ban.
They've we've had one of those before.
And the problem is there's no such thing as an assault weapon.
It's just a created title.
It's a created label.
It's nothing more than a name of Democrats and people on the left created a gin up anti-gun sediment among people.
And there's Dingy Harry.
The anti-gun legislation.
A faux poll in which Dingy Harry has let the cat out of the bag.
Anyway, we'll be talking about the gun control bill and some of the things related to it.
But it is in peril now.
It is in peril because of what happened in Boston.
So is Amnesty or the immigration bill.
But in a nutshell, Mr. Sorota here, Salon magazine says that if the bombers in Boston turn out to be anything but white Americans, it'll set back the cause of liberalism.
That is amnesty, uh gut national security from the article.
That means, regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing a defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist.
Why?
Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack From potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
Mr. Sorota goes on to say it's easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform, defense spending cuts, and the Afghan war withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
In other words, we must not let a terrorist attack slow down our surrender in the war on terrorism.
And by the way, what is really it is, it's hilarious.
Here's this guy.
He's a liberal.
He's wringing his hands.
He's all worried about increased surveillance.
He's all worried about the erosion of civil liberties.
And who is it that's out there demanding more cameras today?
Who is it that's saying cities need more cameras to be able to spy on more people and their activities.
I think it's Mayor Doomberg, is it not?
And I'm sure every other liberal Democrat politician agrees, and yet these liberal writers at these websites are convinced that it's still George Bush, George W. Bush that wants to encroach on their civil liberties and spy on them.
So stop and think.
By the way, this guy Sorota, he's not a lone wolf.
I guarantee you that his piece here represents the thinking of about 110% of the American left.
Oh my God, if it's if it's anything but a white guy, oh, are we in trouble?
From the moment this happened, they have been trying to steer everybody to thinking that a right wing extremist did this.
Tea Party did this.
Anytime anything like this happens at all, up at Sandy Hook out in Colorado, doesn't matter where it happens, they don't wait.
They don't care.
They immediately get people thinking had to be an extreme right winger, had to be an angry white guy.
These people live in a world of cliches, they live in a world of stereotypes.
They they live in narratives.
They don't even live in the real world.
They live in narratives.
You know what the narrative in abortion is like this, the Gosnell trial, which hasn't received much coverage until now.
There's a reason it hasn't.
The narrative in abortion.
There's only one story in abortion the left covers.
There's only one story in abortion they care about.
That narrative is the erosion of reproductive rights.
That's all abortion is to them.
Whenever the subject comes up, if the story can't be plugged into that hole, they don't run it.
The only relevant fact to them in the whole area of abortion is the fact that there are people who want to take away women's reproductive rights.
So the Gosnell case comes along and we have infanticide.
This is what this guy did is the subject of horror movies, horror television shows.
It's unspeakable what this guy was doing.
But be but it doesn't fit the loan narrative that the left has on abortion.
And that narrative is the only story in abortion is there are Republicans who want to deny a woman's right to choose.
There are Republicans who want to stop women's reproductive freedom.
So you have the Gosnell case where you have infanticide, where you've got murder of babies who survive abortions.
He was doing what State Senator Obama voted for way back in Illinois.
He was he was killing babies who survived abortions.
In unspeakable ways, in unspeakable filthy, I mean it was it's just it's it's unspeakable what this guy was doing.
Doesn't matter.
And it's the only narrative it'll get covered, and that is Republicans want to deny women their reproductive freedom.
Anything else doesn't get covered because there is nothing else important about abortion.
That's why the Gosnell piece wasn't covered.
Until they were shamed, basically by Kirsten Powers of Fox.
So now they're desperately hoping it oh it's got to be a white guy that blew up Boston America.
It has to be a white.
If it's a minority, if it's immigrant, oh no, oh no, if it's if it's if it's if it's Al Qaeda, oh no.
Okay, David Sorrota, it's Salon magazine.
Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.
I have to think that most liberals are thinking the same thing.
I have a question.
Seriously.
If a liberal in Boston happens to know that the bomber is not a white American, will the liberal tell the FBI?
The left does not want this bomber to be a minority or an al Qaeda or a Muslim or a terrorist.
The left wants the bomber to be white and conservative.
And if they know the bomber is not white, will they shut up and not tell the FBI?
Is it that bad?
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies serving humanity simply by showing up.
I want to ask another question.
If if we're supposed to be rooting for a white American to be the Boston Marathon bomber, are we also now supposed to be rooting for a white American to be sending rice and tainted letters to politicians?
I mean, after all, if the left is hoping for a white American to be the bomber, would they not tell the cops about suspicious packages dropped off by non-white Americans?
No, no, no, no.
Mr. Sturdley, I'm dead serious when I ask this question.
No, I'm not trying to be provocative or stir things.
Look at we got a whole piece here.
Salon.com.
Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber's a white American.
You know that he's not a lone wolf here.
You know that a lot of liberals are thinking the same thing.
They're, oh gosh, I hope it's oh God, it can't be one of us.
It can't be an immigrant.
Oh no, it can't be Al Qaeda.
Oh, no, because Al Qaeda's in the run.
