All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
April 22, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome.
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists on across the fruited plane, back at it here.
After, for me, a long weekend, great to be back behind the golden EIB microphone, Rush Limbaugh, all ready and revved up, ready to serve humanity, which happens when I show up.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
And once again, what are we faced with here today, folks?
Once again, we're faced with trying to put in perspective what's being reported in the media about the Boston marathon bombing and its aftermath.
You know, I have to say something.
I don't know why this popped into my head right now, but I'm going to get in trouble for this.
I know I'm going to get in trouble for it.
The Red Sox game on Saturday when they finally, when they played, Royals were in town, and you've all heard of it David Ortiz dropping the F-bomb in the pregame ceremony, being applauded for it.
FCC said, fine with us.
FCC, no problem.
He grabbed the microphone and said, this is our ifing town.
Stadium's full.
There are families there.
I understand the raw emotion.
And I guess I'm a fuddy duddy.
I don't know.
I just think that's the kind of thing that and it could be long before the word's commonplace on television now.
It's just another tiny little thing that leads to overall decay and decline.
And not a big deal, but just some little thing that gnaws at me here.
Anyway, the broadcast today is going to feature putting things in perspective in a deep gratitude-felt thanks to Mark Stein for sitting in on Friday.
I wanted to make sure, well, there have been members of the audience snerdly who have thought me rude and impolite not to thank the guest hosts for coming in here and accepting our payment to do the program.
We all owe a debt to a smoker.
A guy in his house wanted to smoke a cigarette.
His wife would not let him smoke the cigarette inside.
So he went out in the backyard, and while he was smoking his cigarette, he's looking at his boat.
And he said, there's something strange about that boat.
Something didn't look right.
It was his boat.
So he climbed up on his boat while he's out in the backyard smoking a cigarette.
He unzips the protective winter cover that he has on his boat, and he sees the bleeding, half-conscious Boston Marathon Muslim bomber.
Remember that old saying, for the want of a nail, a kingdom was lost, something...
Something like that?
This guy wants a cigarette.
We hate cigarettes.
We hate smokers.
But if not for this guy being a smoker, if not for this guy being forced to the backyard to smoke his cigarette, Jokar Senayev might still be in that boat bleeding out.
We might not have been caught if it hadn't been for a smoker.
Now, we don't know because the guy did get caught, and it's all downhill from there.
Well, I just wanted to let everybody know.
Mr. Lemboy, you really enjoyed this.
No, you just, you just, you know that everybody hates smoking and you like smoking, and so you just, you just had to, I'm just pointing out what happened.
I'm happy the guy smoked.
Smokers do a lot of good in this country, and they're a malign group.
And I just wanted to signal this guy out.
Can we go back, ladies and gentlemen, the audio soundbites?
Last Tuesday on this program, I want to replay for you a prediction that I made.
Let me ask you a question, again, based on my observation in recent years.
If you, listening to this program, if you are a Muslim, and it turns out that a Muslim did bomb the Boston Marathon, how do you feel?
I dare say that if you are a Muslim, you can be pretty certain, you can rest assured, that everybody in the media will circle the wagons and say, this is not because of Islam.
This is a lone bad actor, lone wolf, but this in no way says anything about Islam.
It is in no way says anything about Muslims.
It's just a lone nut.
And they will remind us that the vast majority of people denounce this kind of terrorism, the vast majority of Muslims.
So if you're a Muslim and it turns out to be a Muslim bomber, you will be in no way associated with it.
Which, fair.
However, folks, if you are a conservative out there today and it turns out that whoever did this is either real or has an imagined connection to conservatives, everybody in the media will unite to denounce your whole group.
There will not be the same treatment.
If this turns out to be some crazy extremist domestic, everybody thought to be in that guy's group is going to be tart and feathered as well.
And believe me, that's what they're all hoping for on the left.
They're the ones saying so.
They're the ones indicating that, not me.
Who was it, David Sirota at Ceylon who was hoping that it was the bomber was a white guy?
