All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:50
May 2, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh and the excellence in broadcasting.
We're great to have you along with us, folks.
Always is.
And we're going to get to your phone calls in a jiffy.
I actually meant to take some last hour.
Time just zipped by out there.
Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaudibnet.com.
Yesterday, we learned that a federal judge had authorized the over-the-counter sale of the morning after birth control pill to 15-year-old girls.
The same 15-year-old girls who in many places cannot legally have a bottle of Advil with them in scruil were now entirely authorized to walk into a pharmacy anywhere and pick up the morning after birth control pill.
The FDA actually authorized the 15-year-olds.
The judge didn't want any age limit at all.
You want to know the truth.
The judge didn't want any age limit.
The FDA set the age limit at 15.
A 10-year-old, if the FDA had not stepped in, a 10-year-old could have walked in and picked up the morning after birth control pill.
And as I said yesterday, we spent a lot of time on this.
You really need to ask, this is a Democrat Party initiative.
It's a political initiative.
This is not health-related.
This is not medicinal in any way.
This is a political initiative.
You have to ask yourself, I think a lot of people did yesterday when I framed it this way.
What in the world does the Democrat Party care about this for?
And make no mistake, it's the Democrat Party and their feminist supporters that are pushing this.
Why?
What could they possibly have in mind here?
Why would the Democrat Party want your 15-year-old girl or 10-year-old girl to go to a drugstore and get a morning after birth control pill to have a morning after abortion just to make sure that what happened the night before didn't take?
Why does the Democrat Party care about that?
Because that's who's behind it.
Well, I think a lot of people, when hearing me express it that way, said, yeah, what is the Democrat Party behind this for?
Anyway, what happened is the Justice Department announced late yesterday that they were going to appeal the judge's decision, lifting all age limits on the Plan B morning after birth control pill and a cheaper generic.
The federal government said that the judge who issued the ruling had exceeded his authority and that his decision should be suspended while the appeal is underway.
The judge is Edward Corman of New York.
He had given the FDA administration until Monday to lift all age limits on Plan B and the cheaper generic.
The judge mandated that emergency contraception should be sold just like aspirin.
So the FDA, after the judge's ruling, then slapped the age limit of 15 on it.
And they said you can buy one brand, Plan B, one step without a prescription.
The current age, by the way, is 17.
That is the law now.
The Democrats were still not happy with that.
Mr. Limbaugh, what evidence do you have that the Democrats, who else?
Who is this federal judge and who went before him asking for this?
Who did it?
And it is a legitimate question.
What purpose does the Democrat Party have in supporting this?
Why does the Democrat Party want your 15-year-old not to be able to have some advil in the purse, to have to go ask the pharmacist for suit of ed, but can walk in to a corner pharmacy in a Walmart anywhere and pick up a morning after birth control pill?
Well, there is an answer to that question.
A, this is what the feminists want, and the feminists are a constituency of the Democrat Party.
So you can say, well, what are the feminists?
What do they care about this for?
Because they are totally oriented toward upsetting the norm.
I could say that the family is one of the remaining obstacles in the way of the Democrats having government totally in control of everybody.
Well, whatever the answer is, the question is legitimate.
What in the world does the Democrat Party care about this for?
We have a poll out from Gallup.
We already had polling data that only 4% of the American people care about health care.
Only 4% of the people care about, remember all those polls that we've had recently.
A majority of Americans now, 52% say that they, oh, and the big poll, 42% yesterday said they didn't even know that Obamacare is the law of the land.
Kaiser Family Foundation, 42% don't even know it.
That is hard to believe.
That is stunning that 42% of Americans have no idea that it is the law of the land or that it's already been implemented.
But 42% don't think and don't even know about it.
The latest Gallup poll says that 52% of Americans don't know enough to say whether sequestration is a good thing or a bad thing.
And a majority of them aren't concerned.
I totally believe that.
And this explains why Obama is in trouble on this.
