All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
May 31, 2013, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, yes, yes, it is true, ladies and gentlemen, Doug Urbanski here.
Rush Limbaugh, the biggest show in America is Rush is not here today.
He'll be back next Wednesday, Mark Stein, who we all love listening to.
Mark Stein will be here on Monday and Tuesday.
And speaking Monday and Tuesday, today, as you know, is Friday.
Live from the left post at our satellite studios in Los Angeles.
It's open line Friday.
You know what Open Line Friday means.
The phone number for Open Line Friday is 1800-282-2882.
What open line Friday means, in case there's anybody new to this show, especially new to me here, as you know, Rush takes the biggest risk in all the broadcasting by opening up the lines on Fridays to things that you want to talk about all week long.
We listen attentively on the edge of our seats to the things Rush wants to talk about.
On Fridays, he opens up the lines.
And he allows us, guests' hosts, to do the same thing.
He takes a double risk because today he not only opens opens up the lines, but he allows a genuine Hollywood insider to be here helming the show.
So welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
It's Dugger Bansky filling in for Rush.
Mark Stein will be here on Monday and Tuesday, and Rush will be back on Wednesday.
I have um a couple of questions for you today.
Couple questions.
Um how long do you think it's going to be?
Uh until we hear the words executive privilege invoked.
I'm just asking the question.
Because I'm well, look, the White House, I'm coming to the conclusion that the Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore.
I'm coming to the conclusion very fast.
We're asking all these lofty questions.
What is the relationship between government and its people?
What is the nature of that relationship?
Where should that relationship go?
What does the Constitution say?
What did our founding fathers mean?
And all of this at nighttime you start thinking, what does the Constitution seem to have to do with anything anymore?
And by that, what I mean is, if the people whose job it is to obey the law and to enforce the law, don't have anyone watching them to make sure that they obey and enforce the law.
Well, then what does it all matter?
I have got a few answers I'll share with you as today's journey unfolds, but what does it all matter?
You remember Ginsburg?
Justice Ginsburg told the entire world to not look at our Constitution for guidance.
Clearly, on that day, Obama and Holder were listening.
Don't look to the Constitution for guidance.
Patron saint of liberalism.
He wanted to revise it.
Rewrite it.
The Obama people are much cleverer than that.
They just ignore it.
To them, it's just some old dusty piece of paper standing written by a bunch of old dead racist white men.
And it gets in the way of their glorious, their glorious progressive revolution.
So it's very, very doesn't really matter.
The low information voter, of which, I mean, we have learned the hard way is what most people who pull the lever are, if you're bothering to even pull the lever.
And it's very, very hard to be a high information voter.
And even if you're paying attention.
Because you are stressed, you've got wives, children, college tuitions, jobs.
I mean, everyone is stressed by the by the activities of a stressful life, and it's not getting any easier, as we all know.
By the way, I want to thank many of you for the incredible emails I received yesterday.
Um, thank you so much.
You found me somehow.
I don't know how you did it, but but thank you very much for that.
The Constitution.
We could sit here all day long, and there are people who do, and who understand it and who explain it magnificently and brilliantly and beautifully.
And yes, there are intelligent people attempting in their lives to pay attention to what all this means, and much of it is profound.
When you dig into the Constitution and our founders, if you're a person who is religious and who believes in almighty God, you know that there was a moment there when a finger reached down from above and touched these men and touched what they did.
I may have mentioned to you before, I'm a little bit of a George Washington fanatic.
I read everything I can about this man.
I've done so for years, obsessed with George Washington.
I start to believe that there's almost no more remarkable person who ever lived on the planet.
Now, is any of that going to be helpful?
Is any of this going to be helpful to the low information voter?
Is an intelligent conversation that you might get at a college course about the Constitution, about original intent.
I start to think that we're all chasing our tails when we start talking about this.
I I'm not equipped to talk about it in any depth because I'm not an expert on it.
I'm I can follow what I'm taught about it, as you can.
And I'm a high information voter.
I'm a high and English is my first language.
My only language, but it is my first language.
So where do we go?
How do we protect ourselves?
Do we have lofty conversations about the Constitution, about original intent, about lawmakers?
Ladies and gentlemen, the founders were brilliant men.
The finger of Almighty God reached down and touched them.
There's no question about this.
And they passed laws because they did not trust men.
This is a key thing that even you low information folks can understand.
Men were not to be trusted.
Men are not to be trusted.
They're corrupt, they're corruptible.
The laws needed to be above men, not men above the law.
