All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:38
June 6, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And back we are, my friends, loaded and ready to go for our final big broadcasting hour and a final busy broadcast day here at the EIB network.
I am your highly trained, instinctively talented broadcast host here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, a network named after my performance.
Phone number 800 28282 and the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
So the IRS has our tax records.
They are going to soon have our medical records.
And guess what else?
The police can now take our DNA after an arrest.
Supreme Court decision.
That's no different than fingerprints.
After a standard ordinary traffic stop.
The police cannot take your DNA.
NSA has your phone records.
And by the way, they're not targeted.
I mean, this is just scatter stay.
They're just taking everything.
I'm now hearing, hey, look, Limbaugh, come on, this started seven years ago.
Bush started.
This is not the same.
Back when when this all started seven years ago, it was targeted.
They were looking for specific identifiers, foreign telephone calls matched against numbers that they knew involved terrorism.
This is just a sweep.
Pure and simple.
Obama knows what political organization you belong to.
He wants to have veto rights regarding that.
The EPA wants to regulate carbon dioxide.
Michelle Obama's demanding the right to tell us what we can eat.
Democrats are demanding a national gun registry.
Universities have speech codes.
Obama drones can see where you are in your home and can shoot you.
About the only people that have any privacy left are women who are going to have abortions.
Thanks to Roe vs.
Wade.
At least there's some vestige of pro Oh.
Oh.
You know, I got an interesting email during the break.
Mr. Limbaugh, you continue to say that baby boomers created their own traumas.
Could you give an example of what you're talking about?
I had to admit that's a good question.
I think it answers itself, but for many people it doesn't.
So you might be one of the what do you mean?
Traumas that we had to go.
Okay, let me give you an example.
You realize that in America today, virtually everything you think about eating, you do so wondering if it'll kill you.
You think that's not traumatic?
Virtually everything you eat, somebody has told you it can give you cancer, it can give you hemorrhoids, it can kill you, it can lead to infidelity, it can lead to impotence, it can lead to whatever.
That's just one thing.
And eating is something that everybody has to do.
And there's trauma attached to virtually every aspect of it.
Virtually every aspect of your daily life, there is trauma attached to every decision you make.
Because the people in this country, the do gooders, the the uh uh the leftists who want to control every decision that you make are using fear as a means of influencing the decisions that you make.
The kind of car you buy could kill you.
The kind of car you ride in could kill you.
Your daily existence is destroying the planet.
Your reliance on carbon-based Fuels, your excessive lifestyle.
You are either causing other people to be poor, you are causing other people pain, you are causing other people poverty, or you are destroying the planet.
I would maintain to you that if you pay attention to everything, you can't go through your day without being traumatized over every decision you make.
Because there's some liberal organization out there warning you about every facet of your life.
The list of self-created traumas, the kind of things I'm the invented traumas to tell ourselves that lives are tough.
I think the list is endless.
But just stop and think.
How often, before you even have some popcorn, do you worry about what it might mean to your health?
Ask yourself, how often during the day do you worry about every decision you make?
Then add your kids into it.
Okay, you and your spouse get pregnant.
Look at the trauma that you go through worrying about the health of the child during pregnancy.
Every decision you make could lead to permanent damage of your child in the womb.
I'm telling you, folks, the left in this country has created stress and piled stress on top of it, has created trauma with virtually every aspect of life.
To the point that people are constraining themselves.
They're not living uh carefree, happy, freedom oriented lives.
Everybody's allowing themselves to live under certain constraints.
How about what you say?
How many of you face stress or trauma every day in what you might say or want to say in a certain situation?
How many of you even get stressed out over what you're thinking should somebody find out about it?
You don't.
BS, I don't believe you for a minute.
Dawn's in there denying that that none of this stresses her out.
I don't believe you for a second.
I've heard you talk.
I'm not, I'm not going to divulge things, but you know that.
How many of you who have children who have gone away to college?
Look at the daily stress.