This administration bent over backwards, trying to convince people that if the sequester happened, that it was the end of life as we know it.
The cuts were to be so large and so dramatic that your life was going to be upset in ways you couldn't even conceive.
And they did that for months, weeks leading up to the deadline of April 1st on it, trying to get the Republicans to cave.
And the Republicans did not cave.
The sequester then went into effect.
Nothing happened.
Everything was fine.
So the regime did two things.
They canceled the White House Easter egg roll and they furloughed a bunch of air traffic controllers for the express purpose of creating chaos in the lives of as many people as possible so that they could further the idea that the sequester, i.e., massive Draconian budget cuts, Were dramatically bad.
And in fact, the sequester is actually a spending increase, minor, but it is.
And so the sequester didn't do anything.
And that's another reason why the media is a little concerned because they're looking, maybe Obama's magic has vanished.
He's not able to convince people of things that used to be automatic.
52% not concerned about the sequel.
No, 52% don't know enough to say whether it's a good or bad thing.
And the vast majority are not even concerned about it.
That, folks, I got to tell you, when they get up at the regime and they see that, you realize how much time and energy they have put into the scare tactic, to the overall effort to frighten everybody, that that sequester happened, it was the end of life, as you know it.
And now a majority of Americans aren't even concerned about it, which means it hasn't had any impact on everyday life other than what they've manufactured with the air traffic control furloughs.
You imagine how they get up and read that polling data and get frustrated as all heck.
Now, the New York Times has a poll that says people say the sequester is killing the economy.
Almost half of Americans say budget cuts will hurt the economy.
Nearly half of Americans agree with the regime's contention that the economy will be hurt by the spending cuts prompted by sequestration, according to a CBS New York Times poll.
Which poll are we to believe here?
The Gallup poll, which most people don't even know enough about it to be affected, or the New York Times poll, which says that half of Americans think it's a disaster.
You know what to believe?
None of it.
That's how much credibility this stuff has now.
How can you have such a disparity?
One poll says half of Americans agree with Obama that the economy will be hurt.
And in Gallup, 52% say don't even know enough about it to know whether it's good or bad, and even more don't care.
President Obama is headed to Mexico, folks, with a domestic ambition at top of his travel agenda.
President Obama is going to go to Mexico to sell his immigration plan in America.
It says here in the AP story that Obama needs a growing economy in Mexico and a Mexican president willing to help him secure the border.
Obama was to fly to Mexico City today to meet with the Mexican president, eager to promote the Mexican economic success and the neighboring country's place as the second largest export market for U.S. goods and services.
Mexicans, it says here, are going to be hanging on Obama's every word.
But Obama has in mind an important audience back in the United States.
So Obama is in Mexico selling amnesty.
He has gone to Mexico to make a speech on immigration reform, which in his world is amnesty, and ostensibly is to go down there and you guys are going to use your economy up here so that my people in America are not as threatened by immigration.
You got to make it look like people will not want to leave your country when, in fact, I want as many of your countrymen as I can.
I'm going to need them as voters.
My party will.
Though the role played by Latino voters in last year's U.S. presidential election gets much credit for the current momentum for changing immigration laws and providing a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally, another reason for the change in attitudes is that stronger border protections and the recession have been disincentives to cross into the U.S.
As a result, illegal immigration has declined, and we can't have that.
Obama has gone to Mexico to ratchet up immigration.
Essentially, why else go?
Why else worry about a path to citizenship if illegals are coming in fewer numbers?
Because their economy is getting better and ours isn't.
According to an economist YouGov poll, it's the liberal rich, not the poor or middle class, who back Obama despite his 2012 campaign attacking the rich.
This poll found that fewer than half of those with incomes less than $100,000 a year approve of Obama's performance, while he has a 54% approval rating among those with incomes higher than that.
And so this poll, it's a shock poll.
Wealthy, not middle class, support Obama.
Let's be clear.
