All Episodes
Previous Next
April 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
April 17, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, folks.
It's great to have you here.
I love this.
I love being with you people every day behind the golden EIB microphone, a Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Those of you on hold on the phones, I want you to stay there.
We're going to get to you.
That's my intent.
That's my promise.
You're going to get to the bottom of that, just like we're in Menghazi.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
No, I understand why these guys suck up to Obama.
It's money.
If you're a governor, I don't care if you're the governor of New Jersey.
You're the governor of Massachusetts.
You suck up to the president.
The president's got the money.
The president comes, delivers a check.
You get a photo op next to the president, who everybody loves, and it's made to order.
That's why these guys suck up to.
Plus the politics of it.
We can't let Obama get hurt in this not politically.
Now, I don't want anybody misunderstanding my point that the government can't protect us.
I mean, all this, we've got the budget here on the domestic bombing prevention.
Obama cut it 45%.
$20 billion to $11 billion.
Fine and dandy.
My only point is this.
The Democrats are out trying to equate tax increases and government spending with security.
That's not how it happens.
At the root of all this, understand my position on this.
I'm opposed to any more government growth.
Government's big enough.
It doesn't need to get bigger.
And no matter what happens, the Democrats and the left bend and shape the news in such a way as to influence low-information people.
The reason this happened, the government isn't big enough.
We're not taxing the rich enough.
And we're not spending enough money here on infrastructure.
We're not spending enough money on prevention.
We're not spending enough money.
We're not spending enough money.
So you have an event like this take place.
And the first thing that the left does is politicize and how they can advance their agenda.
That's what repulses me, actually.
The government's job is to protect us.
A legitimate government function is the defense and protection of the Constitution and the American people.
So don't misunderstand.
What I'm opposing here is the presumption, the idea that this happened because the government isn't big enough.
This happened because the government doesn't have enough money.
That's BS.
There is no truth to that.
And we don't need a tax increase, and we don't need government to be any bigger in order to stop these things.
You know how these things get stopped?
And I don't mean this to insult anybody.
Bystanders.
Bystanders notice when some guy is trying to set his shoe on fire on an airplane.
Bystanders notice when somebody's trying to set his underwear on fire.
Bystanders notice smoke coming out of an SUV in Times Square.
Bystanders call a cop.
Say, something doesn't look right here.
Passengers on an airplane get hold of somebody, say, the flight attendant, the pilot said, there's something not right there.
The guy trying to strike a match here at the bottom of his shoe.
That's how these things happen.
You don't need big government.
You don't need liberal, constantly growing tax increase, wasteful spending in order to prevent these from occurring.
Because no matter what the government does, they're never going to be able to stop all of these.
And the Democrats want to prevent this or present this utopian vision where all of this can be stopped if only the government were big enough.
If only we had more money.
If only the government had more power.
And that is what I'm trying to get across.
That's bogus.
That is dishonest.
It's misdirection.
And it is an unfair taking advantage of an absolute tragedy to advance a political agenda.
It's cheap what the Democrats are doing and how they're attempting to use this.
There are people who were killed.
There are people, 150 people injured.
And it's seen by people as a political opportunity.
I'm just sorry.
It repulses me to run around and say no tax cut would have prevented it.
Well, no tax increase would have either.
There's not a tax increase in the world that would have stopped this.
The government could have been twice as big as it is.
You could pass law after law after law would not have stopped this.
I just, I'm sitting here profoundly offended.
My sensibilities are offended listening to the media and the Democrats talk about this in purely political terms.
Everything is massaged and maneuvered to advance their agenda.
An agenda I disagree with from head to toe, by the way.
That's why I'm explaining to you in detail because I don't want anybody misunderstanding.
I don't think the, you know, I'm not saying at all the government shouldn't try to stop these things.
I just, you know, we, there's a big difference here between efficient, functioning government and big government, and the two just do not go together.
Now, the White House spokeskid did his daily briefing today.