I mean, you would have that anyway because parenthood features that, but look at the added stress and trauma that you face as a parent.
Just if your kid gets a cell phone for crying out well.
My point is that the left in this country has added stress and trauma to virtually every decision you make, which in in in aspects of life that for the most part are common and harmless.
You're not gonna die by eating a piece of beef.
You're not gonna have a heart attack.
You're not gonna have your cholesterol skyrocketing.
It takes decades for this to happen.
It takes decades of smoking to maybe get lung cancer.
Look at just the stress and the trauma that's been forced on all of us by a bunch of liberal self-interest groups aided and abetted by the media.
I don't I mean I don't think it's even arguable, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, I mentioned earlier in the program that the judge, a judge, federal judge yesterday ordered the Health and Human Services Secretary to suspend existing organ allocation rules to give the 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl a better chance at a life-saving drug, a lug transplant.
The judge is Michael Bailson.
He's a Bush, George W. Bush appointee.
Judge Baleson told Kathleen Sabillius to direct the organ procurement and transplantation network to make an exception to the so-called under 12 rule as it applies to Sarah Mernigan, who has an end stage or has end stage cystic fibrosis.
The rule has been suspended for at least 10 days until a hearing on June the 14th.
And that move means that the girl can be considered more quickly for organs as an adult instead of being limited to the pediatric transplant list.
So all they're doing is simply removing her age as an arbitrary factor.
Until the judge moved in, Kathleen Sabillius was the death panel.
One person, Kathleen Sabillius was going to determine whether or not, and she said some people live, some people die.
Who else said it was some member of Congress at some congressional hearing on something.
Might it have been, it was.
It was Elijah Cummings, who I forget what he was talking about.
I forget what the hearing was about.
It wasn't Benghazi.
But he said, in life there is death.
And in death there is life.
Benghazi, death is a part of life, right?
Well, that's what Kathleen Sebelius was saying.
Now, all the while the regime is denying, of course, that there were death panels and that the Obamacare was not going to be doing this.
And everybody knew that it was.
That at a blog that I feature called Red or that I read, redstate.com, and I printed it out, and unfortunately the name of the writer did not print, and I don't remember it.
But Coco will find it.
We'll link to it at Rushlimbaugh.com.
The title of the post is The Real Danger of Liberal Bias.
Now this prints out to four pages.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
I'm going to try to summarize it for you here.
The author starts by saying, I'm going to tell you what media bias is really all about.
It's about a dying 10-year-old girl.
This is posted before the judge's order.
Real media bias is about a dying 10-year-old girl and a sexogenarian politically connected trial lawyer.
It's about official malfeasance treated as human error when a Democrat is president.
It's about power and systemic corruption that is unremarkable to people offended that George W. Bush didn't call his advisors liars to their face.
It's about Fred Barron and Sarah Mernigan.
Now, Fred Barron, then name ring a bell.
Snurley should.
It was John Edwards' lawyer.
John he was the guy that facilitated John Edwards' baby being taken up by the guy that wasn't the father, and he's a huge, he was a huge trial lawyer, a huge bundler, and fundraiser for the Democrat Party.
He was also a plaintiff's asbestos lawyer.
He was a prolific Democrat bundler.
He made a great deal of money by breaking Fortune 500 companies.
Personal friend of John Edwards and of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And in 2008, he was dying of multiple myeloma, which is cancer, as you know, of the bone marrow.
At age 61, Fred Barron had become one of the Democrats' foremost source of trial lawyer money, and they rewarded him with access and influence.
Now, where the story diverts from the usual depressing tale of money and influence is in the closing days of his life.
Stage 5 cancer is what he had.
Multiple myeloma.
It's a death sentence.
But because Fred Barron had the luxury of being rich, he spent a great deal of money on doctors to discover what the rest of us would know that he was terminal.
Thomas Crown is the author of this piece, right.
However, Fred Barron's doctors believed that Tissabri, a monoclonal antibody that is used primarily to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases, might save his life.