It's the wealthy Democrats support Obama.
The wealthy leftists.
And by the way, I don't want to offend anybody here, but $100,000 a year is not wealthy.
It may be rich to some people, but it isn't wealthy.
This is another totally misleading story on this particular poll.
Back with your phone calls after this.
Davenport, Iowa.
As we head back to the phones or to the phones to start, this is Emmerich.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's a privilege being on your show.
Thank you, sir.
I have a question.
Is anybody other than myself concerned about the stonewalling deception or whatever you want to call it pertaining to Benghazi when you compare that to Boston and how in Boston within 24 hours they had the video screened, within 72 hours they were in hot pursuit and actually apprehension of the suspects?
That is an excellent question.
I don't think it needs even any added analysis or commentary from the host.
That's how well stated your question is.
Well, thank you.
You bet.
It's a great question.
We have had lots of excellent questions.
And that is entirely due to the inspiration these people are getting from me.
It always is the case.
Now, Snerdley, just kidding.
That's the kind of stuff that the 24-year-old girls start getting mad at and saying I threaten them and they leave.
You know, just a little braggadocio humor.
Nobody's supposed to be that sure of themselves, Mr. Limbaugh.
Nobody is.
Nobody is.
And you're not either.
You're just thinking it.
Yeah, right.
Okay.
Snerdley's question.
Could the Limbaugh theorem explain Obama's current woes?
Still in campaign mode, no governance.
Low information voters have no emotion left for campaigns after the election.
They know he can't run again.
They're not investing in Obama's campaigns on guns, immigration sequester.
They've checked out.
I think that there is some validity to that.
He can't run again.
And there's no reason, therefore, to blindly support him so that that says something about you.
And there is this phenomenon called emotional exhaustion.
You just can't keep people a fevered pitch.
And Obama's now in year five of the other guys did it.
And this is, I think, the Limbaugh theorem actually explains why the media is upset.
And why the grab soundbite number two.
I think the Limbaugh theorem explains why the media is unsettled by all of this.
They're actually, I've got it somewhere here in a stack, or maybe it's a soundbite from somebody, but somebody in the press actually says, when is he going to start governing?
And that's it in a nutshell.
They're starting to notice that Obama has no relationship to anything that happens.
When he talked about what happened in Boston, it was all about the Boston cops did this and the FBI didn't do that.
I mean, to explain the mistakes, it was always somebody else.
Well, the gun bill, yeah, the gun bill was what, well, the gun bill was his, but he still campaigned for it as though he's running for office and he's campaigning against these powerful forces, and the Democrats in the Senate were supposed to carry it.
Well, he didn't do anything to own it, but the media is attempting to attach ownership of the gun bill failure to Obama.
And then so he had to come out when it didn't work and express his anger because this thing was the gun bill was supposed to fail in the House.
It was supposed to sail through the Senate.
And he had left it up to the Democrats and the Senate, basically, to get it done.
And it didn't get done.
So, of course, it can't be his fault.
But I think it may be rearing its ugly head.
Here, we've got a media montage here.
That press conference the other day really rattled these guys in the media.
They thought that Obama's reelection was going to usher in an LBJ-style, great society avalanche of liberalism.
And they're getting worried now that Obama can't deliver.
He couldn't deliver his own party on a gun control bill.
Let's listen to the montage.
We've got Dan Balls, Jessica Yellen, Al Hunt, F. Chuck Todd, Bob Shrum, Tom Brokaw, Cokie Roberts.
Analogies made to Lyndon Johnson, and he should be more like Lyndon Johnson, breaking arms and legs and twisting everybody.
He's not LBJ.
Everybody knows that.
He's not LBJ.
He's not going to ever be LBJ.
The Lyndon Johnson comparison.
Why doesn't he just knock heads like LBJ did?
Lyndon Johnson gave quite a few press conferences, and he shut that down.
When you listen to the LBJ, that is leadership.
Where in the world did you see what I mean, folks?