Because if it wasn't a white guy, it's going to set back liberalism.
Now, supposedly it's going to set back immigration.
It's going to set back gun control.
I am reading so many liberals out there today who are saying, would somebody explain to me why DeSena did what they did?
The liberals are still frosted over the Senate vote on the background check gun legislatures.
They are still frosted over this.
They're asking, how could this happen?
How could these senators do this?
Would somebody please tell me, what would you say to the parents of the people who were killed in the Boston?
I would tell them that the law that the Senate was debating wouldn't have stopped this.
These guys had their guns.
They violated existing law to get them.
They had already violated gun law.
There isn't any new gun law that would have stopped the Boston marathon bombers from being armed.
Did you hear President Obama's remarks on the Boston bombings?
His heart was really in it when he was lecturing us about not rushing to judgment.
He said, that's why we take care not to rush to judgment.
Not about motivations or individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people.
Isn't that good of him to remind us of that?
Kind of like the way he never rushed a judgment about George Zimmerman or the Boston cop, Michael Goodwin in the New York Post yesterday wrote, after the capture of the second Boston bombing suspect, President Obama gave a Friday night speech to praise private citizens and law enforcement officials.
He called the bombers terrorists.
He said they failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated.
They failed because as Americans, we refused to be terrorized.
Good, strong stuff before he ruined it.
Obama's uplifting tone suddenly shifted into peevish scold as he warned against a rush to judgment about the motivations of these individuals or entire groups of people.
He continued, one of the things that makes America the greatest nation on earth is that we welcome people from all over the world, people of every faith, every ethnicity from every corner of the globe.
Is that really what's made us great?
Multiculturalism, diversity, that's what he means.
Is that really what has made this country great?
Or is it freedom?
Is it our founding?
Is it the Declaration of Independence?
Is it American history that's made us great?
What, open borders has made us great?
Have to get a plug-in for immigration reform.
People of every faith, every ethnicity from every corner of the globe.
So as we continue to learn more about why and how this tragedy happened, let's make sure we sustain that spirit.
Michael Goodwin writes, my immediate reaction was loud and unprintable.
To put it kindly, the president is stuck in deep denial, shadow boxing against the truth.
He can't bring himself to say Muslim terrorists, because to do so in his mind would feed a stereotype and fuel innate American prejudice.
So reality has to be avoided.
Important facts omitted about the extraordinary events in Boston.
And that was my point in the soundbite.
Live in denial.
Barely say the word Muslim here.
Lone wolves, not tied to anybody.
The Chechen president says, you know why these guys went well?
They were raised in America.
If you want to find the problem, look at how they were educated.
He may have a point, but let's listen to some sound bites, bouncing off my prediction what the media would do if the bomber turned out to be Muslim.
We'll start with Friday morning.
ABC special report coverage of the manhunt.
Var Jokar Sarnaev, bomber number two.
Diane Sawyer interviewing suspect neighbor Larry Aronson.
Aronson gives his reaction when he first saw the photos released by the authorities.
This morning around 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, when the pictures of him became clear and clear on the television and on the internet, I said, my God, that looks like Dahar.
That looks just like Dahar.
I said, oh, it can't be.
It can't possibly be.
And people said to me, why don't you call police and say something?
And I said, because I'm not sending the police out for some lovely Islamic kid who looks like this kid and have everybody go hound him down like they did to that poor Saudi kid.
Turned out it was the culprit.
I'm not going to send the cops to go.
This is a nice guy.
I know this guy.
I believe it's this guy.
Looks just like him.
I'm not going to send the cops out, some lovely Islamic kid who looks like this.
I'm not going to do that.
Have him hounded like the Saudi kid was.
CNN Friday morning, starting point.
Special report on the manhunt.
Jake Tapper, CNN national security analyst Juliet Kayem have this exchange about it all.
It certainly seems as though these individuals are Islamic terrorists.
Yes, but those are two separate words at this stage because I think after 9-11, we have this fear of tying Muslim with terrorism.
