All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
38:04
May 2, 2013, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Actually, you know what?
It's going to be, get 7-8-9-10-11-12.
Yeah, 7-12.
Have those standing by.
And screw number one.
I don't want to get anywhere near it.
Couldn't care less.
Greetings, folks.
Audio soundbites.
I don't care.
It's Obama naming Penny Pritzker.
To be the commerce secretary and making fun of the confirmation hearings, the anal exam she's going to get.
It's no big deal.
Well, he was.
He's laughing about it, making fun of it.
She's going to get an anal.
No, she won't get an anal exam.
She said, what am I talking about?
She's a liberal Democrat feminist.
The Hyatt hotel chain, babe.
She's not going to get a media.
You're not going to get an anal.
They're just going to say her if you're in confirmer.
What am I thinking?
She's not a Republican.
Sorry.
It makes it even more reason not to play it.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh here in the Excellence Broadcasting Network.
And three full hours of broadcast excellence.
Great to be here.
Really is, always is.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
And I have it right here.
I am holding it in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead.
At least in this way.
72% of Americans say they are not feminists.
It is likely disappointing news for old school bra burners and glorious Steinem-inspired feminazis.
A new economist YouGov poll released yesterday asks, has feminism become a dirty word?
Feminism's a mixed bag in the eyes of most Americans.
Well, there's a line there.
Feminism is a mixed bag.
Overall, 28% consider themselves to be feminists.
72% do not.
Now, let me ask you, ladies and gentlemen, who do you know that for 25, actually 28 years, but 25 on the national stage has been pointing out the truth of militant left-wing feminism.
It is I, El Rushbo.
Could it be said that years of properly defining modern era militant feminism has proven fruitful?
Now, this is not to say that they haven't done a lot of damage.
They have done tremendous amounts of damage.
But at least right now, it ain't cool to be called a feminist.
Now, it doesn't mean there aren't feminists out there because there are a lot of Republicans.
It ain't cool to be called a conservative.
A lot of conservatives who will not tell you that they are right now.
That's not necessarily good.
There are a lot of conservatives afraid to be.
And we'll look at Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz is a fighter.
Ted Cruz is trying to defend this country against the all-out assault from the political left.
And just today, Peter King, who I see every day on Fox, if I didn't know better, I'd think he's a Fox analyst, not a member of Congress.
Peter King, who's a member of Congress of New York, said that no way Ted Cruz should be allowed into New York to raise money for his campaigns because he voted against the Sandy Hurricane Relief Bill.
There's no way he should be allowed to come into New York and raise money.
You believe that?
Because he voted against what did he vote against in the Sandy Relief?
He voted against a political maneuver meant to enhance Barack Obama.
And even with all the money that was spent in Sandy Relief, well, we had the story the other day that there are people still out of their homes, people still without electricity, people still without this, still without that.
Now, a lot of people are going to have their homes taken from them in New Jersey so they can build a dune to make sure that this doesn't happen again.
By the way, I have experience with building dunes on a beach, and I'm telling you, it doesn't work.
Once the powerful forces of nature make themselves president, the dune vanishes like anything else does.
But everybody's got faith in the dunes, and so they do.
Anyway, you'd have to say, I mean, there's still a lot of people, even with all that money, people still in sad circumstances.
Anyway, I just make a point here that Ted Cruz and other, I mean, I think he also mentioned Rubio, who shouldn't be coming to New York to raise money because they voted against the Sandy Relief Bill.
It's a Republican talking about another Republican.
So it doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lot of feminists.
What it means is this poll is that there are not very many people who want to say they are.
And I'm still going to chalk that up as a success.
Among women, 38% consider themselves feminists.
Men do not appear to be very liberated these days either.
18% accept the label feminist for themselves.
Democrat, Republicans, women see the word differently.
48% of Democrat women, but just 14% of Republican women would label themselves feminist.
And things are not so promising even among those females who grew up in the 60s and 70s.
Back during the Brab burning era, and the story mentions that.