No matter where you go in the media, they're now comparing him to LBJ.
They all are.
It's just like Gravitas.
They're all on this thing.
Now, what do they love about LBJ?
LBJ was a bully.
LBJ just, he knocked heads.
He did whatever he had to do to get done, whatever he wanted to get done.
They call that leadership.
And they're looking at Obama as sort of wimpy.
That's what all this means.
He's not LBJ.
Well, he should be, but he's never going to be.
He'll be Jay comparison.
LBJ gave quite a few press conferences.
He shut that down.
When you listen to LBJ, that's leadership, meaning we're not hearing that from Obama.
I'm telling you, they're upset.
They're bugged.
They're worried.
Wind chills of 20 degrees in Oklahoma today as the program began.
I just checked here: 39 degrees in Kansas City.
Now, Al Gore was out in LA earlier this week at the Milken Institute's annual global forum.
I happened to appear at the Milken Institute Annual Global Forum two years ago.
I was on a panel with Willie Brown and Harold Ford.
So it might have been three years ago, and I forget which.
Obviously, the subject was Obama and the economy.
And I'm telling you, I was in enemy territory.
I mean, I mean, it was at the Beverly Hilton Hotel where they do the People's Choice Awards or the Golden Globes or something.
The place where Whitney Houston died.
And I was getting booed and smirked.
But Michael Milken told me sometime later that they surveyed their guests, people coming from all over the world with this thing.
And I had a 62, 37% favorable rating when the whole thing was over.
He's told me this.
He's tried to get me back.
Anyway, Gore was out there and he went nuts again on global warming.
And he started telling these people that our children and grandchildren are going to, in years, say to us, What were you thinking?
Because their world is going to be destroyed.
And he was, it's not a hoax.
It is happening.
It is real.
And we are doing it.
It just went on and on and on.
Apparently, the audience at this thing happened to love it because it's all Hollywood types.
And he got an Oscar for his hoax movie on this.
But every time this guy goes public, a snowstorm happens, a cold wave hits, 20-degree wind chill in Oklahoma as the program started.
39 degrees in Kansas.
It's May the 2nd.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbo, you can't, everybody knows that you can't take day-to-day weather and say that it's climate science.
No, wait a minute.
When it's 100 degrees in July, you guys do it.
I guarantee you that if it were 90 degrees in Oklahoma City today, they'd be pointing at it and say, global warming, global warming.
The wind chills are 20 degrees, and they're saying, climate change, climate change, dramatic weather changes, unreal, inexplicable changes in weather, climate change, climate change, man-made.
Whatever happens, they've got it set up so that whatever extreme happens, we people are causing it.
Grab somebody three.
Hilary Rosen, as you know, well-known leftist Democrat, Democrat National Committee, PR babe.
She is a Democrat strategerist now on CNN.
And in fact, she was on with Aaron Burnett last night.
She warning the White House that Obama can't spend his whole second term looking like a guy who can't fix anything.
I'm telling you, folks, it's the Limbaugh theorem that has reared its head here.
And these people, without knowing it, are identifying it.
The Limbaugh Theorem, let me tell you where this came from.
For those of you new to the program, because it's some months old.
I saw a New York Times story that had a, it was polling data, and it had the most unbelievable data in it.
Without giving you the numbers, because I don't remember them specifically, but it said that a vast majority of the American people disagree with the direction the country's going and disagree with the Obama agenda, but overwhelmingly approve of his job performance.
I looked at that, I said, wait a minute, how can that be?
And as you well know, for the entire four-plus years of his administration, we've been asking ourselves, how can it be that the economy continues to worsen, that more millions of people continue to lose their jobs, that the universe of jobs, the labor force continues to shrink in this country, the housing market, everything, it continues to plummet and get worse.
The debt gets worse.
The deficit gets worse.
Government's getting bigger.
And yet the guy got reelected.
I've been pulling my hair out, what little is left, trying to intellectually understand this.