We beat terrorist.
Oh no, it can't be.
It's gotta be a white guy.
It's gotta be Tea Party.
It's gotta be, it's gotta be.
So if they find evidence, if if there's if there is a witness out there who has any idea who did this and who did this is not a white American, are they gonna shut up or not tell the authority.
Remember, liberals are liberals first.
Whatever they are next, if they're women, if they're Jewish, if they're black, if they're uh gay, they're liberals first and foremost.
Mr. Sorota, I'm gonna give you a few more excerpts from his piece.
It's easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform, defense spending, the Afghan war withdraw.
It's easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident, one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates, you know, like the way the Oklahoma City bombing was never used to whip up fear of right-wing extremists.
It doesn't work that way, does it?
It seems to me that when militant Islamists engage in terrorism, the first thing we're told is Lone Wolf doesn't, doesn't, doesn't represent anything more than just that one guy.
Don't just doesn't taint the religion.
This does not taint a group of no, no, don't even go there.
The Fort Hood shoe, the Fort Hood shooting, workplace violence.
Ah, no, no, no.
Fort Hood should no, no, no, nothing, nothing more.
Nothing more than workplace.
Don't, don't, don't, no, no.
This guy claims here that if it's a white anti-government extremist who bombed the Boston Marathon, white privilege, White power will prevail and make sure the attack is portrayed as just one by this this one lone wacko.
Anyway, I could I could give you other uh excerpts, but you you get the the drift.
I mean, but this is how they think.
This isn't again, this is nothing new.
Ever since my gosh, I don't Oklahoma City uh even prior to that.
I'll tell you when this phenomenon began.
You you could have incidents like this, and and nobody politicized them right off the bat.
It wasn't until the drive-by media lost its monopoly.
It wasn't until the late 80s and early 90s that trying to blame right wingers for every circumstance like this began in earnest.
Now, CNN has this story, a new issue of magazine offers jihadists terror tips.
Now, this is from October 12th of 2010.
The second edition of an online Al Qaeda magazine has surfaced with Frank essays, creatively designed imagery and ominous terror tips, such as using a pickup truck as a weapon and shooting up a crowded restaurant in Washington.
The magazine is called Inspire.
And intelligence officials believe an American citizen named Samir Khan, now living in Yemen, is the driving force behind the publication.
And as you read the story, you come to this.
The pressurized cooker should be placed in crowded areas and left to blow up.
Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom is the heading.
How do you make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom?
Pressure cooker.
The pressure cooker should be placed in crowded areas and left to blow up.
More than one of these could be planted to explode at the same time.
However, keep in mind, the range of the shrapnel in this operation is short range, So the pressure cooker or pipe should be placed close to the intended targets and should not be concealed from them by barriers such as walls.
Now you can go out and you can hope all day long that the terrorist and the bomber is a white conservative, but here in a terrorism magazine called Inspire is the idea of using a pressure cooker and how to do it.
Now we had some sound bites yesterday that indicated that the Democrats, some Democrats out there were thinking that this is all due to the sequester.
Now remember we had the uh audio soundbite, Sheila Jackson Lee during one-minute speeches on the floor of the House, and she made the point that all of these drastic budget cuts in the sequester led to a lack of the ability of the federal government to protect people.
Well, Stenny Hoyer joined that fray on Tuesday.
He linked the Boston bombings to the sequester, telling reporters that sequestration is a stupid policy.
I know it's sequester, but Sheila Jackson Lee said sequester.
I don't want to embarrass her.
It's like for the longest time, the Reverend Jack...
Uh used to say kumo instead of Cuomo.
And I, in deference to the uh Reverend Jackson, always pronounced it kumo.
So Stenny Hoyer blaming the sequester.
His comments came shortly after Barney Frank blamed tax cuts.
And we had those sound bites for you from the UK Daily Mail.
Barack Obama's administration has cut the budget nearly in half for preventing domestic bombings.
Do you know this?
All these Democrats yesterday and last night and this morning trying to blame the sequester.
Honestly, stop and think intellectually, just stop and think of the the insincerity.
I mean, that that is insulting.
The sequester doesn't cut spending at all for any practical purposes.
It reduces the rate of growth.
But even so, even if it did cut spending, to say that this, you see how they politicize everything.
They want government to grow at all times, at all costs, regardless of the outcome.
If it means the destruction of the U.S. economy, doesn't matter.
Government's going to grow.
Nothing's going to stop that.
So here comes a disaster that everybody is repulsed by.
Here comes a disaster everybody finds abhorrent.
What do they do?
Politicize it.
Blame budget cuts for this.
Aimed right at low information voters.
Low information voters supposed to hear this conclude, yeah, yeah.
See, that's what happens.
That's what happens to right wingers get anti-government and cut spending and then the terrorists are have free way to blow us up.
Yeah, man, that's all worth that's the pitch.
The truth of the matter is, and you won't find this in domestic media.
It's in a UK Daily Mail.
The Obama regime slashed the budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45%.
Not the sequester, not the Republicans, not some white guy Tea Party extremist.
The Obama administration cut the budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45%.
Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had 20 million dollars allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices, i.e.