We shouldn't do that.
Yep.
I hate to do I told you so, but this was not a tough prediction.
Knew this was going to happen.
You hear how tough it was there for Jake?
Certainly seems as though these individuals are.
Ah, darn it.
Oh, geez.
Oh, I can't believe it.
Oh, I can't believe I have to say it.
Oh, my God.
It looks like they're Islamic terrorists.
Last Friday morning, CBS special report on the manhunt.
Co-anchor Gail King talking with Charlie Rose and Scott Pelley.
Gail King says, news this morning, the suspects are from Chechnya.
That's what everybody's been talking about.
Chechnya is a province of the former Soviet Union province of Russia, which is a predominantly Muslim province.
But we also understand, as Bob Orr was reporting to us earlier, that these young men apparently have been in the United States for some time.
And were legal residents.
Well, apparently, one of these young men has been here at least five years.
So what is the connection to Chechnya?
Is there a political or religious connection to Chechnya?
I think we won't know for a while.
No, they're being described as totally assimilated.
One of the questions is whether they became radicalized after they got here.
That, in fact, they did not arrive in the United States with the intent of committing terrorist acts, but something happened.
That's right.
At least one of them said that he had no friends in the United States, even after all of these years.
Yeah, so he's a lone wolf.
You can't blame him.
There's nothing to see here.
Tom Brokaw is blaming U.S. drones for motivating the bombers.
Has anybody seen any evidence of that?
Brokaw was on Meet the Press yesterday, and he said, I think we also have to examine the use of drones that the United States is involved in.
And there are a lot of civilians innocently killed in a drone attack, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
We have to work a lot harder at motivation here.
What prompts a young man to come to this country and still feel alienated from it and to go back to Russia and do whatever he did?
I don't think we've examined that enough.
There's an enormous rage against what they see in that part of the world as a presumptuousness of the United States.
Tom, I hate to tell you, but and folks, look at this isn't easy.
And I don't relish a program like this.
And I don't relish pointing out counterintelligence or counter-truths.
But Tom, you don't have to go to Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq to be radicalized against America.
Tom, you can be radicalized against America right here in America.
You can be radicalized against America in American schools.
You can be radicalized in America against America by watching American television and movies and websites.
You can be radicalized by professors, many of them former bombers themselves.
Many of them with grievances against this country.
You don't need to go outside this country to be radicalized against it.
Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, said that global warming is partially to blame for the Boston marathon bombing.
I haven't read it.
Yeah, but I've got the soundbite somewhere here.
It's coming up.
I've got it.
Andrew Cuomo.
Isn't that number 20?
Did I tell you key number 20?
Yeah, here, here, listen to him.
This is Friday in Albany on the radio.
One gets the sense that this is more reflective of the quote-unquote new normal, if you will.
So much of society is changing so rapidly.
We talk about a new normal when it comes to climate change and adjusting to a change in the weather patterns.
New normal when it comes to public security in a post-9-11 world where these random acts of violence, which at one time were implausible, now seem all too frequent.
So it's kind of like 9% unemployment.
It's just the way it is.
It's global warming.
It's just the way it is.
It's the new normal.
Terrorism post-9-11, just the way it is.
Yeah, lay back and enjoy it, folks.
It's just the new normal.
That's the governor of New York.
Now, I haven't read it, but I have been told that Thomas Friedman, Thomas Loopy Friedman, New York Times column yesterday, actually said that the proper response to the Boston marathon bombing is a carbon tax.
People were making jokes about that.
Proper response, carbon tax.
Tom Friedman, I'm told, actually wrote that.
Why carbon tax?
Why would the left want a carbon tax?
Well, it isn't warming.
And so the left is really trying to maneuver off of the climate change angle now.
It's a new normal, but it isn't acceptable.
Carbon tax.
That's the whole ball of wax because the carbon tax, folks, is the fastest route to a global tax, which is what leftists all over the world want.
A global tax of the world's developed nations.