And I said, it can't just be chalked up to low-information voters.
There has to be a reason.
And a light went on when I was in the process of doing what I'm doing now, explaining all this and asking what explains this.
And I finally figured it out.
The people of this country who overwhelmingly approve of Obama's job performance obviously do not associate his agenda with what's happening.
So then I said, how can that be?
This is the first president in history in a horrible economy who is not attached to it, who is not associated with it.
And it finally hit me.
He is constantly campaigning.
He is not seen as governing.
Instead, his supporters see him as continually fighting all of this that's happening.
It's all remnants of the Bush years.
And Obama is a valiant fighter.
He's a knight in shining armor trying as hard as he can to stop all this.
But as hard as he's working, it continues to get worse because the Republicans won't help him.
So I kept developing the theory, eventually called it the Limbaugh Theorem, and explored it further and got into it deeper.
And it makes total sense once you understand what he's doing.
He's constantly campaigning.
He's never governing.
None of what happened up until the gun control thing, and even that's kind of iffy.
None of what happened is associated with his policies.
His policies are seen by people as trying to fix it.
Like, for example, I'm going to reduce your premium by $2,500.
And you keep your doctor.
And if you like your plan, you can keep it.
And whatever I do, I'm not going to add one dime to the deficit.
People hear him say that because of the relationship they have with him.
They believe him.
So when the deficit grows, it can't be him because he said he's not going to do anything that even adds a dime to it.
So it must be those Republicans who these people have been trained to hate.
And the Republicans are constantly portrayed as uncooperative and constantly in opposition.
They are partisan.
They don't compromise.
They don't help.
They're not bipartisan.
They don't cross.
And poor old Obama, well, he's just working as hard as anybody ever has, but these Republicans just won't help him.
And they're the ones making.
And that has to be what the answer is.
That's the Limbaugh theorem.
Well, what's happening here is the media had visions.
They had the wildest utopian dreams when he won re-election.
They thought that it was going to be four years of an LBJ-style great society, too, with every liberal dream just automatically happening.
And none of it has.
And Obama hasn't changed.
He's still positioning himself as unattached to what's happening.
He's still seen campaigning, raising money for a campaign organization, running against the Republicans, blaming everybody else for what's going on while claiming lying that Obamacare is going to lower your premium 25, still saying these kinds of things while it's being implemented, and everything he's saying is not true, but he is not blamed for it.
He's still seen as the guy fighting these invisible, powerful forces.
Well, then the gun control bill comes along, and that's, I think, what really has shaken up the left in the media.
That was supposed to be automatic as far as these people are concerned.
You got to look at, you had Aurora, Colorado happen.
You had the Sandy Hook elementary at Newtown.
They had these horrible things.
In their minds, it just stands to reason.
Everybody would blame the gun.
Everybody would agree we've got to get rid of them.
It just can't go on.
And yet, something as simple as so-called, it's not what it was, but it was portrayed as, just even more detailed background checks.
Fails in the Senate, which is run by the Democrats.
And these media people are saying LBJ would have never let that happen.
LBJ would have called these senators up while he was in the bathroom and made them come in the bathroom while he was using it while he reamed them.
Look it up.
That happened.
That's why they're all now comparing him to LBJ.
They can't believe it, folks.
Gun control bill, it was supposed to go to the House and fail so they could blame the Republicans, just like immigration is supposed to go to the House.
Rubio, we've been talking about Marco this week.
Senator Rubio said on April 30th, the Gang of Eights immigration bill can't pass the House.
Amnesty, right?
It cannot pass the House.
He knows this.
It can't pass the House.
That's why the Democrats are all in on this.
It's not supposed to become law right now.
Immigration amnesty is supposed to fail in the House because the objective is winning the House for the Democrats 2014.
So gun control is supposed to be the Republicans' fault.
Immigration reform failing, Republicans' fault.