Everything is upside down now.
So the question, the question I find myself pondering is no longer a lofty question about the nature of the relationship between government and the people or the nature of how we treat the Constitution or what original intent was, or learning the nuances.
I mean, heck, I watched as you did, as many of you did, and if you didn't, you heard about it or saw the replays, if you could find it, of these IRS officials out there testifying, and you saw before your own eyes, you saw a fourth branch of government.
A fourth branch, unanswerable to anyone, unanswerable with no oversight, inventing their own very corrupt laws and rules.
Like a secret police force, I'll get in more to that in a little while.
You saw it with your own eyes, and now other people are writing about it.
We talked about Jonathan Turley's article yesterday.
I see that Peggy Noonan has written about this in the Wall Street Journal today, this whole idea of this regulatory branch of government, and it is not limited only to the IRS, and it's scary because they pass these things that are called regulations, although they're they are, you can use the word regulation all you want.
They're laws.
They're laws, with the full power and effect of laws and handcuffs and fines and confiscation, which when you stop and think about it, is quite violent, quite violent power the state has and uses this fourth branch of unintended government.
It's got to stop.
I mean, I've talked about this before.
Let me go back a little bit.
I was visiting with you, I had the chance to visit with you twice, at the end of the year of 2012 and at the beginning of the new year.
And in the course of preparing to come and talk to you, uh, H.R. and I were having our conversations, and I was saying to H.R., you know, I'm I'm thinking, I'm having strange thoughts that I never really had before.
I had said this on other shows and last year as well, during 2011 and 2012.
I was having thoughts, not because I'm psychic, maybe a little bit, but not because I'm psychic.
I was having thoughts that the time may have come to really abandon the tax code.
We must abandon it.
We must.
I was not a I was not a person beating the drum on this, but I was saying this to H.R., the time has come for us to re-look at this 76,000 page, if that's how long it is, but it's something like that monstrosity, designed with no other Intent, than to be complicated, to be confusing, and to be used as a tool to harass.
And by the way, the dirty little secret here is that both parties are accomplices in this darn thing.
Both parties, I said to you yesterday, and I've said it back in, well, I've said it last year elsewhere.
Both parties like it.
There is no call to get rid of this tax code.
Now, as long as you have a tax code this big, you have something that by design is not only not understandable, but is not transparent.
So H.R. and I were having a conversation before I came here to visit with you back in early January, and I said, you know, I'm I'm going to start I I think the time has come on the Limbaugh show to do something risky, and that is introduce in a subtle and artful way the idea that one is flirting with ways to protect yourself, to protect the country from the low information voter.
And there are a number of ways that come up in your imagination if you're a thinking person about how you do that.
And one of the ways you do that is to say, well, we must toss out this tax code.
It's got to be one page long, very simple, flat, fair, income, something that's understandable and transparent, that has no wiggle room around the margins for corruption.
By the way, when you're having these conversations, you also start to think, well, maybe the time has come to.
I've never been a term limit person.
But I don't know, ladies and gentlemen, the more and more I start thinking about it and the effect of low information voters.
I don't say, by the way, when I say the phrase low information voters, I have no disdain for them.
I have none whatsoever.
I have none.
I'm interested in freedom, liberty, free enterprise.
This is this is where this is the main thing.
Constitution, all this aside, the conversation about what works, about what makes sense in the promotion of liberty, free expression, free enterprise.
I don't like the word capitalism because it's a Marxist word, and it's meant to be an ugly word.
I mean, I love capitalism, but it's meant to be ugly, so I don't use it.
But what do we do about low information voters?
So H.R. and I have this conversation, and um he said, Well, do you really think that um that you should talk about the I said, yes, I will talk about it a little bit here.
And I said to HR, at some point, I think in the next three, six months, everyone's gonna be talking about getting rid of the tax code.
Everyone except apparently politicians, apparently everyone except the people who can do something about it.
And um, I'm looking at the clock, gentlemen, I've not lost my place.
I'm gonna have to take a short break.
I'm gonna have to scoot.
And when I come back, I'm going to have to go further into this as to why I was talking about it back then, which had nothing to do with the prescient sense of scandals that would be erupting.
It had to do with another sense.
I'll explain all of that to you very shortly when we come back.
Look, it's uh the phone number here, it's open line Friday, as you know.
The phone number here is 1800-282-2882.
It is Duggar Bansky filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be right back.
All right, welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Show, ladies and gentlemen, Doug Arbanski here filling in for the vacationing Rush Limbaugh, who will be back very soon.
