All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:02
May 30, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I see, ladies and gentlemen, that during the break, Drudge has put up a story.
The report says the IRS audited five pro-Israel groups critical of the White House policy.
Welcome back to the show.
It's Doug Rbanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh, El Rushbo, Ali Limbali, the Doctor of Democracy is not here.
He'll be back next week.
Mark Stein, as you know, we'll be here on Monday and Tuesday.
I am here tomorrow for Open Line Friday.
Answer any of your questions that you may have.
It's the day where Rush takes a big risk.
We'll talk about that tomorrow.
Um, ladies and gentlemen, yes, the IRS audited five pro-Israel groups that were critical of the White House policy.
Look, this this string is going to continue to unravel.
My spies tell me that we will eventually see uh that individuals were targeted.
Now, um curious story out there.
I don't know how many of you caught this.
This escaped the mainstream media.
Are you aware?
You all know that there were some Tea Party protests at a couple of IRS offices, and that was back on the 21st of May, roughly uh ten, nine, ten days ago.
And the whole point of this testimony is it's not a hundred years ago.
This is very relevant story.
I do not know if you caught this story.
Why?
Why was the Department of Homeland Security monitoring Tea Party IRS demonstrations?
Why?
What on earth is the Department of Homeland Security doing when they should be out there?
Aren't they supposed to be out there protecting us against foreign enemies or enemies who are armed with explosives and hateful ideologues, etc.?
Of course, to this to this bunch, they consider the Tea Parties are the enemy.
They're more worried about domestic enemies, and to qualify these days, I suppose all you have to be armed with is not explosive, but just the Constitution.
If your armor is love of country, then my I guess they're gonna look at you.
And they apparently were not only just watching Tea Partiers in San Jose, but also San Francisco.
More on this later on.
Now, Jonathan Turley wrote a very interesting story a few days ago.
It has been mentioned here and there.
I want to go into it in some in some depth, because it it goes to the heart of what I was saying in the first hour.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are at the beginning of an era where the question is, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party or a conservative?
If a division of law enforcement, and that is what we are told the IRS is, is ultimately the enforcer of Obamacare.
What questions will they not stop at asking?
This is a this remember, this is a group that said, please tell us the nature of your the content of your prayers.
You couldn't make it up.
So the question of our time is, are we at the beginning of the era where you are asked, are you now or have you ever been?
Is it a witch hunt?
A witch hunt against conservative thought.
Now, Turley, in the Washington Post, seems quite concerned about this.
He's a lawyer, he's an interesting lawyer.
And he writes that the growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself.
He writes, it is not just bigger, it is dangerously off-kilter.
He says our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch.
Which to any of us merely watching that testimony ten days or so ago, you you this is what was already crossing your mind.
He writes, a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy, which means that they're not answerable to anyone, and decreasing transparency, meaning they don't care if they're not answerable, they're not gonna let you know what's going on.
You're not gonna be able to get a flashlight and look around inside these departments.
He says the rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress's lawmaking Authority.
In fact, the vast majority of quote laws governing the United States are not passed by Congress, but are issued as regulations crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I talked about this before.
I've talked about this on this show.
At some point, yes, we've got to throw away the tax system.
And yes, we've got to abolish the IRS.
No question.
Where is the GOP in saying this?
Where is the GOP on defunding Obamacare?
I'll get into that tomorrow some more.
GOP, listen up.
Please, listen up.
This is your chance.
I've said this before.
One of the main things you could do to help save this country would be to take away the authority of the regulatory agencies to enact what is in effect law.
Because this lawmaking of the regulatory agencies, this activity of the IRS, all of this seems to happily roll along without any accountability at all.
And they don't care.
They sit there brazenly.
You know, some of the answers that you got from Mr. Miller, the sort of answers that if if you got them from a from your nine-year-old kid, he'd smack him.
I mean, I know this politically incorrect to say, okay, fine.
But the answers were those sort of smart alecky answers that you don't accept from a kid.
Rule making activities, no accountability.
Congress does hold the purse strings, and yet no one seems to care.
