All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:11
April 23, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh Talent on Loan from God serving humanity.
Vocal vibrations cost a cost here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
The regime wants to raise taxes on everybody.
You know that the president has been saying since his campaign in 2008 that if he ever raised taxes, it would only be on, what, what, what?
The people at 250,000 or more, 220,000, 25,000 or more, top 1%, whatever.
The middle class would never get a tax increase.
It was never going to happen.
And he's repeated it over and over and over again.
He repeated it in a campaign for 2012.
He's repeated it since his second term immaculation.
He has promised that his tax increases would never, I think the top 5%, he said only the top 5% will ever pay more taxes under him, policies.
Well, the Washington Post has taken a look at Obama's budget.
And amazingly, they're reporting what they found.
And here's what they say.
Basically, the Washington Post says that Obama's budget would raise taxes on everybody, every income level.
President Obama's budget would raise taxes mainly on people earning more than a couple hundred thousand a year, although earners at nearly every income level would face a somewhat higher tax burden according to a new and nonpartisan analysis.
The study by the Tax Policy Center finds that in 2015, 86% of the increase in taxes that would be borne by people earning $200,000 or more a year would largely be a result of dramatically scaling back tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and establishing a minimum level of taxation for people who earn a million dollars or more.
But the study also finds that some Americans of more modest backgrounds would face more taxes.
Some people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would pay $150 more.
Some earning less than $100,000 would pay $100 more.
And if they're admitting to that, it's going to be much more.
And there's also a proposal for an internet sales tax that the regime is pushing.
Now, a lot of these little tech bloggers out there happen to think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
They're really blind and ignorant and have no clue what is being done to the environment in which they live.
And I'm just wondering, you know, I read a lot of these blogs.
I'm going to be fascinated to see what these sniveling little sycophants have to say about this.
Because the internet, then, that sacrosanct, that is untouchable.
Everything there should be free.
Well, apps, of course, some should pay, some should charge.
But I mean, news, websites, all that, there shouldn't be paywalls.
Everything should be free.
They really have that expectation.
So we'll see if this in any way upsets one segment of the blindly supporting Obama population.
I'm not holding my breath on it, but it will be interesting to see.
Stephen Dinan in the Washington Times, 99.5% of illegal immigrants get approval for legal status.
The high number raises concerns about fraud.
The regime has approved 99.5% of applications of those who have applied for legal status under Obama's non-deportation policy for young adults, granting legal status to more than 250,000 formerly illegal immigrants.
Officials said that they expect the approval rate to drop as more cases make their way through the system because it takes longer to deny an application than it does to approve it.
The high rate, however, leaves people wondering whether the regime is doing all it can to weed out fraud or potentially dangerous illegal immigrants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, as it's formerly known.
Now, this has to do with Obama's executive order from last June that granted legal status to 250,000 illegals.
99.5 have had their backgrounds passed, their background checks.
From the article, through the first seven months of the program, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved 268,000 illegal immigrants for legal status while denying just 1,377.
What are the odds of that?
Yeah, we've seen how good the federal authorities are at background checks with the Sinaya brothers.
Better remember, Jokar was made a citizen.
That's a disaster waiting to happen.
It just is.
Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood has already been connected to Kermit Gosnell in one way via a grisly abortion experiment that he conducted on women back in the 1970s.
But Planned Parenthood, Southeast Pennsylvania president and CEO Dale Steinberg, admitted this week at a fundraiser that the abortion business knew of what Gosnell was doing at his abortion facility.
They knew it.
Planned Parenthood didn't report it to the State Health Department or other state or local officials who could have done something about it.
Instead, it appears that Planned Parenthood left it up to women that Gosnell injured or traumatized to make public officials aware of his House of Horrors.
Folks, that is profound to me.
We know what was going on in Gosnell's, I don't even know what you call it, House of Horrors doesn't describe what was going on in there.
And now we learn that Pennsylvania Planned Parenthood knew all along.
Oh, in a related story, President Obama is going to headline the Planned Parenthood gala, which you do at the keynote address, Planned Parenthood's Gala Dinner, which will honor Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaragosa, Dr. Ruth Westheimer, and girls star Lena Dunham.
The event Thursday in Washington will celebrate champions of women's health.
I wonder if Kermit Gosnell might someday get an award.
Planned Parenthood knew, didn't report it, didn't say anything about it.
And there's Obama headlining with Dr. Ruth and Lena Dunham and the LA mayor being honored from the UK Daily Mail.
An attempt to ban American bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook login details has been blocked by Congress.
There is this thing out there that it's called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.
And its alleged purpose is to protect intellectual property and to see to it that things aren't pirated and stolen.