The phone number, it's open line Friday, as you know, the phone number is 1800 282-288-2.
I welcome your calls.
And it doesn't have to be on the topics I'm talking about.
I mean, I get, I don't know, I get something like um anywhere between a hundred and three hundred, sometimes higher calls or emails to my office about the film business.
People, conservatives are very interested in the film business, so you know, and I try and respond, it's almost impossible to do so.
But I want to go back to what I was saying, which is this.
The we were discussing H.R. and I back in January, early January, late December, this idea that I would come on here and speak to you and talk about the fact that one's mind is noodling around with the notion of a flat or fair tax.
And this morning when H.R. and I were discussing this, he said, How did you know?
Did you have a sense back then of what was going to happen?
Of course I did not have a sense.
Not surprised it was happening, but certainly had no sense about it.
Where I was coming from when I went into this topic back in November, back in December, and back in January with you, and the oblique ways I did it, Was simply this.
We watch Obama, and you know, and I know that the media loves this man, and I don't see them, I'm I don't want to be a pessimist with you.
I want to come here and be upbeat.
I don't see them eventually turning on him.
I see them carrying his water all the time, all the way as they they go along with these complications.
They pretend like they're not protecting them, but at the end of the day, I don't see it changing.
The media is is in the tank for this guy, as Rush reminds you all the time.
I've not seen it change.
The the Limbaugh theorem is absolutely in effect every place you turn.
I was coming from a place when we were talking about this that took into account the need to speak over the heads of the media.
And conservatives would say to me, including people connected with big conservative campaigns, well, how do you speak over the heads of the media?
And I would say what's it's actually much easier to do than you know.
And that is you don't tinker around the margins of things that are already pretty cruddy, like the tax code, expanding the base, all these tinkering around the margins of things that are already in place, sort of gets you no place.
You start sounding just like the other guy.
The other guy can always outmaneuver you, you maneuver towards him a little bit, but the media is always gonna always gonna make sure the conservative loses this type of conversation.
And I use as an example way back in 2011 and in 2012, Herman Cain, until the media decided they really had to uh politically assassinate this man, and you saw this coming from the many, many, many pieces.
The expensive real estate the New York Times invested in really destroying Herman Cain long before any hint of something else that made him leave the race came into play.
They were writing article after article, and he was doing very well in the poll numbers.
Now why?
Why was Herman Cain capturing the imagination of people to the degree that he that he did?
Do you know I've never told this on the radio, I had people in Hollywood.
Hollywood people, some of them not entirely conservative, very interested.
If I knew that if there were going to be any fundraisers for Herman Cain in Hollywood because they wanted to attend, they wanted to know him, they wanted to speak to him, and they wanted to financially support him.
That's absolutely true.
I was fascinated by this.
Now, why?
What was it about Herman Cain that made the left so fear him to the point that they had to destroy him?
And what was it that put him in the news?
Very simple thing.
Because he spoke in ways that went over the heads of the media, in similar ways to the ways Ronald Reagan spoke, with a different kind of intellect, of course, different kind of point of view.
But when Mr. Kane put out his 999 plan, and do not think I'm sitting here promoting 999, I'm not.
I'm fascinated by it in a positive way, because anything that replaces the current system, anything that is easy to understand and transparent is better than the thing that creates a police state to be used against its citizenry.
That's the bottom line.
But Mr. Kane was able to speak over the heads of the media, and the media hated it.
So for six, eight, nine, ten weeks, this country was in a conversation about nine nine-nine.
And the media could do nothing about it.
Now, I'm using that as an example, because it is possible when you stop tinkering around the edges of issues, which is more or less look, I think Daryl Issa is doing a nice doing a fine job.
He's a smart man, he's from my state, he's being methodical.
But all of these characters involved in these investigations, in these hearings, all of these characters are tinkering around the margins of something that is disease-ridden, something that is inherently broken, and worse than that, dangerous.
Tinkering around the margins, not going to do it anymore.
The question of what is the relationship, what is the what should be the nature of the relationship between governments, people, it Almost doesn't matter anymore.
You've got to now have practical on the boots, boots on the ground, methods of saying what makes common sense and what works.
By the way, Reagan often went back to this about things that had worked in the past, about common sense.
I'm not going to spend any time talking about that today.
We can do hours on his views on these matters.
But the point, the point remains that if you want to talk about these things, you've got and you want to win as a conservative.
And conservatism always wins, always wins when articulated well.
That is a fact.