And the fastest way to get a global tax is a carbon tax.
And so you write somehow that the proper response to what happened in Boston is a carbon tax.
And the columns in the New York Times did just that.
Do you remember David Axelrod said, told us what Obama was thinking last week when this happened?
David Axelrod is an MSNBC commentator, a former Obama advisor.
Sorry, does both at the same time.
David Axelrod said, I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is we really don't know who did this, but it was tax day.
Was it somebody who was pro?
You know, you just don't know.
And so I think the president's attitude is, let's not put any inference into this.
Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible.
And he's thinking, yeah, it was tax day, so maybe you got some bitter clingers out there.
They're all ticked off about taxes and everything.
Probably.
Kind of like Mayor Doonberg said that the Times Square bomber at first was somebody upset with Obama's health care.
That's why we're talking about this, folks, because the left is doing it.
It's just truth.
It's just truth.
That's what I care about here.
Okay, we played the soundbite of the guy Larry Aronson who said that he recognized Zerkarsenayev.
Am I going to call that?
I'm not going to call a cops.
Why would you call the police?
I'm not sending the police out to some lovely Islamic kid who looks like this kid.
Everybody go hound him down like they did that poor Saudi kid.
Turns out to be the purpose.
I'm not going to call him.
And we're talking about assimilation here.
The press and a number of people say, they weren't radicalized over there.
These guys didn't have any anti-American bias.
They're just bad actors.
Well, All of the brothers' family and friends said that they recognized him immediately on the video.
None of them called the authorities.
None of them.
We have one more dead, the MIT policeman, possibly another man.
Another cop is in critical condition.
That might not have happened if they'd been identified sooner.
And they were recognized by a bunch of people who said, I'm not going to call it in.
That would be prejudicial.
I'm not going to be biased against Muslims.
I'm not going to phone it in.
It looks exactly like these two guys saying, I'm not phoning it in.
The family didn't phone it in.
Political correctness.
I'm not going to be accused of racism.
I'm not going to be accused of anti-Muslim bigotry.
It looks exactly like they're not phoning it in.
So an MIT cop is dead, another cop is wounded.
And we have just learned that the brothers hijacked car.
They let the driver go because he didn't look like an American.
So he was okay.
I'm just saying, just recounting what's out there.
They let the driver of the car that they carjacked go because he didn't look like an American.
They were living in Cambridge.
There are people living in Cambridge who are being radicalized against America every day.
You know as well as I do.
Students are being told what a rotten place this country is every day in the classroom.
And Axerizes, well, Obama's looking at Tax Day as the cause of this.
Now, speaking of the media, the Salon writer who was praying that the bombers would be white Americans, David Sirota, he has tweeted, our reaction to terrorism shouldn't be predicated on the demography of the terrorists.
Sad that bigotry apparently obscures this simple truth.
Isn't that rich?
This is the guy praying the bombers would be white so that liberalism would not be harmed.
He has tweeted, our reaction to terrorism shouldn't be predicated on the democracy and demography of the terrorists.
Meaning, just because these guys are Muslims and blew up the Boston Marathon doesn't mean that we should be considering them as radical Islamists.
That's bigotry.
No, that's denial.
Fear or unwillingness to admit the truth.
David Sirota, salon.com, who wrote the piece, hoping and praying the bombers were white so that liberalism wouldn't be harmed, also tweeted, sad for the victims, sad for Boston, sad for America, sad for whole communities who will be wrongly blamed for the actions of individuals.
It's exactly why I made my prediction last Tuesday.
This is exactly what I was talking about.
It's only sad when these whole communities are not white or conservative.
Then you can tarnish whole groups if they're white, conservative, particularly conservative.
can malign whole groups of people.
But sad for the victims, sad for Boston, this is almost caricature.
This is almost cliché.
This is almost Mad Magazine, The Onion.
Sad for the victims, sad for Boston, sad for America, sad for whole communities who will be wrongly blamed for the actions of individuals.