That's not me.
That actually did happen.
It wasn't that widespread, but it did happen.
It was an identifying aspect of the era.
Women over 65, 28% say they're feminist.
Gen X women, 30 to 44, 32% say they're women.
Millennials age 18 to 29, that's the age group of women scared by me, 42% say that they're feminist.
It is negative associations people carry regarding feminism that causes Americans to shy away from the label.
People twice as likely to consider calling somebody a feminist to be an insult, that's 23%, rather than a compliment, 12%.
There has been one person, I mean, one lot of people here and there now and then whispering.
One person has been shouting from the rooftops, warning about this movement.
It is I. El Rushball.
And it might be said that I have succeeded in stigmatizing.
And this is why, by the way, they're constantly coming after me because it's effective.
Gateway pundit Jim Hoft had a post on Tuesday that I meant to mention, didn't get to it.
There is a billboard, a pro-gun billboard that has been posted in Colorado, and it has made a lot of people mad.
It has three Indians.
It's a black and white photo of three Indians.
And on top of the picture of the three Indians, it says, turn in your arms.
Underneath the Indians, it says the government will take care of you.
Two of the Indians are holding rifles and one is not.
A pro-gun billboard that features images of Native Americans drawing both contempt and support in Colorado.
Turn in your arms.
The government will take care of you.
The sarcasm is evident.
The group behind the message is not.
Lamar Advertising, the company owns the billboard, told CNN affiliate KUSA Denver that the group who paid for the message wants to remain anonymous.
Regardless, the billboard has outraged some residents in Greeley, about 50 miles north of Denver.
I think it's insensitive because even though it is what may have happened in the past, people are still living.
This is a new Castrate guy speaking.
Listen, I think it's insensitive, Mr. Limbo, because even though it may be what had happened in the past, it really is.
People are still living that.
Rosed are still living that.
It's terribly unfortunate.
It's insensitive.
The pictures have come down.
Speaking of things like, but yeah, I know Ted Cruz voted against the pork in San.
He didn't vote against the assistance in SAN.
There was a lot of pork in that bill.
Cruz and Rubio both voted against the pork in the Hurricane Sandy relief bill.
They didn't oppose the genuine legitimate aid or the assistance.
But even so, Peter King's saying, you guys have no business coming here and raising.
Who needs a Democrat Party to defeat us?
We seem capable of doing that ourselves.
The Palm Beach Post today, have you seen this?
Well, no, I don't read it, but I saw it on Drudge.
It's the top item on the Drudge Report.
The Palm Beach Post says that the Florida legislature has given the Palm Beach County sheriff $1 million for a new violence prevention unit aimed at preventing tragedies like Newton, Newtown, and Aurora, Colorado, the gun events.
The article says that the sheriff is readying a hotline and is planning public service announcements to encourage local citizens to report their neighbors or their friends or family members if they fear they could harm themselves or others.
The article in the Palm Beach Post says, quote, as a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on a lot of things.
The article quotes the sheriff as saying, quote, we want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government.
We want the guy, we want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government and plans to do something about it.
Now, there's a lot of people in Palm Beach County who oppose this, and they're quoted in the story.
Wait a minute now, this is going a bit far.
But that quote is attributed to the sheriff that We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government or hates other things and might take action.
Now, I don't hate the government, but how many people?
How many people could call a sheriff and report me?
Yeah, I mean, I publicly have been saying, I hope the president fails.
Does that count as hating the government?
don't hate the government, but how many people here in Palm Beach County who listen to this program, we're huge here.
Anyway, Jay Carsey.
Jay Carney.
Did you hear this?
Finally, the members of the media started asking the White House about Benghazi.
Oh, no, that happened a long time ago.
No, no, nothing to see here.
It happened a long, long time ago.
It has been investigated.
One thing about the Palm Beach County thing, the governor has to sign off on this before it goes into effect, and I don't think he has.
So it's not, I don't think you can call.
Well, you can call.
I don't think you can do anything yet.