And by the way, the judiciary, the judiciary branch of our government, as Turley points out in his piece in the Washington Post, the judiciary also has seen its authority diminished because these regulatory agencies now have their own what's called administrative courts.
Did you know this?
Did you know this?
So the result of this is that if you're a citizen, you are ten times more likely to be tried by an agency.
You are ten times more likely to be tried by a government agency than by an actual court.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Now, the White House, the federal agency is by the way, they they officially report to the White House.
They are under the umbrella of the executive branch.
And yet we are told it's all too big, no one can handle it.
Congress is the place where the citizenry is represented.
They have been marginalized in the process, no one really cares.
The fourth branch of government represents it represents something that is the single biggest change in our system in our government, in the way we function and live than anything else since the founding of this country.
So the IRS is watching and waiting.
Any group that says to you, detail the content of your members' prayers, that considers itself a law enforcement an arm of law enforcement, who ultimately will be the enforcers of health care.
And as I said earlier, I know of no other country that has a law, an arm of law enforcement, that has the potential to ultimately be the enforcers of health care.
It's bizarre.
Please, less departments, less agencies, less control.
We do not need a nanny to dictate every single facet of our lives.
By definition, ladies and gentlemen, anything larger has more and more power to oppress.
Now, Baraba, Barack Obama, he is at the center of all of this.
Because he is to the liberal cause, he is a politician that comes please understand this to these folks.
He is a politician that comes along not once in a decade, or once in a generation, or even once in a century.
He is to them a once in history walking opportunity for progressives to ultimately gain complete control of the country over you.
That is why the immigration matter is so serious.
And side by side with the immigration matter, very rarely talked about, is Texas.
Do you not think that Texas is in the sights of the liberals of Obama of Axelrod and his gang?
They would love to see Texas flip.
The way that they got California and Colorado to flip.
In other words, once you pass the immigration reform bill, talk about that tomorrow.
Once you flip Texas, immigration reform, those things, not a chance that conservatism or the nation survives as we know it.
Ladies and gentlemen, no nation has ever recovered from a cycle of entitlement from something we can call aristocratic rot, even.
We find ourselves in it now.
But no nation, except for ours was founded precisely in opposition to these things.
The people paying attention, they're watching very closely.
Federal agencies, federal agencies out of control, must be looked at.
The minute they're running their own court systems, the minute Americans are being tried in courts that are run by government regulatory agencies.
We we've we've we've got a terrible problem.
So what was the Department of Homeland Security doing monitoring Tea Party IRS demonstrations?
Can an agency that says, please detail the content of your members' prayers, let us know what you read.
Let us see the literature you're handing out.
Is this the same agency that when it's running your health care down the road can say, you know, do you um is it true that you were critical of the idea of the collective at some point?
We need to know before you can have your um your hernia operation.
Uh, how's this works?
Such a slippery slope, ladies and gentlemen.
Now we're gonna talk about Lois Lerner when I come back, and then we're gonna get to the to the Jeffrey Lord story, the smoking gun that takes us almost right to the door of the White House in the IRS scandal.
We're gonna talk about Lois Lerner because she goes up there and she takes the fifth.
You remember, is anyone remember that scene in The Godfather?
Where is it Luca Brazi who's in the audience?
It's Frank Pentangelo, thank you, HR, where they bring in Frank Pentangelo.
And the guy who's going to give the testimony subtly changes.
I got a little bit of that feeling watching Miss Lerner.
I got a scoot for a break, ladies and gentlemen, it's Dugger Bansky filling in for Russian.
I'll get to your calls and much more when we return.
Be right back.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen to the Russian Limbaugh Show.
Douglas Strabanski filling in for Rush.
I'll get to your calls in a moment, phone number 1800-282-2882.
There's an old Chinese expression.
When the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger.
Please bear that in mind as the as the administration attempts to misdirect your attention and the mainstream media.
Mainstream media is not listen, they may not be going to Holders guidelines meeting, but they're not going to turn on these people just yet.
Now we were talking about Mr. Lerner.
Miss Lerner from the IRS, this is Lois Lerner, Miss Lois, I've done nothing wrong, learner from the IRS.