Those are the two and more campaign issues Obama, the Democrats plan to use next year.
Well, the gun control thing's out the window now because it's the Democrats that killed it.
And now he was livid that didn't go according to plan.
Now they're blaming him for not working it hard enough.
But about LBJ, the left has a lot of false gods.
The left puts a lot of faith in a lot of people in the past that were dismal failures that they think are the greatest things that ever lived, people ever lived.
LBJ was such a great leader, he couldn't even run for reelection in 1968.
If you recall, LBJ refused to run.
It was so bad.
After his implementation of great society and the war on poverty, now Vietnam was the big culprit, but still, as far as the Democrats are concerned, LBJ, that's the model.
LBJ is the guy.
That's who we got to get Obama to be like, LBJ.
Well, the truth of the matter is that LBJ was so great, such a wonderful leader, that he couldn't even run for reelection in 1968.
That's how good he was.
So these leftists and Democrats put their faith in all these people that at the end of the day don't prove to be what they really think they are to live up their reputations.
And you could say, could it not be said that it was LBJ deciding not to run in 68 who arguably made possible election of Richard Nixon?
Who they hated.
So I think that what's happening is the media, without realizing it, is starting to perceive this limbaugh theorem.
They're starting to see how Obama's behaving, why, what, for, and all, and they don't like it.
They want him to be the boss.
We're supposed to have liberal utopianism every day implemented since his inauguration.
And this soundbite from Hillary Rosen that we have coming up, you'll hear it.
She pretty much says that to Obama, you can't look like you're giving up and blame it all on the Republicans.
Wait until you hear this, right after this.
Here is Hillary Rosen last night with Erin Burnett, who said, if Obama can't get anything done, then what's the point of a second term?
It's worth the White House paying attention to this, is that the president should never say I've done everything I can do, because nobody ever has, right?
There's always more to do.
There's always more to try, and you can never be seen as kind of throwing up your hands and saying, well, it's all on them and I'm done.
And I think that that's kind of the one sort of maybe even stylistic mistake that the president made in the press conference or that he's making now is that he needs to give people more that they can do and he needs to keep doing more himself.
The president can never say, you know, it's up to you guys now.
He always has to have some new activity that he and other people can do to keep trying.
Hillary, seriously, the reason he can't or won't do that is because he refuses to put his fingerprints on anything.
The key here is a constant campaign that appears to have him in opposition to everything that's happening.
That's the key to this.
That's the key to Obama, and he cares about himself.
Here's Steve in Chicago.
Steve, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for having me, and thanks for all that you do.
You were touching on the Los Angeles Times being in trouble.
And I think that they're symptomatic of many papers in the country in that it's very similar to MSNBC, which regularly is at the bottom of the ratings.
If they can't get people to flick on the television to get their message, how are they going to get people to actually buy and read their paper?
Well, it's a great question, and I can only answer that within the mindset of the rank-and-file, not management.
The rank-and-file journalist will tell you that he doesn't care about that and that he shouldn't have to care.
He shouldn't have to care about the business aspect of his job at all.
He shouldn't have to care about the bottom line.
He shouldn't have to care about ad sales.
He shouldn't have to care about any of that.
His job is the journalism, and the business side is other people's.
And if the readers are too stupid to understand the great job being done, that's their problem, not the reporters.
Exactly.
The ideology, who are they going to, are they going to get the under-30 crowd to buy their paper and sit and actually read it?
No way.
And the other crowd, the knowledge seekers, they've all left.
I'm going to tell you, for mainstream journalists, if they wanted to fix, or at least be part of fixing their industry, they would become intimately aware of and involved with the business success of the enterprise where they worked.
But right now, that's beneath them.
That cheapens their devotion to objectivity or whatever it is they tell themselves.
There is a new eating disorder and it is spreading.
It is called orthorexia.
Orthorexia.
It happens when people eat what they are told is a healthier diet and they stop eating what's good for them unknowingly.
▲
Export Selection