I better turn on the beams in my property this afternoon just to make sure.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
So Benghazi, that's a long time ago.
Benghazi happened a long time ago.
I mean, why is everybody bringing that up now?
But yet everything remains the fault of George W. Bush.
From the Weekly Standard White House, spokesman Jay Carney said in response to a question about the September 11th, 2012, Benghazi terror attack.
Hey, it happened a long time ago.
Let's be clear.
Benghazi happened a long time ago.
We're unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information.
Really?
See, this is the modus operandi of the regime.
Any Democrat regime, actually.
You stonewall it for a few months, and then after a few months go by, you say it was an old story.
Didn't Watergate happen a long time ago?
Still seems to be really relevant.
Watergate.
Benghazi was not even eight months ago.
Anyway, it's a bit ironic to hear Jay Carney talking about spreading misinformation.
Isn't that what he does for a living?
Yeah, it's a long time ago.
We're not aware of any whistleblowers being prevented from coming forward.
No, that's why they're going on TV disguised in masks with their voices altered.
Let's go to the audio sound bench.
We have a montage here.
January, April, Monday, and today, Hillary, John Kerry, and Obama and Carney talking about the lack of importance of the Benghazi investigation.
Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill Americans?
What difference does it make?
We got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.
I'm not familiar with this notion that anybody's been blocked from testifying.
Benghazi happened a long time ago.
As was Hillary back in January.
What was it?
Because a protest, some guy after a walk one night, decided go kill Americans.
What difference did Benghazi make now?
That was January.
John Kerry in April.
Well, we got a lot more important things to move on to.
Get done here.
Benghazi, who cares?
Obama in April.
Not familiar with this notion.
Anybody been blocked from testifying?
Carney, also in April.
It happened a long time ago.
Nothing to see here.
What is it?
What difference does it make?
So this is the modus operandi, folks.
Stonewall it.
Then it's an old story that nobody is interested in.
All these months later, the FBI finally releases surveillance photos of the suspects.
They had these pictures on day one.
This is like the LA Times has a story today on health care.
Part-timers to lose pay amid health acts, new math.
Now, that's a cover-up.
LA Times could have reported this story two months ago or two years ago, two years ago, when Obamacare was in its infancy when it was being debated.
We knew this.
We knew that companies were going to shift people from full-time to part-time so they wouldn't have to cover them.
LA Times just today reports this.
It's a cover-up.
Same thing with the regime here in Benghazi.
Happened eight months ago.
That's forever ago.
It doesn't matter.
That's all.
It doesn't matter.
It's irrelevant.
So now we have, after all these months, the FBI finally releases surveillance photos.
They had these pictures on day one, just like everybody in the media knew about Obamacare on day one.
Instead, they blame the video.
Here's a montage for you.
I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive.
And we should shut it.
This video is disgusting and reprehensible.
It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
Let's be clear.
These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.
You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character, who is an extremely offensive video.
The unrest we've seen has been in reaction to a video.
It was a crude and disgusting video.
Sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.
It was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response, a direct result of a heinous and offensive video.
I know there are some who ask, why don't we just ban such a video?
And the answer is enshrined in our laws.
Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
That's Obama talking to the Star Wars bar scene at the U.N. General Assembly, trying to explain to them about our Constitution.
And they're laughing under their breath.
We know what it says.
That's why we hate it.
You don't have to preach it to us.
Anyway, they knew.
They've had these photos since day one.
They've had these surveillance photos since day one.
They had to go out and blame the video to try to distract everybody.
Tuesday night, special report on the Fox News channel, a correspondent Adam Housley interviewed an unidentified special operator, face blacked out, voice changed for the interview.
Obama says, I don't know why anybody wouldn't come forward.
We're not trying to stop that.
This is a guy trying to tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi.
And Housley says the U.S. has identified the mastermind of the Benghazi attack, who is still in Libya and still walks free.
Is that right?
We basically don't want to upset anybody.