Now, articulating it well is where the where the trouble starts.
So speaking over the heads of the media, stop tinkering around the margins of these issues and having the boldness to say, well, where do we need to go?
Because I know you're not going to pay attention to a constitutional class.
Anyway, it's Doug Rabansky, uh, more to come.
Stay with us.
That is true, ladies and gentlemen.
It is Doug Rabanski here for Rush on Open Line Friday.
The phone number here, as you know, and if you don't know it, I'll mention it to you now.
It is 1-800-282-2882.
Now I was making the point that way back in January, February, and when I was here in November, we've been hinting at this idea that it's time to rethink the tax situation in this country to flat or fair or even 999.
And I know that, as I've been talking during the past half hour, many people are calling into the show, advocating flat tax or fair tax.
I don't think there's been any 999-ers yet, but they may be.
And here's the thing, ladies and gentlemen, and I want you to please hear me, because you fair tax people are really, really smart, and so are you flat tax people.
What you must not do is gobble each other up in the debate.
The big thing you've got to do is have people and encourage them to contact their elected representatives.
It was...
So that part of the national debate is really what do we do about the tax code and the IRS.
Which both of which should be disbanded immediately.
I mean, waiting for the next election cycle, which apparently what we're going to have to do, is really, really a said a sad day.
Because do you do you honestly think that behavior at the IRS is going to change or get worse?
And if you think it's going to change, you've got to look at the attitudes and the answers of people who testify before Congress, people who are facing possible perjury charges, people who facing possible jail time, people who are taking the Fifth Amendment, they don't care.
They do not care.
So yeah, speaking over the heads of the media about this very important thing and not getting caught up in the weeds of flat tax, fair tax, 999 tax.
I've read a great story last night about something called a core tax.
It works for me.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, they all work for me.
If it can be typed on one piece of paper, and if everyone can understand it, then it works for me.
If everyone can understand it, do you realize that it becomes totally transparent?
If everyone can understand it, there's no favoritism.
If there is no favoritism, there is no corruption.
There is corruption throughout the entire tax code.
The things Obama calls loopholes are the tax code.
Even he says it's corrupt, but he likes using it as a police force.
Fascinating story here.
The White House, I don't know if you've heard this or not.
The White House has come out and said there will be no special prosecutor for the IRS scandal.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I wonder if they'll ever have to eat those words.
Maybe not, because they don't seem to care very much here.
But there is a enormous amount of public support for a special prosecutor.
Enormous.
I mean, these are massive poll numbers.
Cinopech University poll showed, we mentioned it yesterday, we're going to mention it again today.
Now this story is being picked up all over the world, by the way.
76% of Americans want a special prosecutor on this IRS case.
Do you know how hard it is to get 76% of people to even b agree that the sky is blue?
I mean, it's like Obamacare numbers.
People are very clear about what they think about this.
Well, in the case of Obamacare, they don't want it.
But again, in the face of these polls that say 76% of the American people want a special prosecutor to handle the IRS investigation, the White House does what it usually does.
It says we don't care.
No.
There is not going to be a special prosecutor, and this is despite by any standard of measurement, what you can call overwhelming support.
So on Air Force One, um, this guy, let's see, who Josh Ernst, who's deputy press secretary, he's asked on Air Force One about whether there will be a special prosecutor appointed, whether the White House even the administration is even looking at that as an option.
And this guy Ernst says, and I don't know where Jake Carney, not to be confused with Art Carney was.
Ernst says, We're not looking at appointing a special prosecutor.
And he goes on.
He doubles down.
He says, and the reason for that simply is that there is a new IRS commissioner in place.
His name is Danny Werfel, who is a career civil servant.
Who represented, who served in administrations led by Republican presidents and Democrat presidents?
He's conducting a 30-day review.
Ladies and gentlemen, are there some words there that's that jump out at you as well, the way they did at me?
Career civil servant?
Isn't that one of the contributory factors that gets us in this mess in the in the first, second, third, and fourth and final place?
Ernst then went on to say, well, there are plenty of people looking at the matter, including House and Senate committees, and that the White House will cooperate with those probes.
Really, really, really, really, really.
The White House will cooperate with those probes.
I began the show half an hour ago.
I said to you, how long will it be until the words executive privilege end up being used in the IRS scandal?
Because if it gets close to Miss Rumler, the special counsel in the White House, if it gets close to Valerie Jarrett, Axelrod, who knows?
Gets very close to the president.
And the words, the words executive privilege will be used.