Miss Lerner, who says I have done nothing wrong, and she gave that testimony, and as H.R. reminded me, or Mike reminded me during the last segment, like Frank Pentangelo in The Godfather, almost as if her cousin was had been brought into the audience and suddenly she had to clam up.
She says that she's done nothing wrong.
And yet, yet there are signed letters from her to Tea Party groups a year ago that asked them to turn over everything from printouts of their Facebook pages to the credentials of speakers who participate, the names of speakers and their credentials who participated in their events.
So obviously we all know Jay Secolo is out there, he's the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
These letters, ladies and gentlemen, give you a pay per trail that show her direct involvement in sending intrusive and harassing questionnaires to people.
She did she did nothing to stop this abusive conduct.
When she says I've done nothing wrong, what she means is, if you could put a subtitle under her, what she means is when she's saying the words I've done nothing wrong, the subtitle would read, Mike Targety of people I consider to be the bad guys is justified.
When she says I've done nothing illegal, the subtitle would say, I'm just following orders that required me to do my job, that allowed me to do my job.
Just following orders.
Then we go to the White House.
And there's White House counsel, Catherine Rumler.
Her name has been thrown around as the new one who may have been the one who knew in the White House.
We've not yet got close to Jarrett and Axelrod, we will.
Let's remember something about the White House.
This White House, at some point, when was it?
Maybe February?
Some White House staffer screamed at Bob Woodward.
Do you remember this?
And they they sent an email out, and it had to do with the fact that Woodward Woodward had challenged the narrative that Obama himself was stating about the sequestration.
And Woodward was saying, wait a minute, this isn't true.
None of this is true.
The narrative is that the sequestration was Obama's idea.
And Obama was saying it was the Republicans' idea, but it wasn't true.
And they wrote an email to Woodward.
I remember this distinctly, and they said to him he'd regret challenging Obama's narrative.
And then you start thinking about the times that bubble up in your memory about the amount of times that they've that they have overreacted to journalists and others.
And you think of Valerie Jarrett, you think of the Chicago way.
She told the New York Times in a profile, I think it was last year, sometime maybe August, September.
She said that she had a tendency to take political criticism personally.
And in that profile, the Times reported that Jarrett had Jarrett had attacked ACLU president Anthony Romero for criticizing the administration's atrocious handling of the war on terror.
And she didn't like that at all.
That's the that's the Chicago way.
And then you had economic advisor Gene Sperling haranguing Woodwards.
It wasn't just Jarrett, it was a whole culture of go after the enemy, target the enemy, get the enemy.
And so that empowers the people inside these places.
So anyway, Lois Lerner decides to invoke the fifth.
Now, is she invoking the fifth?
These are the questions you start to feel a little bit like Lieutenant Columbo.
Is she invoking the fifth to protect herself?
Or is she invoking the fifth to protect others?
Her defense lawyer is a guy named William Taylor, by the way, I am told by someone who knows him that he's a very, very good attorney.
If he's so good, then what's going on with this sort of half testimony, half taking the fifth, where people are debating whether or not listen, maybe she did waive her Fifth Amendment rights, maybe she didn't.
But the fact that you're debating it at all is a problem.
Maybe it was clever.
You have Jay Carney, not to be confused with Arc Carney, the president's chief spokesman, he confirms that the White House staff, including White House counsel Kathy Rumler, and Chief of Staff, Dennis McDonough, knew about the IRS's habits as early as April 24th, and they chose not to tell Obama.
Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, there is a chance at all that they didn't tell Jarrett?
Do you think there's a chance at all that they didn't tell Axelrod?
You think there's a chance now I did an interesting thing.
If you take all the letters in the word Valerie Jarrett and The words Axelrod, David Axelrod, and you and you mix those letters all up on the table and put them back together, what they do is they spell Obama.
Because Jarrett and Axelrod are Obama.
I see on Fox News now the questions are being asked.
How much did the campaign of Obama have to do with the narrative concerning Benghazi?
I say it a half an hour ago.
Now it's being reported that everyone is looking into it.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Axelrod and Jarrett spell Obama.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Duggar Bansky filling in for Russia as you know.
1800-282-2882 is the phone number.
I'll get to your calls in just a moment.