And the problem is, if Ambassador Stevens' family knew that we were sitting on information about the people who killed their son, their brother, and we could look them as a government in the face, then we're messing up.
We're messing up.
Again, an unidentified special operator on Fox, face blacked out, voice altered for the interview.
Adam Housley asks him, says to him, the U.S. has identified the mastermind.
And by the way, they're not talking about the guy in jail that did the video.
They've given that up now.
U.S. has identified the mastermind of Benghazi attacks still in Libya.
Walks free.
The guy says, well, we didn't want to upset anybody.
If Ambassador Stevens' family knew that we were sitting on information about the people that killed their son, their brother, we could look them as government in the face and we're messing up, we're messing up.
We couldn't.
I mean, so we had to try to pretend we didn't know what had happened and blame the guy who did the video.
And now they're saying, well, a long time ago, it doesn't matter.
bush still being blamed for everything folks what difference does it make now Jay Carney may as well have said that.
You know, Ben Ghanzi, it's a long time ago.
What difference does it make now?
I remember people, I might have been one of them myself, but I do remember other people saying at the time that an obvious cover-up was underway, I remember people saying this is going to not go away.
It's not going to go away.
This is going to haunt the regime.
And it is.
That is proving to be accurate.
And by the way, the media is again today and last night very concerned about the status of the regime and their second term.
I think there's more going on here than simply trying to goose Obama into getting back into gear, getting energetic.
I think there is some serious concern that the wheels have come off Obama's agenda.
And I think they really fear it.
I'll demonstrate what I mean as the program unfolds.
Back, however, to Fox News.
Last night, special report, the correspondent Adam Housley interviewing the special operator, unidentified, face blacked out, voice altered for the interview to protect his identity.
He's a whistleblower and he is scared, maybe alarmed that he could be targeted if his identity were known.
After the special operator responding to Housley, who'd claimed that we know who the mastermind is, and he's still in Libya, and he's still walking around free, special operator said, well, we didn't want to upset anybody.
If Ambassador Stevens' family knew that we were sitting on information about the people that killed their son, we couldn't look them in the face as a government.
And the special operator then had this to say: We have all the capability, all the training, all the capacity to kill and capture not only terrorists involved with the specific events of 9-11 and Ambassador Stevens' death, but terrorists who are feeding other regions, including Europe, that eventually could affect our national security in the short term.
And we're not talking midterm or long term.
This is a short term.
The community is pretty frustrating.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
It's a daily frustration.
Now, I know that some people on the left are thinking that Fox and Outfound this guy is an actor or he's a malcontent member of the military.
He's a conservative Republican, has it in for the regime.
And they'll try to dismiss this guy and his colleagues that way.
There's a problem with that, though.
There are people that really feel this way.
You know, as well as I do, there have to be people all over, as he said, the special ops community, military community.
Know what our capabilities are.
They know what was available that night.
They know what could have been done.
They were prepared to do it.
That's their job.
That's why they sign up.
An American ambassador was under attack in a consulate.
That's what they're there to do, is to defend and protect those guys.
And they were told to twiddle their thumbs.
And then after that, they sit around and they watch a cover-up.
But that happened a long time ago.
Well, as Hillary said, what does that mean?
What difference does it make?
What's that got to do with anything?
What difference does it make?
So they are coming forward.
Now we go to CNN Erin Burnett out front.
Last night, she spoke with their Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, about the release of photos of the suspects, which again, they had on day one.
The question is, why did it take about eight months to figure this out?
To get these photos to the public?
Would it ever have happened if there didn't continue to be such incredible controversy about Benghazi?
And this is what the CNN Infobabe said.
Well, that's a great question, Aaron, to which there's no immediate answer.
What a surprise.
The FBI says they're doing it simply because they're at the point in the investigation when it makes the most sense.
But you're right.
Eight months later, these men, where are they?
Who even knows where they are?
But they want to talk to them.
They said this video surveillance camera saw them there the night of the attack, and they want to see what they know about it, not calling them suspects yet.
It raises some very interesting questions.