Meaning it'd be a real shame here to blame Islam or Muslims.
That's a real shame.
I don't think anybody's doing that anyway, but that's what these guys are hell-bent on saying.
Now, a bunch of emails at the bottom of the video.
You can't be serious.
Tom Friedman didn't say that the correct response to this is the carbon tax.
Yes, he did.
This is what passes for enlightened thinking.
Thomas Friedman is a card-carrying member of the global elite.
Columnist, New York Times, cares more than anything about global warming.
Here's what Friedman wrote: Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it's hard to make any policy recommendation other than this.
We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so that it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men.
So, what to do, writes Friedman.
Well, we need a more radical center, one much more willing to suggest radically new ideas to raise revenues, not to split the difference between the same old option center.
And the best place to start is with a carbon tax.
So, the response to the Boston Marathon bombing is new policy recommendations from a new radicalized center.
And among these new policies are new sources of taxes and revenues, and a best place to start is a carbon tax.
I'm not making it up.
If you want to try to make a logical progression out of this, you go right ahead.
But Tom Friedman is saying we need a carbon tax in order to protect and grow America so that these radicalized bombers don't do it again.
Why a carbon tax?
What's the big deal?
You know, Clinton wanted a carbon tax.
I'm telling you, carbon tax is the fastest route to a global tax, which is what these guys want.
Friedman ends his column by saying this big idea of a carbon tax would revitalize the moribund Republican Party.
So if the Republican Party would come out for a carbon tax, they could come back to life.
The Republican Party could be reborn.
The Republican Party could once again matter.
The Republican Party could once again be somebody if they just come out for a carbon tax in answer to the Boston Marathon bombing.
What America needs is a carbon tax.
I'm not making it up.
And if Friedman is writing it and thinking it, it means that scores of others are as well.
Last night on CBS, they've got this program called The Amazing Race.
And the guy leading the race happens to be a ditto head.
During a challenge segment where contestants were in Dresden, Germany.
They had to answer questions sent to the navigation feature of their car.
Contestants Max and Katie and the car's computer had this exchange.
Which U.S. president said tear down this wall?
John F. Kennedy.
Select your response from the choices that headset.
John Kenny, right?
Yep.
Seven.
Incorrect, which president said, tear down this wall.
I think it was Reagan.
That was all right.
I knew that.
I'm so embarrassed because Ronald Reagan's my favorite president.
I'm definitely the cigar chomping Republican conservative.
Rush would be really upset with me for missing that.
On the amazing race last night, the contestant Max failing to correctly identify who said tear down this wall, he said Kennedy.
It was Reagan.
When he found out it was Reagan, he said, I'm so embarrassed.
Reagan, my favorite president.
I'm definitely cigar-chomping Republican conservative.
Rush would be really upset with me for missing that.
Well, Max, yeah, I might have been, but not now, because you have helped in the outreach to the low-information voter immeasurably.
Way to go.
Rush Lindborn, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
We're going to start on the phones in San Antonio.
This is Bob.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you here.
Thank you very much, Rush.
I was just tuning in the bottom of the hour, and the local news came on, and there's this flash now from the FAA that because of the sequester, they're going to have to cut air traffic controllers.
Well, let me tell you something.
This is pure, pure West Texas horse maneuver.
That agency is so drowning in pork that you slip on the floors at 800 Indefince Avenue.
They've got more money and more waste up there than you can imagine.
There's not a reason in the world.
Well, they don't need as many patrols as they've got for starters.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's just a pork-filled area there, you know.
None of that matters.
Well, I just want you to know and the public to know that this is political.
They're trying to kids to sequester.
We all know it.
We all know it.
The sequester, by the way, or sequester, as pronounced by Sheila Jackson Lee from your state, from Houston.
The sequester is Obama's idea.
I try to blame the Republicans for it, but the sequester as a strategy, as a procedure, the sequester was Barack Obama's idea.
Now, the decision here, the FAA, which is the Obama regime, to reduce air traffic controllers is to blame Republicans.