I just want to go back in history.
Many of you know this, but it is very important to keep the story clear to keep the narrative alive.
Do not let them burn you out so they can say, well, Lois Lerner, that was a long time ago.
Benghazi, oh, who cares about that?
That was a long time ago.
Let us remember that Lois Lerner, the lady who took the fifth, she herself had a staged event where she wanted to sort of inaugurate and control the way the scandal would be revealed.
And she did this with a with a pre-arranged planted question and answer exchange during an American Bar Association conference on May the 10th, not long ago, ladies and gentlemen, within the past month.
She later claims that the reason that there was increased scrutiny of Tea Party groups was due to this, that there was an influx of new applications from right-wing organizations because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
And she claimed that that's what opened the floodgates to greater political participation by these nonprofit advocacy groups, which the White House had a great interest in shutting down, at least until election time, and they did not like the results of the 2010 election.
Now the Washington Post then looks into this claim of Lois Leonard, and they find that bogus too.
Their fact checker at the newspaper, they they they award it four Pinocchios, four Pinocchio rating for dishonesty.
By the way, I'm trying myself to get I would like to get a Geppetto rating at some point.
But ladies and gentlemen, you plead the fifth.
You're a government employee.
Why aren't you immediately fired?
You plead the fifth, and you're a government employee.
You should be fired.
You should be prevented from working in government for good.
I've got a lot more to say about this, but as I promised, I wanted to go to the calls.
Oh, Chuck is gone.
We lost him.
Okay.
That's all right.
That's all right.
Well, Chuck, if you still want to make your same point, feel free to call back.
But Lois, I got a lot of questions for Lois Lerner, ladies and gentlemen.
She she needs to answer questions.
Why?
Why did she never inform Congress that she knew that there was this criminal activity going on at the IRS?
Why did she not inform Congress that there was extra scrutiny being given to Tea Party people, conservative people, conservatives, patriots, other groups?
She took the fifth.
Which means either if I could answer, I would incriminate myself, or it means something else I'm covering up for somebody else.
Her lawyer, who I mentioned a few moments ago, I'm told is a very good lawyer, this William Taylor, he writes this letter.
He writes a letter to the committee, and he says, Oh, you can't let her testify.
He says, he says forcing her to testify would have no other purpose than to embarrass or burden her.
Is she not a public servant?
Is the IRS not an organization that works for us?
Embarrass her?
Embarrass her?
Don't embarrass her, a woman who's really been involved in hampering political speech and expression.
Embarrass her?
Be nice to her, be kind to her.
Yes, Miss Lerner, you didn't tell the IRS, you didn't tell the committee anything about the IRS or what was going on over there.
You testified four times last year, which by the way, in her bansky's way of thinking, that alone says she may have waived her Fifth Amendment privileges.
Ladies and gentlemen.
There was a little event called a presidential election last year in 2010, 2012.
Remember that one?
Obama's presidential election.
Why is it that this was going on?
We know why.
Where were you?
What were you doing?
Were you protecting the president from a scandal in an election year?
Were you lying the last times you visited us so that Obama could win reelection?
I find myself asking, and I'm not a lawyer, others are.
They'll address this if they haven't already.
What is the purpose of the Fifth Amendment?
What what is it designed for?
I I always felt it was designed so a person didn't have to incriminate his or herself.
But I do not think that the Fifth Amendment is there so that you could protect somebody else from a scandal.
So her lawyer Taylor writes to the House Committee, well, Lois has not committed or made any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances, she has no choice but to invoke the fifth.
Do you see, ladies and gentlemen, how crazy this is getting?
How crazy it is.
Your own attorney says, basically, you have no reason to take the fifth, except for the fact that you have to protect maybe other people.
Isn't it isn't that what he really means?
So Lois, who are you really working for?
Or is Frank are you Frank Pentangeli in the story?
I'm very uncomfortable with the whole idea of office holders taking the fifth from public servants taking the fifth.
It's fine for Lois to protect herself by not incriminating herself, but it is not fine.
It is not fine for the office to not function on behalf of the people's trust that paid for her and the IRS's services.
Any office holder should at a minimum be removed from office for taking the fifth.