They canceled yesterday's.
He didn't want to have to answer any questions yesterday.
And Jay Carney got very, very testy when he was asked about people saying that the Newtown families are being used as props.
Got very testy about that.
He also reaffirmed Obama's pledge to find out who planted the Boston bombs.
He also affirmed Obama's pledge to find out why they did it and to bring them to justice, which is what he said about Benghazi, too.
Speaking of Benghazi, the only guy who's been blamed so far is a white American.
Is the guy in jail, the video guy, white American?
The maker of the Mohammed video that no one saw.
Nakula Basili Nakula, Egyptian-born legal U.S. resident.
So he could be a white American.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
The spokes kid at the presser today.
And during the QA, AP White House correspondent Julie Pace said, Is there any indication on the Boston explosion or whether this looks to be a foreign terrorist incident or domestic incident?
There is an active investigation ongoing.
We have the full weight of the federal government behind this investigation being led by the FBI.
It is important as both state and local law enforcement officials and government officials as well as federal officials have made clear that the American people provide whatever information they might have that could be of assistance in this investigation.
There is an 800 number, 1-800 Call FBI, which has been put out to provide a method for individuals who might have information to contact law enforcement on this matter.
We don't need a tax increase for that number.
The number exists as it is.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Unidentified reporter and the spokeskid then had this little chit chat.
Is the president discouraged at all by the fact that there aren't more leads in the Boston bombing?
I wouldn't say one way or the other because I think it's important to allow the investigators to do their work.
I wouldn't characterize his view of the investigation because that would then characterize the investigation.
What was that?
I wouldn't characterize his view of the investigation because that would then characterize the investigation.
Well, it doesn't matter.
He cares.
And that's all that matters.
Obama cares.
And he's going to go to Boston tomorrow and he's calling the governor and he's great.
And the government's done great here.
It's been fabulous.
I mean, it has been wonderful.
Now, next up, White House correspondent Ed Henry said Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, not Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said only a matter of hours ago today, he accused the president of using the Newtown families as props.
What's your response to that accusation?
I don't know if Senator Paul met with the Newtown families, but the Newtown families aren't here for the president.
They're here because their children were murdered.
They're here asking for the Senate to do something that's common sense.
That's my response.
When what the Senate is doing is nothing that would have prevented what happened in Newtown.
Am I mean to say that?
Is it mean to point that out?
That nothing in the Senate gun control bill that would have stopped what happened at Newtown.
I don't know.
See, I live in Realville, and just sometimes Realville doesn't mix well with the – well, I got to tell you something, folks, on this gun control bill.
Headline here from the AP, background check bill faces likely Senate defeat.
There's a Gallup poll out.
Only 4% of Americans think gun control is an important problem.
Only 4%.
After all the Newtown stuff on Air Force One, after all the so-called lobbying, after all of the caring, after all of the attention, after all of the focus, only 4% of the American people think gun control is an important problem, but the people in Washington do not care.
And we've got Dingy Harry out talking about the anti-gun bill, letting the cat out of the bag.
And that has always been the point, folks.
These polls saying that 90% of Americans believe in universal background checks, not true.
They ignore the fact that nearly 100% of Americans do not think this is an issue.
Only 4% of Americans think gun control is an important problem.
Can I talk to you about disconnect?
If you turn on the media, if you listen to it, read it, watch it, all you'll think is going on is gun control and immigration.
Alternate hours, alternate days, gun control here, immigration there.
The next hour, immigration, then gun control.
That's what's important to government.
That's what's important to media.
That's what's important to Democrats.
That's what's important to politicians.
The American people don't care.
Nearly 100%, 96% of the American people do not think gun control is an important problem.
This is all being driven by the left, by the media, by Obama, by government.
This is a complete disconnect between the federal government and the people.
The federal government is hell-bent, hell-bent on gun control.
96% of the American people don't care about it.
Ditto, immigration, and amnesty.
Only 4% think amnesty is an important problem.