Ds, pressure cookers by terrorists working inside the U.S., the current White House has cut that funding down to 11 million dollars.
And that happened pre-sequester.
Obama made, and these are real life cuts, by the way, and Obama made these cuts long before there was there were even talk of the sequester.
He made these cuts long before the sequester was even a discussion item.
And let's not forget sequester was Obama's idea anyway.
The news of the 45% cut in the budget, the specific budget for domestic bombing prevention, comes from Robert uh Robert uh Leskuski, who is the former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for infrastructure protection.
He told the UK Daily Mail Online that the Obama era Department of Homeland Security is about as well positioned as it was during the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of the bombings in Boston.
But the Obama regime continued to cut the budget for offices like the Office for Bombing Prevention from 20 million, which was under Bush to 11 million dollars.
Now, you're you will not see this reported anywhere in the American media today, even though it's appeared in the UK Daily Mail.
Nobody in the American media is going to pick this up because it doesn't fit the narrative.
That a Tea Party extremist did this.
It doesn't fit the narrative.
In fact, the narrative is that this whole thing was a success.
If you listen to Barney Frank's soundbites yesterday...
What what's amazing to me, honestly, folks, what's amazing to me is if you listen to the Democrats talk about this, Boston, they they think that government did a great job here.
They're out praising the role of government.
They want everybody to think that government's done a bang up great job here.
If you didn't know any better, if you just landed from Mars, you would believe, after 10 minutes of American media, that the government prevented this from happening.
If you didn't know better.
The fact of the matter is, this news item in the UK Laily Mail from late yesterday will not be seen on CNN.
You'll not see it on PMS NBC.
You won't see it on ABC CBS NBC.
You won't see it the New York Times.
You won't see it at Los Angeles Times.
You won't see it in USA Today.
You might not even see it in any of these uh internet blogs at these publications and networks, because it just doesn't fit.
Obama cut the budget for domestic bombing prevention?
Well, no, no, no, no, because of the story is that God Obama did great job.
Well, Obama really cares.
Deval Patrick, listen, audio soundbite number two.
Listen.
Here is the governor of Massachusetts last night on the Charlie Rose show.
The President wanted to be here.
He was one of the first calls I got.
I know one of the first calls the mayor got and the members of our congressional uh delegation to to tell us that he was uh he and Mrs. Obama were thinking about us and that uh any federal resource that we may need that he could provide was at our disposal, and he's been true to that word.
He's checked in from time to time in the uh since that first call, and I know he wanted uh to be here, and I'm really delighted that he will be able to be with us on Thursday morning.
See, you see, you see, he wanted to be here.
He called us.
He was the first call we got.
He continues to check in.
He's told us whatever we need.
He's actually coming in tomorrow.
Believe that, yep, that's right.
The Bamster is showing up tomorrow.
He cares.
So the news is what?
Obama's a great guy.
Obama's on the case.
Obama made sure it wasn't worse.
Obama this, Obama that.
Oh, lordy, oh lordy, it was Obama.
Praise Obama.
Yeah, well, Obama cut the domestic bombing prevention budget by 45%, and you will not find that news anywhere else.
Now, there's one other thing about this.
But I gotta take a break first, otherwise I'll be in deep doo-doo.
So don't go away.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Not only did the government, the Department of Homeland Security, not stop this terrorist attack in Boston, in fact, they still do not have a clue as to how or why it happened.
You notice how the the local politicians, the mayor in Boston, governor of Massachusetts, all feel like they have to suck up to Obama.
Just like after Hurricane Sandy, they had to suck up to Obama.
So here's Dval Patrick.
They didn't have a clue.
Nothing was stopped.
They don't know why it happened.
Obama's great.
He called us.
Obama's on the case.
He's asking the Obama.
My God, Obama cares.
What a great guy.
Obama's coming in.
It isn't about Obama.
Why is it so important to tell us what Obama's doing in this?
Well, now we all know the answer to this.
Because they politicize everything and they realize Obama's vulnerable.
Obama's told us Obama that Al Qaeda's on the run.
Obama's done everything to create the impressions the events like this are over.
He's gonna make the world safer.
This kind of stuff happened when Bush was in office.
Nobody hates America anymore.
Let me let me ask this, folks.
Are are our liberals out there hoping that the four Americans in Benghazi were killed by white Americans too?
Is that why we're not getting any information what happened there?
You still wait for some white American to blame that on.
Well, we're not getting any answers out of Benghazi, are we?
Here's the point.
The Democrats, the left, the media, ever since this happened, have been on a crusade to tell us how necessary the government is, how necessary Obama is.
How wonderful Obama has been in responding.
He was the first to call.
He calls a lot.
He asks how things are going.
He's maybe even coming in on Thursday.
But you know what the real truth here is?
As evidenced by reality.
The government is unable to stop these kinds of things.
They stop some of them When the bad guys screw up and do something stupid, but they're not able to stop all of these things.
No matter what they do, they can't stop all of it.
They can pass laws, they can make phone calls, they can install cameras, but they can't stop everything.
We have to be able to defend ourselves first.
Back in a moment.
▲
Export Selection