And I don't think it should be a usable defense for a public servant.
Incidentally, this is claiming a right that the IRS very often denies anyone who opposes the IRS.
And just mentioning that too.
I want to know how the Fifth Amendment applies here.
I genuinely, Chuck managed to call back.
Chuck, welcome to the EIB network at Sugar Bansky filling in for Russ.
I'm so glad you called.
How are you today, sir?
I'm doing great.
And yourself, I hope.
Very good.
Good thanks.
What's on your mind?
You had something interesting.
Well, I tell you what, uh, my wife and I, we've been talking about this whole presidency and you know, going up to the second election and how close it was, too close to calling whatnot, and we sort of notice as we the middle of that summer, how all of the emails and phone calls and stuff from the Tea Party sort of sort of got real quiet there for a while.
And then uh after this, after the election, and he wanted everything, and this comes out, we sort of looked at each other and went, hmm.
This is kind of strange how all of a sudden now the intimidation and the suppression kind of worked because, you know, all the people, the left wing media and and all of the mouthpieces for the Obama administration had all this uh invested in him and all this hide and everything, a circle in the wagons, as Rush puts it.
Uh everything sort of it was there was too much invested here to let this one term slip away.
We had to win the second time around to get Obamacare and to get all these the gun thing, all that pushed through.
It was there was just too much on the line here.
And as you remember very surprised when he won at at his acceptance speech and all that.
He looked sort of like he almost expected it.
Even though it was a supposed to call.
And you know, Chuck, I'll tell you something.
What they what what they hated the results of the 2010 election.
Exactly.
And they they felt that was a warning that we gotta do everything because this could be close.
And Axelrod was concerned it was going to be close.
We all remember how the numbers started shifting after the first debate.
Um they wanted to ensure they knew the economy was disaster, that people in the country were unhappy.
They needed to stack the deck like rigging the World series as strongly as they could uh to help ensure anything.
So they left they left every every single uh stone um they uh they uncovered every single stone in their efforts to do it.
Would you agree?
I would definitely agree.
I mean, it just seems so uh necessary from their standpoint that Romney put up such a good uh a good reason for uh everything that he was about, uh, even though the conservatives weren't in lock step with him, it was just too close to call all the way down the line, too close, too close, too close, and they had to do something.
They had to do that.
Here's a question for you, Chuck.
Chuck, have you ever been uh inclined to be a flat or fair tax person?
Well, you know, I'll tell you I've thought about it, but uh any more with in light of this, it seems like a good idea.
Yeah, I you know, uh I I th isn't it funny how the more we see uh an agency gone amok that has the power of law enforcement in terms of your property, um, I think we're we're arriving quickly at the time where the next person who runs as a conservative for the White House will win if this is one of the things that they are strongly behind.
Why I am baffled why I'm not hearing one single person in the Congress coming out and talking about getting rid of the IRS and moving to a tax system that was transparent that everyone can understand.
I they love the fact that it's not transparent.
And wait, Chuck, I got a scoot.
I'm looking at the clock here.
I gotta run, but thank you so much for calling the Rush Glimbo Show.
It's Dugger Banski filling in for Rush.
We'll be right back.
Duggar Baskey back with you, filling in for Rush Limbaugh here, having almost as much fun as a human being should be allowed to have.
Uh Rush has the most fun, of course, when he's here, he'll be back next week, as you know, next Wednesday.
You know, if you watch the C-SPAN video of this Lois Learner as she was making her controversial opening remarks and these claims of innocence, claims of innocence prior to claiming the Fifth Amendment protection.
You look at this woman's face, and she is absolutely seething with rage.
Her tone of voice, the tombra of her voice, the pauses and her speech pattern, her volume, the emphasis, her sh blinking eyes.
Very, very agitated and very arrogant, very self-righteous, very angry, angry about being called to task on her actions, uh angry about being called to task on having made some serious mistakes, and mistakes are a mild word for what went on here.
We know that.
We may find out that there are past actions of hers that are very similar in nature.
We may find out yet a lot.
I mean, we're we are all of us waiting for one of those, you know, you can't handle the truth moments in this.