Meanwhile.
I hate to say this.
Meanwhile, the Republicans play along.
Even if these votes lose, they've allowed the left and Obama to push their agenda.
There's no pushback.
4% of the American people care about gun control.
96% don't.
There's an opportunity here for the Republican Party to identify with 96% of the American people on a fundamental constitutional issue, a freedom issue, a liberty issue, a civil rights issue, gun control.
96% of the people do not want this.
And instead, the Republicans go along, allow the left, allow Obama to push this agenda, even if the gun control vote loses.
What's happened?
The agenda has moved forward.
The intensity, the impression is left, that that's all anybody does care about when it couldn't be further from the truth.
It's a major disconnect.
And it is the same thing with immigration.
The vast majority of people in this country are worried about jobs.
The vast majority of people in this country are worried about the economy.
The vast majority of the people in this country are worried about debt, the government debt and their personal debt.
The people of this country are not concerned with making certain that illegal aliens who came here voluntarily are granted citizenship.
The American people are just not obsessed with that.
But all of Washington is, Republicans and Democrats are obsessed with making sure that illegal aliens are granted citizenship.
The American people are not.
They're concerned about jobs, the economy, debt.
They're concerned about a plundering country.
They're concerned about a decaying, dying country.
The Republican Party has an identity issue here, an opportunity to relate to and identify with 96% of the American people on two crucial issues.
And instead, they join the game and they play along with the Democrat agenda.
The Democrats set the agenda.
The Republicans play along, acting like they got to get in on it, too.
Oh, amnesty is the deal.
Okay, we'll join that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're for that.
Well, the American people aren't.
4%, 4%, after all the Newton stuff, Air Force One, the lobbying, 4% care about gun control.
About 4%, 5% of the American people are concerned with making sure that illegal aliens who came here voluntarily are granted citizenship.
96% of people don't want that.
Doesn't matter.
Yet, these are the two big issues.
Immigration, amnesty, gun control.
96% of the American people want no part of it, and yet they're the two big issues marching forward.
Great opportunity for the Republicans to relate to, identify with 96% of the American people, and they don't do it.
Why?
My God, folks, the Republican Party here has enormous, huge opportunities to advance principles, to connect with 96%.
If you don't believe that, 90%, 80%, whatever, a huge percentage of the American public.
And they're not doing it.
Instead, they play along with the Democrats.
They play along with the media.
I don't know why.
I mean, we can only guess, like all of you, fear lost their way.
They've lost their will.
They've forgotten their principles.
They've got nothing to fall back on.
Grad an interesting theory about Tiger Woods that may be relatable here.
I'll have to think about it before I share it with you.
It's what happens when you face adversity.
If you've got nothing to fall back on, no family, no religion, no principles.
You've got nothing to hold you up during adversity.
Where are you?
You're lost.
This is Dr. Harry Edwards, the noted sociologist in Berkeley.
He was the race coach for the 49ers, bald-headed guy with a beard.
That's his theory.
You don't have religion to fall back on during adversity.
If you've got no family to fall back on, if you've got no principles to fall back on, then you're lost.
I got to take a break.
I know you wish I didn't, but I do.
Breaking news.
Breaking news, ladies and gentlemen.
John King, CNN's newsroom.
Wolf Blitzer says, I assume you don't know the suspect if it's an American, if it's a foreigner, anything along those lines.
Apparently, there's some department store video, Lord and Taylor, department store video the authorities have seen that has given them a lead.
Here's John King at CNN.
A physical description was given to me of the suspect.
Wolf, I want to be very careful here because this is a very sensitive information.
The description given to me once again is a dark-skinned individual, and I want to just stop there.
Further descriptions were given by this source, but it was not that it was a background conversation that I will have to discuss it on the market right now.
Given the sensitivity while we get into these things, I heard Governor Patrick saying yesterday, it's so important that the people of Massachusetts and the country, for that matter, in his words, turn to each other, not against each other.
It was described to me as a dark-skinned male individual that was shown in the video.
Oh, no!
Did you hear what John King said, folks?
He said here, a physical description was given to me of the suspect Wolf.
Now, I want to be very careful here because this is a very sensitive information, but a description given to me, once again, it's a dark-skinned individual.
Well, I guess that's it for amnesty.
That's it for gun control.
We beat them back, folks.
The perp is a dark-skinned individual.
What?
The salon.com writer said, remember he was hoping, liberals are hoping, the perp here is a white guy, because if it's not that immigration and gun control are in trouble, well, it's a dark-skinned suspect.
So I guess we beat back gun control and amnesty.
According to the left.
Folks, it's time we go to the telephones, and we will here in just a brief moment, but grab some by 27 again.
I don't want to play the whole thing, but I want to do take it to a just shortly after the dark-skinned individual.
Remember, we had earlier today, the columnist at Salon magazine, a guy named, put it at the bottom here.
Must have put it on the bottom.
Can't remember.
Anyway, David Sirota or something.
The liberals were just hoping, praying that the perp was a white guy.
It had to be a white guy.
If the perp in Boston wasn't a white guy, that that would imperil every item on the liberal agenda.
And oh no, it doesn't appear to be a white guy.
A physical description was given to me of the suspect.
Wolf, I want to be very careful here because this is very sensitive information.
The description given to me once today that it's a dark-skinned individual, and I want to just stop there.
Further descriptives were given by this source, but it was a background conversation that was.
Not the tape.
We're not profiling here.
We're talking about a murderer.
Could you liberals get rid of all of this prejudice and profiling guilt that you've got?
Could you get rid just for 30 seconds of seeing people by skin color?
How absurd this guy at Salon, it better be a white guy.
Gosh, we hope that the perp is a white guy, otherwise the liberal agenda is imperiled.
And you claim that it's conservatives who are racists, and you dare write a piece like that, David Sirota, hoping it's a white guy, because if it's a dark-skinned perp, your agenda is imperiled, and we somehow are the racists?
And here's John King saying, well, it's just a dark-skinned individual.
But I've got to stop there.
Very sensitive information.
What?
We're talking about a murderer here.
Well, it's very sensitive information.
Further descriptives were given by this source, but it was a background conversation.
They're not willing to discuss it on the record right now.
Somehow I suspected this.
That, remember, I asked the question, if some liberal finds out that it's not a white perp, will they hold the information?
Folks, this is sick.
This is just sick.
John King said that a reputable law enforcement official told him the suspect was dark-skinned male.
And he added, some people will take offense at that.
So we've got to be very careful, Wolf.
Some people are going to take offense that it's a dark-skinned male.
We're talking about a murderer here.
We're not talking about profiling somebody who's innocent.
Geez.
All right.
All right.
To the phones.
We're going to start.
Charleston, South Carolina.
This is Chris.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
I read the salon.com article, and I was so frustrated.
But what that showed me was the mainstream thinking of the left in a nutshell.
And that combined with the Benghazi attack, in which they did everything they could to not have it be a terrorist attack and push it off on a video, which we all know wasn't true, gives me zero confidence that they are really looking for the right person.
I know what you mean.
If they find out that the perp is not a white guy, are they going to be reluctant to take it any further?
And you're right.
In Menghazi, they went backwards and forwards.
They bent themselves into pretzels.
They even told the victims' families during the funeral, we're going to get the guy that did this video.
That's how far they would do.
I recall.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
It is just flat out absurd.
It's so frustrating.
I look at that salon.com, and at the time that I saw that article, they even had a soft-focused picture of Osama bin Laden in the upper right-hand corner, like it was almost like a dedication to the ⁇ you'll remember this when I jog your memory on it.
Whenever they rolled videotape, B-roll of Obama, of Osama, anytime there was discussion of him, it was always walking with his walking stick like a shepherd with the sheep, with his flock, and the fields.
He's an innocent little guy.