And yet, the White House is saying through this Mr. Ernst, that they will cooperate with these probes.
Now, people are aware that Americans are favoring the special prosecutor, but and they generally do for major investigations.
But the fact of the matter is that the level of support for an IRS special prosecutor is higher than for almost any event in recent years.
That's according to the Washington Post.
So Quinnipayak says, and they they break it down a little further, that of all the scandals, and I don't need a poll to tell me what is patently obvious, but of all the scandals, the Americans feel that the IRS scandal is most important.
Because nobody, nobody, no intelligent thinking person likes a police state.
Of the three controversies, 44% of voters see the IRS probe is the most important.
You bet, you bet.
Now it's even being reported over in the U.K. by our Pal Nile Gardiner that less than half Americans now view their president as honest and trustworthy.
Do you think they care about that?
Do you think the president cares about that?
Do you think because if he did, why are we reading that the White House says that there will be no special prosecutor for the IRS scandal?
Obviously they don't care about this.
Obviously.
And that's part of the problem.
That's part of the problem.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, um, I don't really have time to take a call right now, but I am going to take some calls when I come back.
I promise that I would.
It is open line Friday, and you could hear me go on way too long.
So look, it's Doug Rbanski.
The phone number here on Open Line Friday is 1-800-282-2882.
And when we come back, your calls and much more, we'll be right back.
Welcome back to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
Doug Rbanski here filling in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back on Wednesday.
Mark Stein will be here on Monday and Tuesday, as you know, it's open line Friday, 1 800 282 2882 is the number.
I promise you I'd go to your calls.
Monica in Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh show.
How are you today, Monica?
Good.
How are you, Doug?
I'm really good, thanks.
Good.
I was um when you were talking about the low information voter.
About an hour ago, I was standing in line at Walmart.
And I noticed that one of the supermarket tabloids that they had sitting there at the Cat Checkout, uh, had a headline that said, Obama worse than Nixon.
And then it had a subheadline.
Uses IRS to target enemies.
And then another subheadline.
And I'm now I'm getting vague.
I can't remember the word for war, but the next subheadline said something to the effect of investigate journalists.
And then another set subheadline that had to do with Benghazi.
I thought that was rather interesting sitting there at the checkout line at Walmart.
How big were the letters IRS?
Pardon me?
How big were the letters on the magazine?
IRS.
Well, the debate the big headline was Obama worse than Nixon.
That was the major headline.
And then they had three subheadlines.
And so uh the IRS one, that might have been oh, maybe a half inch high.
They didn't have one of those photos of Nixon shaking hands with a space alien, did they?
No, no, no, no, no.
But they had a very angry picture of Obama.
And let me tell you, if you've got to run angry pictures of Obama, there's a lot of those available.
But I thought it was rather interesting because even though I I quite frankly, you know, I mean, I go to I go there because you know the best prices on pet food and everything else.
But you know, there's a lot of people who would probably be classified, and I hate to stereotype as amongst the low information voter, we're probably, you know, gonna be standing there staring at that uh in line, staring at that supermarket tabloid.
And do you know something, Monica?
The White House is especially sensitive about this uh this Nixon Obama parallel.
They hate this whole thing.
Do you know that?
Yeah.
Yeah, I know.
And I'd like to say, I I I I of all the things to turn against them, uh, a supermarket tablet I thought was really interesting.
Well, so your your theory is that that this may be piercing some amount of the low information voters because they're standing there in line at Walmart or the checkout counters, um, and they're seeing this stuff, and suddenly um they're saying, Wait a minute, IRS, Obama no good?
Oh, because they know Nixon is no good.
That they've grown up on that.
Right.
Exactly.
So I tell you something, Monica.
That's gonna permeate.
Where I live, by the way, we don't have supermarket tabloids.
Is that odd or is that odd?
You don't have supermarket tabloids?
You know what you know why that is?
It's a one of those weird things.
Where I live, um, many of the people that they write about live where in the neighborhood where I live.
So the so the stores deliberately do not carry them.
How about that?
Because they don't want to offend their customers.
Now look, the the question with Nixon was what did the president know and when did he know it?
Mm-hmm.
And and if you bother to go online, if you have a machine and you uh online, you can see that Article 2 of the impeachment had to do with misuse of the IRS.
Oh, yeah.
Well, uh I I I I hate to reveal my age, but I was quite well alive at the time and remember it very clearly.
Well, you know, I'm not asking you to reveal your age.
You're probably around my age, is my guess.
I was in high school when Nixon was in office.