This is all political.
This is an effort.
You know it.
I know it.
Everybody in this audience knows it.
It is an effort to have low-information people get ticked off when they fly, overflight delays, and crowded airplanes and all the other things that happen when there are aircraft slowdowns, airline slowdowns.
And that is so that they end up blaming Republicans for this because everything is about 2014.
Everything, folks, is about 2014.
Let me give you a reason why.
Thanks, Bob, for the call.
I appreciate it.
A little story here from Bloomberg News.
The top 1% of U.S. taxpayers would pay 67% of all the taxes called for in 2023 under Obama's budget proposal.
This according to an analysis released today by the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
So in 2023, 10 years from now, according to projections, If the Democrats are not stopped, this is why 2014 is so important to us, just as it's so important to Obama, the Democrats.
2014 to them is winning the House.
When they win the House, they have one-party government.
There's no stopping them.
Just like they had one-party government for the first two years of Obama's regime, 2009 and 2010.
But back then, Obama had to worry about the midterm elections and he had to worry about re-election.
So even though they did some radicalized stuff, it still took very long and a lot of effort and a bunch of chicanery to get Obamacare passed.
This time, if they win the House in 2014, there's no stopping them and there's no worries about anything.
They're going to think the Democrats will hold the White House in 2016.
The Republicans won't have a chance.
If amnesty has happened, then the Democrats win in 2016, probably by default.
If the Democrats win the House in 2014, legislation can be rubber stamped.
It won't even have to be debated very long, and the votes will be automatic.
The Democrats will control everything.
So whatever Obama and the Democrats want to do starting in 2014, nothing to stop them.
And if they aren't stopped in 10 years, the top 1% of the population would be paying 67% of all taxes on paper.
Now, if it ever really came to that, a lot of the top 1% would chuck it and stop working and wouldn't be paying any taxes because they're going to say, what the hell am I going to continue to work if I have to give up 70 cents of every dollar I earn?
What is the point?
But the Democrats don't score any of this stuff dynamically.
They do it in a very static way, and they just assume that every taxpayer is going to sit there and take it.
Tax rate goes to 70%, nothing changes.
Everybody keeps working, stays at their job.
Of course, there would be rampant new unemployment because of that.
But on paper, the top 1% would be paying 67% of all taxes.
So 2014 really is, really is huge.
This is Earth Day today, too, by the way, folks.
Earth Day is April 22nd.
Does the name Ira Einhorn mean anything to you?
Ira Einhorn is the founder of Earth Day.
Yeah, he did, snirdly.
Way to go.
Good memory.
Ira Einhorn actually murdered his girlfriend, I believe, and sliced her up, carved.
Here it is.
An American convicted murderer and former environmentalist wacko.
Ira Einhorn beat his ex-girlfriend, Holly Maddox, to death and then stored her body in a locked trunk in his apartment for more than a year, about 18 months, actually, before she was discovered by the police.
He fled to Europe and was convicted 25 years later for her murder in 2002 and is now serving a life sentence.
And he is the co-founder of Earth Day.
And he supports carbon tax.
Just as does Thomas L. Friedman.
So another great hero of the left.
Ira Einhorn is being celebrated today by environmentalist wackos because this is Earth Day.
Bill Ayers, former domestic terrorist.
Homemade bombs is a weapon of choice.
Ira Einhorn, co-founder Earth Day, convicted murderer, another highly respected, honored leftist icon.
At any rate, and by the way, again, Ira Einhorn supports a carbon tax.
Quick time, you add the carbon tax to the 70% income tax rate.
It is hard to imagine what life in this country would be like 10 years from now if Obama and the Democrats win in 2014.
A professor Et at the City University of New York, her name is Ruth O'Brien, has written an op-ed.
Fox.com is where I found this, FoxNation.com.
The New York University professor Ruth O'Brien's complaining too much force had been used against Tamerlan Zunayev in apprehending him, the Boston bomber.
Too much force.
▲
Export Selection