But I'm just going to tell you, how are we supposed to find somebody if we can't be told what he looks like?
If we're going to be scared to death of what the perp looks like, how are we supposed to find these people?
They're out there.
Look, I don't want to mischaracterize what authorities are doing, but they're asking people for tips.
They're begging people for tips.
And then the media is making it look like you've got to be very careful if the perp is dark-skinned.
If it's anything other than a white guy, we've got a problem here.
So while they're begging for tips, they're also frightening people into coming forward with information which might offend people.
And we're not talking about profiling somebody who's innocent here.
We're trying to catch a murderer.
Anyway, I appreciate the call, Chris.
Thanks much.
Scott, Cincinnati, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Hey, I wanted to let you know I heard you talking about them cutting the funding for the domestic bomb detection systems that they have in place to prevent terrorism.
Right.
The domestic bomb units.
I'm telling you that one of the other programs that directly benefits Americans that fly airlines is being excoriated in Obama's new budget.
The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, which people, pilots like me and 10,000 other of us that on our own dime, we volunteered to go and be trained to carry a weapon at work to prevent an aircraft from ever being taken over the way they were on 9-11.
And they want us gone.
They don't want the program anymore.
Will they cut that?
It's out of the budget.
It's completely removed.
And we just got an alert from our association that said, please.
That's probably due to, was it due to the sequester?
Uh.
No, it's not.
As far as I understood, it's going to be removed permanently, sequester or not.
And that's what they want done.
And we're adamantly against that as pilots that we don't trust the TSA, the thousands standing around to keep us safe and our passengers safe.
And we want the ability to defend our flight deck in the event that we need to.
And just another example to me of what is the Obama administration, what are they focusing on?
What matters?
Well, look, I understand.
It doesn't mean that you pilots can't ask somebody what to do.
Get some advice from somebody on securing the flight deck.
I understand your point, that it's a program designed to secure the flight deck from terrorists, and they've cut the program.
And that's like, I get your point.
That doesn't mean you have to stand down just because the government's cut the program.
The federal flight deck officers are trained by the Federal Air Marshal Service.
What this program is, is the teaching of the use of firearms, use of force, legal issues, defensive tactics.
That's what the flight deck program is.
And it's been canceled.
That's it.
By the way, folks, I just CNN on one of my monitors here along with Fox.
And Wolf Blitzer just held up a pressure cooker so that the audience see it.
No, no.
No, no.
He did.
He just held up a pressure cooker.
Wolf Blitz just held up a pressure cooker.
Now, obviously, the sound is down, and it happened while I was talking to a previous caller.
So I wasn't able to focus and read the captioning.
But he was doing one of two things.
He was either explaining what a pressure cooker is because it's in the news, or he was telling people this is what to be on the lookout for.
But he did.
He held up a pressure cooker.
It was brand new.
It was real shiny.
It was a really gorgeous pressure cooker.
An arrest has been made in the Boston Marathon bombing.
Latest information: it was a dark-skinned individual.
Now, David Sirota at Salon, headline, Let's Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a white American.
And again, in a nutshell.
And by the way, this guy Sirota, he's not a lone wolf.
His piece here, I'm sure, is echoed by many leftists.
He has captured their feelings as well.
I mean, leftists are leftists.
They believe certain things.
This is something they would hold in common.
They're all hoping the Boston Marathon bomber is white.
They're all hoping he's Tea Party.
They're all hoping he's an extreme conservative.
But it looks like he's dark-skinned.
And the author claims, here's why they hope he's white.
Author claims that if the bomber turns out to be anything but white, it'll set back the cause of liberalism.
That is amnesty, gun control, national security.
If the perp is a person of color, it'll set back liberalism.
That's what this guy is saying.
So, let me make a prediction to you.
If indeed John King's reporting at CNN is correct, if the person who's been arrested is dark-skinned, the left is going to have to make a quick move here.
A quick adjustment.