They were hoping the drug would slow or block the cancer cells.
The problem was that the FDA hadn't cleared the drug for use in cancer patients.
The drugs manufacturer had the drug in what are called phase one trials, the first part of the approval process for a drug that that makes the U.S. one of the slowest drug approval regimes among modern societies.
The drugs manufacturer could not approve the drug's use out of the very limited number of tests that patients receiving it, and the drug would be at least five to seven years away from broad market use.
The drug that the doctors wanted to give Fred Barron could not legally be given to him.
It was still in trials and you can't – the reason they don't like to make exceptions on this is because if the drug doesn't work, then it may never be approved for what it was otherwise intended for.
So they don't want to go outside the approval.
The companies don't.
The FDA doesn't.
There's a drug, it's being approved for something, but some doctor thinks, you know, it might work in this cancer patient.
The patient wants it.
Can't do it.
It's not permitted.
The law doesn't allow it.
We don't want you to have it because it's not being designed for that purpose.
And if it doesn't work for you, we're just facing bigger problems.
The bottom line was that Nancy Pelosi made the FDA give the drug to Fred Barron.
Because he was a great Democrat donor, a great Democrat bundler, a great Democrat fundraiser, a great Democrat, Purans, a great trial lawyer to taking down a bunch of companies that were enemies of the Democrat Party.
Nancy Pelosi called the FDA, and by hook or by crook, she got the FDA to give the manufacturer the all-clear to give Fred Barron the drug.
Barron got the drug.
He took the drug.
He died anyway.
Okay.
He got a waiver.
Now this post was written before the judge reversed the order on Sarah Mernigan being allowed to be on the list for the lung.
His point here, the poster's point is look at what being a great Democrat allowed to have happen to you.
Every rule and every law was swept aside as though it didn't exist, so that a great Democrat could get an experimental drug that nobody else could legally get.
It didn't work, died anyway.
Over here is a 10-year-old girl who's not a Democrat and who isn't a donor and who has nothing to say about whether the Democrats win elections and what do they say to her?
Pfft, you that's media bias.
Because the media would not tell the true story.
The media will not do what it's supposed to do, and that is expose this kind of corruption, which is rampant and everywhere in this government and in this regime.
I've got to take a break.
Sit tight, don't go away.
Audio sound by time.
Well, I gotta get some of this stuff in here because it's uh it is highly relevant.
Let's start with Barack Obama back in 2007.
August 17th, I'm sorry, August 1st, 2007.
This is Obama.
He's Senator Obama.
He's at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Woodrow Wilson in Obama's eyes, a great, great progressive liberal socialist president.
Then Senator Obama spoke about his comprehensive strategy To fight global terrorism.
Now I want you to listen to this.
This is, you know, we've done this ever since Obama came on the scene as a presidential candidate.
We went back.
All of the audio that we played for everybody to tell them exactly who Obama is, and he has been exactly who we thought he would be.
And here he is again, August 1st, 2007, disagreeing with the Bush administration on the ways that they were fighting the war on terror, and here's Obama describing how he would do it.
I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.
No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war.
No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.
That is not who we are.
He's done all that.
He's done all of that in spades.
He's done all of that and more.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Let's go back to 2005, December 15th.
This is on the Senate floor during a debate on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document through the library books that you read, the phone calls that you've made, the emails that you've sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law.
No judge will hear your plea.
No jury will hear your case.
This is just plain wrong.
And now he's doing it.
But it's Bush's fault, you see.
Bush started it, and every president continues what previous presidents started.
It's not Obama's fault at all.
It uh it really really isn't.
By the way, I I checked the email during the break.
There were some people you know, we heard about this Fred Barron story.
That's right, because we told you about this back when it happened.
The the uh Dallas Morning News had a had a story back in August of 2010 about Pelosi pulling strings to let this dying Dallas lawyer, Fred Barron try an experimental cancer drug.
We talk in fact, I I told people this is exactly what's going to happen with Obamacare.