And the people in Hollywood are, for the most part, for it in premise, but they have rejected the actual legislation, this and its predecessor.
Well, while people aren't looking, because everybody's focused on the Boston Marathon bombings, immigration, gun control, all these other things, a last-minute alteration to this law, CISPA, would have protected users' social media passwords from employers.
Would have protected.
In other words, your employer, if this law ever is signed into law, this bill signed into law, your employer will be allowed, in fact, will you must give your employer your Facebook login data so that you can be monitored.
The amendment to make this possible was put forward by a Democrat, Ed Pearlmutter.
Handing over passwords could legally be a condition of acquiring or keeping a job.
Pearl Mueller said of his amendment before it was defeated: it helps the individual protect his right to privacy and it doesn't allow the employer to impersonate that particular employee when other people are interacting with that person across social media platforms.
No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment.
I may have gotten something wrong, but Perlmutter might have defeated it rather than supported.
Anyway, the original bill wanted people or was going to require people to hand over their login information on Facebook and I presume other things to their employers.
And a last-minute alteration to it was defeated in a this is actually horrible journalism because I'm reading this and I don't know what the status of it is.
An attempt to ban bosses from asking employees to hand over their Facebook details has been blocked.
So that means the attempt to ban bosses from asking employees, a last-minute alteration to the controversial CISPA would have prevented employers demanding that.
It looks like employers can demand it.
It's horrible.
I can't, I'm not.
Pearl Mutter is against the bill, CISPA, but I'm it's a UK Daily Mail story, and I sorry, folks, I shouldn't have brought it up because I have no idea what it's actually saying here.
My bad.
I don't know what the status of this is.
I don't know if somebody wants your boss to have your Facebook data or if somebody doesn't.
In terms of, I don't know where the bill is.
I don't know if they've successfully taken that out or if they've blocked taking that out.
So I will find out.
Mayor Doomberg in New York, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Doomberg said Monday, the country's interpretation of the Constitution will have to change to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
Mayor Doomberg had a press conference in New York, and he said, the people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the old days, if you will.
And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, has to change.
Didn't we add Homeland Security under the same premise?
The Department of Homeland Security, wasn't it created with the same argument that things are, it's worse than it's ever been.
We've got to take extraordinary steps.
So we're going to wand you and we're going to search you and we're going to disrobe you.
And we're going to do all.
And it hadn't stopped anything, has it?
I mean, it's made life, we're going to streamline the information, but it's made things more miserable.
And it didn't stop what happened in Boston.
So here we go again.
It's the same old thing.
Government gets bigger, fails to stop something.
Government says the answers.
We got to get bigger.
The mayor said, we have to understand in the world going forward, we're going to have to have more cameras, that kind of stuff.
That's good in some sense.
It's different from what we're used to.
He pointed to the gun debate, noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever more powerful weapons.
So we're going to need to change the Constitution, the way we interpret it.
And what that means is you're really not going to have the kind of freedom that you're used to.
We can't let people have that much freedom anymore.
That's getting us into trouble.
People have too much freedom to do bad stuff, and we're going to have to limit it.
And this is all rooted in the belief that the Constitution has way too many limits on government.
That's what Doomberg means.
The Constitution has way too many limits on government, and we're going to have to change that.
We're going to have to a different interpretation where the Constitution spells out more of what government can do.
Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama believes.
This story in the political, I can't believe that they published this story.
Immigration reform could be bonanza for Democrats.
I mean, everybody knows it.
Not everybody wants to admit it, particularly on the Republican advocate side.
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation's political landscape for a generation or more, pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states that they now win easily.
The amazing thing here is that the politico even would post this.
Everybody knows this is the case.
This is what's so frustrating.
Why in the world do the Republicans want to do this?
This is going to, you know, amnesty for $11 million, $12 million, $20 million, it's going to turn the country into California politically, where the Republican Party doesn't exist.
It is suicide for the Republican Party to grant amnesty to however numbers of millions of illegals are in the country.
It's the only reason amnesty has ever been an issue.
Why?
As I asked Senator Rubio last week, why would we agree to something the Democrats are salivating over?
Senator Schumer can taste this.
He's so excited.
All the Democrats, why would we agree to something that they are so eager to have?
And you know what I think is the reason the Politico is running this?
I'll give you a wild guess.
I think they are worried that there are some Democrats who might be afraid that voting for amnesty will hurt their own reelection chances.
We saw that in the Senate vote on gun control.
Remember how mad Obama got?
That was supposed to happen in the House.
It was supposed to be the Republicans that vote down gun control so they have a campaign issue.
The Democrats did it because they were worried about re-election.
And there are Democrats that know full well the people of this country don't want amnesty.