What they'll have to do is still find a way to blame a white group, conservative group, for what the dark-skinned guy did.
No matter what happens, since we've got this piece, let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.
I guarantee you, if they can write that, they can come up with some convoluted explanation of why a white American is actually to blame for it.
If the dark-skinned individual is al-Qaeda, what if he's Al-Qaeda?
How are they going to blame a conservative or white group for all the defamation of Islam that the conservatives do?
All of the insulting of the Koran, Club Gitmo, Bush, white guy, is any number of ways.
Remember, they don't have to make any sense, and they don't have to be logical.
Their audience is low information.
If they ask about it, it doesn't matter.
I'm telling you, don't ask me.
I mean, I know these people like back of my hand, but I'm telling you here that they're hell-bent on the perp being a white guy.
So the perp, if the perp's not white, they're going to have to find a way to say that some extremist conservative group nevertheless is ultimately to blame for what the dark-skinned perp did.
If it's a journalist, even more frustrated, conservative media, I can come up with any kind of scenario you want to throw at me where they'll come up with a way to blame the Tea Party or some other conservative group that they think is extremist for inspiring or pressuring via frustration or whatever the perp for doing what he did.
And don't forget the Limbaugh theorem.
Obama is not attached to anything that happens in this country.
So even if the perp comes out and says, I don't like what Obama's done in the Middle East, it doesn't matter.
They'll find a way to distance this.
Look at, I don't even go there with Obama.
The point is, they were hoping desperately that the perp was white, conservative Tea Party.
That means they will find a way to make that case.
You watch.
Here's Richard in Rochester County, New York.
Richard, thank you for waiting.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
All right, good afternoon.
Quick question or comment regarding the gun control issue.
If people believe that you need to be a background check before they can give you a weapon, please explain to me why there was never a background check done on President Obama, but yet we gave him the biggest gun in the world, the United States military.
Well, you're not serious, are you?
He's president.
I mean, he's got the constitutional authority here.
Am I understanding you right?
Are you being trying to make a rhetorical facetious point here?
Yeah, but it's a serious issue.
Background check, serious issue.
How come?
Ask me this again.
Right now we're going through a gun control issue.
Right.
And the biggest, right now they want background checks on people before they're allowed to have a weapon.
But yet we elected a man twice who never got a background check on him.
And he got the biggest gun in the world, the United States military.
Yeah, you know, it's an important issue, but that's not going to persuade anybody.
I hate to be disrespectful, but As president, he's the commander-in-chief, and that's all it needs.
He's the he's well, no, is he talking about background checks on guns or background checks, period?
Oh, oh, oh, if he's saying we didn't find out who Obama was at all, I thought he was being literal.
Remember, I'm realville, I'm Mr. Literal.
I thought he was saying we didn't do Obama background check on Obama, whether he's qualified to have a gun or not, and yet he's running the military.
I thought that's what he meant.
Oh, okay.
Well, yes, that's true.
The media did not vet Obama.
There's still people that don't know who he is.
Now, don't forget Obama's killing people with drones.
He's got the kill list.
And they're bragging about that because that gives Obama defense chops.
Anyway, Richard, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Let me take a brief time out here, my friends.
We will continue after another obscene profit break.
Don't go away.
Okay, the suspect has been arrested.
It was ID in videos.
One of the videos came from the Lord and Taylor department store in Boston.
Now, Fran Townsend is a former Bush administration national security official.
She now works at CNN.
Fran Townsend says that she knows.
She's essentially the person who broke the arrest story.
Fran Townsend says that she got the information from a law enforcement official.
The arrest was based on two videos.
Wolf Blitzer asked her if she knew anything at all about the arrested guy, and she said, we have to be very careful.
And she refused to tell him anything more.
She says that she's got information that she is refusing to share.
Now, these people supposed to be reporters.
So there is a fear or a reluctance to identify who this is.
John King let the cat out of the bag, dark-skinned individual.
Got to be very, very careful.
▲
Export Selection