What else does the FBI know?
What kind of cooperation are they getting from the Libyans?
Why are they focusing in on these three men and these pictures of them there the night the attack happened back in September?
And why now?
Eight months later.
So that's the latest on Benghazi.
We've got potential suspects.
We've got video surveillance that has them on video since day one.
And in reaction to the special operator coming forward in disguise, voice altered, and the availability of the release of the photos in the video, the administration say, well, that's eight months ago.
That's old now.
Again, the modus operandi.
Now, I mentioned mere moments ago the L.A. Times.
Here's the story.
Part-timers to lose pay amid health care's new math.
Some workers are having their hours cut so employers won't have to cover them under Obamacare, but many will benefit from the healthcare law's premiums and Medicaid expansion.
Many part-timers, says the L.A. Times, are facing a double whammy from Obama's Affordable Care Act.
The law requires large employers offering health insurance to include part-timers working 30 hours a week or more.
But rather than provide health care to more workers, a growing number of employers are cutting back employee hours instead.
And we're back to the tried and true explanation of the left and their lack of dynamic scoring, the lack of consideration of the consequences.
They sit there, they pass laws, and they think everybody's just sheep.
Law says 30 employees, full coverage.
They don't stop to think that the express purpose of a business is to limit costs anywhere they can, labor included.
So get the number of people on part-time under 30.
And they act shocked and surprised.
They really do act shocked and surprised.
Now, the point about this is, though, the L.A. Times knew this two years ago.
Publishing this story now is the equivalent of a cover-up.
Now, I know what some of you are saying.
Wait a minute, now, Rush State Control Media.
They may not have known.
I mean, they just are spoon-fed by the administration.
They may not have known.
And that's, I hate to admit it, entirely possible.
These people are the least inquisitive bunch of people in the country.
Mainstream media people are the least inquisitive I've found.
They just accept what the people they love and adore and respect tell them.
They don't question it.
So it's entirely possible the L.A. Times reporter is only now just learning about it.
But either way, if they knew it and covered it up for two years and didn't report it, or if they're just learning it now, it doesn't say anything good about them.
A companion story.
The dreaded evil Koch brothers, Charles Koch and David Koch, and what is it they say?
I must say for objectivity, oh, full disclosure, I know them.
I've played golf with Charles.
I know David Koch.
I know their brother Bill.
I know the Kochs.
And I can personally attest to their character, their citizenship, their decency.
They are good people.
And they come from a family in Wichita, which is self-made.
They're in the oil and gas business.
The Koch brothers are more libertarian than they are conservative.
They're very active in the Cato Foundation, for example.
However, they do have billions of dollars.
Such, the left hates them.
They actually contribute some of their dollars to the causes they believe in.
That makes them really hated and reviled.
The Koch brothers are as besmirched, impugned, character assaulted in the mainstream media and in the far-left blogs as anybody.
Lies are routinely told about them personally, them and their company professionally.
Lies are told about their intentions and all this.
Just to set it up as to who these people are.
They're nice people.
They're unassuming people.
To an extent.
I mean, they don't hide the fact that they're wealthy, but they're not conspicuous consumers.
They're not flunting around on yachts all the time, and they work, is the point.
Now, a story appeared the other day that the Koch brothers were interested in buying the L.A. Times, which stands to reason.
They are enemy number one in the mainstream media.
The mainstream media, as well as the far left-wing blogs, routinely run hatchet pieces on these people.
And so whether they intend to actually buy it or not, or just trying to tweak the left, they leaked it that they're interested in buying the L.A. Times.
And I'm telling you, the people of the L.A. Times went crazy.
Half of the staff of the L.A. Times reportedly said they would quit if the Koch brothers bought the Los Angeles Times.
When I heard that, I said, and the problem is what?
Newspapers are going broke.
Newspapers are going broke for a host of reasons.
Ad pages are down.
Ad rates are down.
Total advertising revenue is down.
Barry Dillard just the other day says it's a big mistake to buy Newsweek.