There are going to be people with preferred status.
I remember asking, you're gonna you're in line at the exchange window, or wherever it is you have to go to get health insurance, or to get health coverage treatment.
And I can see it where they have a record.
And you're gonna you're gonna show up and they're gonna know whether you voted for Obama, whether you're a registered Democrat or Republican, and what happens if they decide on preferential treatment for people from the right party.
I remember asking that question specifically that it could very logically and easily become part of Obamacare.
And now it is.
The Fred Barron story is exactly what we warned about.
Now, Thomas Crown's point at redstate.com was this is media bias, because this is clear corruption.
I mean, you have corruption upon corruption in the Fred Barron story.
You've got the corruption of his involvement with John Edwards and protecting Edwards and the baby that Edwards trying to deny was his while Edwards is running for the presidency, and he had that friend of his pretend to be the father and all and Fred Barron was paying for all of this.
And the media looked past it because Edwards was a good Democrat.
He ended up being John Kerry's running mate in 2004.
And then the Democrats moved heaven and earth to allow Barron to get access to a drug that nobody else could.
And then over here you had a 10-year-old girl.
And the media, his point was, you know, media bias comes in all different flavors, but this is a really, really gross and great exagger uh example of it that doesn't involve ideology.
It's just overlooking corruption.
Now, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the the the NSA scandal there's a woman who really is at the heart of this.
Her name is Diane Feinstein.
She is among the senators that first got interested in this kind of procedures, uh phone records and phone companies uh being pressured to comply with government requests.
And this morning in Washington, she held a press conference to talk about this Verizon thing with the NSA.
I just want you to hear a portion of what she said.
This renewal is carried out by the FISA court under the business record section of the Patriot Act.
Therefore, it is lawful.
It has been briefed to Congress, and the letters that we have distributed, and this is that you'll note on the dates, this is prior uh to the Patriot Act uh amendments coming before the body, each of those.
As you know, this is just metadata.
There is no content involved.
In other words, no content of a communication.
And people might say, well, then why do they want it?
Well, they're gonna algorithmically search this data, synthesize it, and hope to detect patterns with it.
And when they find a pattern that fits a problem they think exists, then they dig deeper.
Then they're gonna get a warrant and ask for the content.
That's the theory.
As I say, I read a lot of tech blogs, and I'm telling you some of these it really is funny.
Because you know, all these, all these people and not just the tech bloggers.
I don't want to all of these young uh think they know everything about every and they're all properly liberal, and they just can't believe that their savior would be doing this.
They just they it it it just is the kind of stuff that Bush and Nixon did.
And they're worried.
And my Obama's a constitutional scholar.
This is not the you know, we'll expect Obama to do this kind of now.
I don't know that I'm not even saying it's a tipping point.
I don't think it is.
This is not the event that's going to cause massive numbers of people to abandon Obama.
That's not what this is.
But it's perhaps one of a number of things that could happen that might cause that.
I'm not predicting it.
Don't even get your hopes up.
I still don't think that's gonna happen.
And I know it's not gonna happen with the media.
And I really don't even think Obama's the point now.
I mean, it you can't avoid looking at Obama, and it's it was it's it's it's useful for the purposes of educating and informing people, but in terms of uh neutering or nullifying Obama, that's not th this the as I keep saying, what needs to be the focus here is this is what big government does.
This is who liberals are, this is what they do.
That needs to be the educational point.
Quickly, Diane in St. Louis.
Hi, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network high.
Megadiddoes from St. Louis, Missouri, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Um I've been uh wanting to talk to you for several weeks now, ever since you had uh Marco Rubio on your uh interviewing a few weeks back.
Yes, ma'am.
Illegal alien amnesty.
Uh he gave some bullet points.
And I think it's all dovetails in what you were talking about, the intrusiveness of government.
Um he gave some bullet points about the illegal aliens would have to pay taxes, there would be penalties imposed, restrictions, they wouldn't be allowed to vote for the first few years, they actually have to pay health care.