I I'm still trying to figure out how the Fifth Amendment applies.
Um I always think it's a right that belongs to individual citizens that are testifying in court after they've been charged with a crime.
I don't know how it applies to a branch of government, a branch of government that is overseen by the authority of the House of Representatives.
I don't see how if you've got oversight authority and you're in your Congress, and you're questioning an upper level manager of another branch of government about that branch of government's actions, I don't know how the fifth applies.
I'm not a lawyer.
Others can explain this to you.
I mean, unless she's in court testifying as an individual citizen, it seems to me it does not apply.
I mean, this is basically a case of the boss, the boss in this instance being the House of Representatives, asking the subordinate the subordinate, what the heck was going on in your department?
And the person saying back, you know, I I uh I'm not gonna tell you.
I'm gonna take the fifth.
I'm not gonna tell you what was going on in our department.
I'm gonna take the fifth.
And did you see, you saw Miller, very dismissive of the Congressman questioning him.
I'm unacceptably dismissive.
And then you've got Sarah Hall Ingram.
Do you know that she's one of the five-figure bonuses?
She got a five-figure bonus.
You know those bonuses that suddenly increased by about 500% about the same time the IRS started targeting conservatives.
I'm not even comfortable with the idea of government employees getting a $30,000 plus bonus.
Let alone getting them for more than a couple of years running.
Now she, Sarah Hall Ingram, has not appeared before Congress yet.
Yet, yet, yet.
She will.
She will appear.
Now, I want to I want to tell you something else, ladies and gentlemen.
That is this.
And this will take up much of the final hour of today's show.
I don't know how many of you are even aware that, and I must tell you, Jeffrey Lord's reporting in The American Spectator is superb on this.
Superb.
And when we do the third hour today, we're going to have the smoking gun that brings us right to the doorsteps of the White House.
How many of you are aware, even that the IRS has a union.
That if you work at the IRS, you're a member of something called the National Treasury Employees Union.
NTEU.
That union is the union that operates the IRS.
Now, we're going to get into how cozy, I mean, really cozy the relationship is between that union and this White House.
You're going to have your eyes opened.
Lois Learner telling people that these were not partisan selections.
I'll take the fifth.
We're only serving the public interest by stopping conservatives, is what they're really saying.
We need to stop them.
We need to express our own views.
What if you eventually criticize Obamacare like I may do today, like I may certainly do tomorrow when I'm with you?
If you criticize Obamacare, which the public does not want, does that mean eventually someone can say that you are an enemy of the people, an enemy of the state?
Will the IRS, in addition to asking you, well, what prayers do you say, what materials do you read?
The insidious thing about people who are committed lefties, and when they're inside government, and there's a lot of them inside government, is that the lefties, ladies and gentlemen, do you need to be reminded they live their ideology?
They they do everything, everything based upon how it conforms to their ideological views.
And that gives them the ability to suggest rather than direct.
I don't know.
I have no idea if Axelrod or Obama or Jarrett gave any orders, but they didn't have to, is the point.
Their minions don't need explicit direction to turn the power of the IRS or any power they've gathered on anyone they perceive as an enemy, and anyone they perceive as an opponent.
These minions implicitly, in their DNA, they understand the ideological objective.
They know that turning the power of the government on their opposition was simply what one did.
When one had the power to do so, and that is what these people did.
It's the Chicago way, Chicago thuggery, Rush has talked about it before.
This is what thugs do.
It's not rocket science, is it?
They do it because they can get away with it.
It's Dugger Bansky filling in for Rush.
Got a scoop me right back.
Dugabansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
So why?
Why, why, why are they targeting conservatives?
Do we have to explain it?
It's for self-preservation.
That's all.
It's self-preservation.
Look, ladies and gentlemen, you know, you know it already.
To these folks, leftism is a religion.
It is it is a an all-encompassing, all demanding faith.
It's true believers, can I say that they're like freelance jihadis?
I know that that's what they consider conservatives very often.
They don't need to be told what to do.
Anything that's an obstacle to them, to their ultimate triumph of the all embracing universal state, things like the family, religions, conservatives.
That is the devil.
▲
Export Selection