Yeah, so was I. So was I. So we're both about thirty-eight.
Okay, fine.
Anyway, thank you very much, Monica.
Uh very helpful information.
The low information voters might be paying attention.
Well, thank you very much for calling the Russian show, Monica.
You know, this is interesting, folks.
The White House is hypersensitive that um that there's comparisons between Nixon and Obama.
I don't know that they're complete comparisons.
Because Nixon, on the one hand, he was a very intelligent man.
And actually very well read.
I'm no I'm no Nixon fan, please.
I I I've said it before.
I think Nixon did this country one of the greatest disservices in its history, and it has nothing to do with Watergate.
I'm talking about the Nixon Kissinger doctrine that said essentially that America's best days were behind her, and that a shared balance of power was the only way to move forward on the planet.
But Nixon was a highly intelligent, well-read man, and he surrounded himself with highly intelligent people.
Obama, not so much.
I mean, the comparison breaks down.
Nixon was involved with a major scandal, one major scandal.
Obama's got how many major scandals?
Now at least three or four.
Why stop there?
There may be more coming.
So the comparisons do break down.
Look, Nixon was a was a very tough guy.
He said, you remember what he said to Kissinger and Al Haig in a conversation.
Remember what he said on December 14th, 1972?
Anyone here remember that day?
He says the press is the enemy.
The press is the enemy.
The establishment press is the enemy, he says.
He says the professors are the enemy.
He says the professors are the enemy, and then Nixon says, write that on the blackboard 100 times.
He was obsessed.
He was obsessed with it.
Of course he was.
He was in battle.
He was also, strangely enough, obsessed with his predecessors.
He wanted, I think, if I'm not mistaken, he wanted uh he wanted files on predecessors.
But look, what Nixon did was trivial pursuit.
And I'm going to have to wait until the next hour to go into Tom Brokaw and the very bizarre comparisons he has made between the current scandals and Watergate.
Okay?
I mean, Tom Broke, I think they've let Tom Brokaw out of the um out of the Helen Thomas home, maybe out of the Jimmy Carter wing, I'm not sure.
But the White House very, very, very sensitive.
And Monica's point is, and I think she's got a good one.
If the low information voters basically stressed out of their mind, as all of us are in these days, or they're the checkout counter of Walmart, and you see this, you might be making an impact.
My point is my point is that where we're at are today is not just theory.
Where we're at today is that in fact the IRS has been used as a secret police force.
And do you know, I said to you yesterday that as this thing starts to unravel, my spies inside DC tell me that we may see this extend not to merely to from organizations applying for certain tax status and bizarre questions being asked,
but we may see this extend to individuals who were targeted for harassment because they were individuals who may have been involved with something conservative.
And this is the bunch that wants to run your health care.
That believe they will be running your health care, in fact.
That's that's the next scandal coming up.
If ever there was a moment, ladies and gentlemen, to absolutely for the GOP to put a stop to Obamacare, this is it.
Because that goes part in parcel.
This is where the special prosecutor will lead, the special prosecutor that 76% of all Americans want.
I mean, are you aware that the IRS was also targeting groups that were pro-Israel?
Which is another way of saying the IRS had decided to become anti-Israel.
More or less keeping in line with the White House, with people, what people believe about this White House.
We'll get to that story as well in the next hour.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a short break, Duggar Bansky filling in for Russia.
We'll be right back.
I mean, Nixon, ladies and gentlemen, it's Duggar Bansky, welcome back to the show, the Rush Limbaugh Show, filling in for Russia.
The Nixon, let's go back to that comparison for a moment.
Because Nixon was entirely justified that the press was out to get him, because the press was out to get him.
In fact, in actuality, they were out to get him.
Obama and his team.
If Nixon was right that the press was out to get him, Obama and his team have another thing that they rely upon.
I mean, why on earth would Obama think that the press were out to get him when they're not?
In fact, it's the opposite.
They they operate with this certain reliability that the press is not only not out to get him, that they're out to help him.
They count on that.
That's a given.
I don't care if he shows signs of narcissism or bizarre behavior or self aggrandizement.
He knows the press are going, and at the same time that he knows the press are out to protect him.
He also hates all conservative news outlets.
He hates it.
He's been very, very, very uh clear about it.
I mean, Nixon said it.
He said it's only illegal if a conservative does it.
And now we're we're seeing all of this, we're seeing all of this come home to roost.
Uh the comparisons are are actually this is worse.
Obama's worse.
▲
Export Selection