And so the Politico, I think, is running a story.
It'll be okay.
It'll be okay.
You guys are going to clean up if you get this done.
Okay, folks, investigators are saying that the Boston bombers were motivated by radical websites.
They were motivated by religion.
Well, we don't know why they did it.
But that's what they were motivated by.
Everybody's trying to figure out why and how they were radicalized.
Well, yesterday afternoon on Fox, they have this program called The Five.
And there are five people on at 5 o'clock.
That's the name of the program.
And Bob Beckle, well-known Democrat strategerist, Bob Beckle ran Walter If Mondal's campaign in 1984.
Bob Beckle said this.
In the Muslim communities around the world, they do not like us.
I think we really have to consider, given the fact so many people hate us, that we're going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time so that we can at least absorb what we've got, look at what we've got, and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison.
Has there been any reaction to this that you have seen or heard?
Now, if Pat Buchanan had said this, or if I had said this yesterday, or if Senator Jeff Sessions had said it, or if Rand Paul had said it, or if John Boehner had said it,
or if George W. Bush at his library opening had said it, if any Republican had said, we need to send these Muslims back home, we need to consider the fact we have to cut off Muslim students coming to this country.
I'm stunned.
There hasn't been, I've had cable news on all dude.
That nobody outraged at what Beckle said.
I haven't care hadn't said anything.
Council on Arab American Islamic Relations is what it is.
They haven't said anything.
I'm stunned by that.
I mean, this is why that's Islamophobic, isn't it?
It's profiling.
It's Islamophobic.
It's accusatory.
It's defamatory.
It's hate speech.
It's insulting.
It's presumptuous.
It's not the way we do things here in America.
It's anti-diversity, mean, judgmental, prejudicial, unfair, unjust, immoral, not useful, unhelpful, harmful.
And there's no reaction to this.
Okay, the huffing in Puffington Post did.
Big whoop.
Who heard about it?
Just like when FDR said, you know what, we're going to put the Japanese back there over there, put them in these communes or get rid of them.
You could hear the crickets.
And then Beckle says, I don't know.
I think we need to cut off Muslim students coming in the country, at least for some period of time.
Maybe send them back home.
Or prison.
They're deaf young boys, and they, you know, didn't like firecrackers when they were in kindergarten and checking.
They heard all the wars that firecrackers is PTSD.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm just fascinated by it.
Here's Charles in Boise, Idaho.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing, Russ?
Very good.
Thank you, sir.
You brought up something earlier where someone was suggesting that we're going to have to start trading away some of our freedoms to make our country more secure.
It has not been said on the program today.
Well, I'm not saying you said that.
You said somebody else was bringing it.
Well, Mayor Doomberg said that we're going to have to reinterpret the Constitution and that that would be his intent was that the Constitution limits government too much and we're going to have to yeah, we're going to do away with some of our freedoms if we're going to stay safe.
Well, what I'm thinking is the founding fathers, when they were drafting that constitution, were trying to get themselves away from a government where they had that security that already limited their freedoms or freedoms that weren't available to them at the time.
And they chose the freedoms over the government's security because when the government has the security, they can utilize it in any way they want to.
They can deem anybody a threat, whether it's actually a threat to the people or a threat to the government itself.
But people today, they think, well, we have all this technology.
We're so much smarter than they were 200 years ago.
But that's just not the case.
I mean, the simple fact remains we would still rather have the freedom to protect ourselves because the government cannot always protect us.
Well, I think it's a brilliant point because I made it last week.
So you and I are on the same page.
And I made the point that you just made in the context of the gun control argument.
And what happened in Boston proves they can't protect us?
And while that was going on last week, look, I hate to say this because I'm not, I really am not trying to be provocative.
These two guys shut down an American city.
Bostonians were cowering in their homes.
If we didn't know better, we would think they're cowering in the corners in fear.
The authorities were.
Don't go outside.
Stay in your homes.
One guy's dead.
One guy's in a boat underneath the tarp.
They cancel a hockey game.
They cancel a baseball game.
They succeeded.
They shut down a city for a full day in addition to the 264 injuries, the loss of limbs, the loss of life.
Imagine what this trial is going to be in terms of people's movements being restricted and things they can do, places they can go.
And you're right, I made the point exactly you just did here, that people are going to have to be able to defend themselves under circumstances.
Yes, and us having all this new information that we have today and thinking we're so much smarter and we know what threats are going to be out there and the government's going to be able to protect us from them.
I mean, the governments were able to do that 250 years ago and they still moved away from it because people would rather have the freedom.
You know what Ben Franklin said about this?
This is one of my all-time favorite quotes.
Benjamin Franklin once said, people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
Benjamin Franklin.
And that's exactly right.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
People willing to trade their freedom for economic security.
People willing to give up their dreams.
People willing to trade the hard rigors of success in exchange for a modicum of existence.
We'll never know success.
And their modicum subsistence hangs by a thread based on the good intentions of a government.
In other words, if you give up the right to provide for yourself, if you trade the hard work and the ambition of success,
attempted success, for the guarantees of a government that you'll always have a phone, cable, TV, and McNuggets, you're going to be disappointed over both decisions.
And by the way, when you trade your freedom for temporary security, when you're not in charge of your security, when you have no control over your security, when you have no control over your economic circumstances, what kind of a thin thread are you hanging by?
You're depending on the performance of other people that don't even know you.
Politicians in a distant capital who on a whim could cancel whatever program that you depend on.
Maybe cancel the McNuggets program.
Cancel the Obama phone program.
It may happen.
What if that's all you know?
What if that's you depend on Santa Claus instead of yourself?
It's exactly right.
Glad you called Charles.
Quick timeout.
El Rushball, back with more after this.
Did you see where Senator Max Baucus quitting?
Senator Baucus, no mas, no mas, he's quitting out there.
You find it, Fat, just last week, Baucus is out there saying Obamacare is going to be a train wreck.
And he was one of the architects of it, by the way.
Obamacare is going to be a train wreck.
And this week he announces his retirement.
Well, I know.
A bunch of Obama people said they're going to be going after him, primary and all that, because disloyalty and so forth.
And Baucus, you know what?
I've seen what these guys have done to Republicans, and I don't want any part of it.
So Baucus is out of there.
Folks, the drive-bys and the government, you know, the Ricin letters that were sent?
The drive-bys so desperately wanted the culprit to be a hayseed hick southerner.
So they went out and they found this poor guy from Mississippi and they accused him of it.
Well, guess what?
The Mississippi man charged with sending poisoned letters to President Obama, a U.S. senator and a state judge, was released from jail today.
The reason for his release wasn't immediately clear, but maybe it could have something to do with the fact that he didn't do it.
Why else would they release him?
The development comes hours after officials canceled a detention and preliminary hearing without explaining the reason for the change.
Jeff Woodfin, the chief deputy with the U.S. Marshal Service in Oxford, Mississippi, said Paul Kevin Curtis, you know, these southern hayseed guys always have three names.
Billy Joe, Bobby Jim, Freddie Travis, whatever.
They always have three names in the media.
All three names are used.
Paul Kevin Curtis has been released from custody.
Woodfin said he doesn't know if there were any conditions on the release.
The development comes hours after officials canceled a detention and preliminary hearing without explaining the reason.
His lawyer, Christy McCoy, said in a text message Tuesday that she could only confirm her client has been released.
I can tell you he is with his family.
They really wanted the Ryson guy to be a white southern guy and not a dark-skinned something or other.
It's tough out there.
USA Today has a poll, ladies and gentlemen.
And it is that something like, what is it?
49% of respondents thought Congress should pass a new gun control law.
45% said it should not.
5% didn't know.
Obama's out there saying 90% of the American people support him on his gun control proposal.
90% of the American people, nope, 49%.
There is no consensus.
There is no majority opinion of thought agreeing with Obama and the Democrats on new gun control legislation.
Shannon, Lexington, Kentucky.
I have about a minute here, but I wanted to get to you.
Hi.
Thank you.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Honored to speak with you.
Yes.
I was calling to see if you knew if there was going to be maybe anything on the president going to Boston and maybe talking to some of the family members of the victims to possibly fly them down to Congress to lobby some of the members of Congress there on tighter immigration reform.
Do you have any experience with Ryson?
You sound like a Rison suspect.
I thought you may ask me that about my accent.
Just teasing.
You understand?
I'm just kidding.
I'm bouncing off the last story.
Interesting, is you're wondering if the president will go to Boston and find some families to put on Air Force One to fly them where?
To Washington?
Yes, to maybe lobby for tighter immigration like the president did.
If he did that, it would be for not tighter immigration controls, but more lax immigration controls.
Well, I think traded.
I don't think troubled.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, no, you go ahead because time is limited on what you're showing.
I was thinking he may try to do the same thing as he did with the members of the Sandy Hook.
I don't know.
I understand thinking here, but I'll have to ponder what value would there be, what cause man, you are very, very suspicious of our young, devoted president.
I'm kind of shocked at you, actually.
Hey, Shannon, in Lexington, Kentucky, let me ask you a question.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Republicans decided to use the survivors in Boston for any political advantage like Obama?
Can you imagine?
▲
Export Selection