It's a news weekly for crying out.
People get their news by the second.
What was I thinking?
Buying a weekly magazine.
He said this at the Milken Conference on CNBC.
Print journalism is in deep trouble.
It's going to take creative, inventive people to turn it around.
And who knows?
The Koch brothers may have an idea on how to do it.
They're successful at everything else they do.
You would think that people at the L.A. Times, objective, good-hearted, true-to-the-cause journalists, would be interested in a place they work staying in business.
But nope.
If a couple libertarians walk in there, or if a couple of conservatives walk in there, to hell with it, half of them claim that they will quit.
You have a financially sound potential buyer coming in, and the deadwood self-deports.
Like, it's a great thing.
If half that place walked out, that'd be the first step in the LA Times, perhaps reversing its fortunes.
Bring in some fresh blood.
People who appreciate a paycheck.
People who actually want to save a dying industry.
Find ways to save a dying beast.
Which is the problem.
The parasites would not have a receptive host if the Koch brothers were the owners.
And if they're serious about this, I just want to say if you guys are serious about buying the LA Times, you need to get a promise in advance from those members of the Times promising to quit if you buy it.
Get a written promise from them before you sign the deal.
A small little update to the Koch brothers buying the lawsuit.
Yes, I meant that.
If they're going to buy the paper and half the people who work there threatened to quit, get that in writing before they close the deal.
Get written promises from the quitters that they're actually going to leave before you close.
Get this.
Three city council members in Los Angeles have joined the paper staff in protesting the possible sale to the Koch brothers.
Three members of the LA City Council, including a candidate for mayor, asked their colleagues on Tuesday to consider pulling city pension money from the investment firms that own the LA Times if they sell the paper to buyers who do not support,
quote, professional and objective journalism, which means that if somebody comes here and buys this paper that does not support the leftist agenda, then pull all financing, pull all investments, and block the sale.
Los Angeles politicians say that if the Koch brothers owned the LA Times, it'd be the end of journalism.
No, well, it would, yeah.
And journalism's in bad shape.
Journalism needs to have an end as it's being practiced.
I mean, for you people at the L.A. Times who like working at paychecks and you want to work at a place that might grow and become even more important and powerful, that's something you ought to support.
But they won't.
They won't.
They can't possibly.
Imagine the L.A. City Council.
And remember the L.A. Times now, two years late, warning people, part-timers, they may lose their jobs or their compensation because of Obamacare.
You know, that's journalistic malpractice.
The people of the L.A. Times should have known that when Obamacare was being debated.
The people that read the L.A. Times, all 25 or 30 of them, should have been told that when this thing was being debated.
The L.A. Times let down the readership.
Dingy Harry says he shares his colleagues' concerns that Obamacare could become a train wreck if it isn't implemented properly, which means as quick as it can be implemented before people figure out even more what's in it.
Dingy Harry warned that people will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resource to set them up and educate the public.
Dingy Harry from Max Baucus here said, Max said, unless we implement this properly, it's going to be a train wreck.
And I agree with him.
So what do you think Dingy Harry's solution here is?
That's exactly right, Mr. Snerdley.
We need more money.
We need to spend even more money to properly implement this.
And we need to do it tomorrow before people find out even more of what's in it.
Again, Denji Harry warned that people won't be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if federal authorities lack the resources, i.e., the money, to set them up and educate the public.
Do you know you're going to need to go to a re-education camp or have a PSA or something to find out how to do this?
How to fill out the application form?
Imagine they've created a, what are we up to now?
$2 trillion, $2 trillion health care plan, and somehow they forgot the money to implement the exchanges?
I tell you, folks, this is the fastest three hours in media.
We've got the first hour now finished.
Oh, by the way, I can't wait to tell you this.
The Justice Department, the regime, is going to appeal the judge's ruling in the morning after pill case.
And we spent a lot of time yesterday explaining about this.
And after this program, the Justice Department yesterday announced they're going to appeal that ruling.
▲
Export Selection