Um I understand why the politicians want these illegals to become citizens, they want their votes.
But my question is what's the draw?
How who in the right mind would say, yeah, sign me up to this?
Sign me up to pay taxes, penalties, uh Sign me up for the intrusiveness.
We were just talking about how the government's watching us.
I I'm I'm really thinking that if this legislation is passed, they're not going to see the floodgates open and illegals wanting to come in.
So you are silent.
You you are questioning why anybody would want to actually become a citizen of this country.
When you can get all the benefits without being one.
Right.
What's the draw?
I mean, what what's going to actually bring these people to the table and say, yeah, I want to be a citizen when they're enjoying everything that you know we have now.
Well uh the people who sign up are not going to pay taxes.
They're going to get money back from the IRS earned income tax credit.
They're not but look, that that's that's beside the point.
The uh the answer to the question, I think if you ask certain people would be that citizenship is such a wonderful thing.
These people are fleeing oppression.
The United States is the beacon of hope around the world.
The United States is the light of freedom.
The United States is an escape from bondage and tyranny, and I want to be able to come there without fear of being kicked out.
I want to come there and be able to vote.
I want to come there and do I mean it's uh American citizenship is still a highly treasured thing from most people around the world.
Seeking that.
I don't see them marching in the streets, requesting, demanding, hoping for citizenship.
They just very playing devil's average.
The reason marching in the street and demanding is because they've got La Raza doing it for them.
And if they do that, then they're afraid that they'll be identifying themselves to be deported.
I doubt that.
Well, no, that's what they fear.
I mean, it may not know it's not going to happen.
That's what they fear.
Yeah, I think that's a good thing.
That's the whole notion of living in the shadows.
I don't think they're living in the shadows, by the way.
No, I don't either.
I don't see that fear here in St. Louis.
Um, I understand your question.
I've I've I'm looking the reason I'm reluctant here to get into details because I can't.
I've got to take a break.
I'm I'm gonna get the from the uh from the timekeeper here any minute.
But Diane, I'm sure your call will inspire others.
And it'll it'll start a conversation.
So sit tight, we'll be back and continue in just a second.
Baltimore Ravens went to the White House today.
Super Bowl champions, they get their rings tonight ceremony.
The center for the Baltimore Ravens is a man named Matt Burke.
He's been publicly opposed to gay marriage.
Uh Ravens had a linebacker who was much in favor of gay marriage, a little contra tomb there.
Matt Burke refused to go to the White House today.
Said he has great respect for the office of the presidency, but he just as a pro-life person could not see it going to the White House after the president said God bless Planned Parenthood five or six weeks ago.
So Matt Burke didn't go and told everybody why.
He just didn't feel comfortable being there in the presence of a president who had asked God to bless planned parenthood.
It just didn't work for him.
So he didn't go.
So what will the NFL do about this?
Tea Party Patriots.
I love this, folks.
I absolutely love this.
Tea Party Patriots gonna organize a mass rally on June the 19th in Washington called audit the IRS.
The IRS says they don't have receipts for all those parties they threw that cost what was it?
200 million dollars.
I forgot how the total, I don't have the number in front of me.
All the money.
220 different parties, 50 million with 40.
They don't have the receipts.
They can't prove.
So the Tea Party Patriots want there to be an audit.
There is going to be an audit the IRS rally on June 19th in Washington.
Really, the protest is about the IRS targeting of conservative organizations.
But the IRS does need to be audited.
They don't have the receipts.
Look, why would uh illegals want to become citizens?
Let's call chain immigration.
They can um bring in all their relatives without having to pay to have them snuck across the border.
They can increase their demands.
They can do they it there's a there's a bunch of reasons why they would want to be legalized, and a bunch of reasons why the Democrats would uh would want it to happen.
Anyway, didn't get a chance to talk about Rubio maybe pulling out of the gang of eight.
Not sure if that's true, but we'll talk about it tomorrow.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection