All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
June 10, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, how was your weekend, ladies and gentlemen?
Everything okay?
Everything cool?
Everything private?
Anything private?
Do you realize Barack Obama by looking at your metadata?
Everybody says rush this metadata.
Don't get all concerned about the metadata.
For example, in the Verizon Hoover operation.
I was, by the way, toying around with the idea of J. Edgar Obama, you know, over the weekend.
But then I got to thinking, how many people are going to know who J. Edgar anybody was?
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The hits just keep on coming.
The revelations just keep on coming.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll talk about Edward Snowden as the program unfolds, of course.
He's largely irrelevant.
This is the, he personally is largely irrelevant here.
And one of the points I want to try to focus on is what he represents and what he's actually describing here.
You know, he actually very articulate.
I was stunned when I found out this guy's 29 years old, doesn't have any formal education, has a high school equivalency, 200 grand at Booz Allen, consultancy for the CIA, the NSA, 200 grand.
People work at the NSA don't make that.
But consultants outside can.
But this guy really is articulate.
For 29, this guy is mature.
This guy is wise.
This guy has a level of maturity and, well, I don't want to say wisdom, but he knows the ways of the world.
He knows what he's up against.
When I was 29, I wasn't capable of speaking this way, I don't think.
Certainly not operating this way.
And I'm not trying to build him up or tear him down and do anything here.
I just, you know, these tech guys, some of them are just on a really narrow focus.
They're brilliant when it comes to their area of expertise and their area of interest.
I think this guy is profoundly articulate.
He's extremely thoughtful.
You know, he didn't reveal any actual findings.
All he did, if there are any, what he did was reveal the process.
But I'll tell you, he's largely irrelevant.
The fact is this is the biggest snooping enterprise against Americans ever.
That's the takeaway here.
That is the fundamental point.
I heard last week, now back to this Verizon sweep operation, the metadata.
Don't worry about it.
Rush, all they're going to do is get phone numbers here.
And then they're going to get phone numbers and calls and length of time.
But they're not going to know the content of any of those phone calls.
They're not going to know a thing about...
Well, you know, it's fascinating.
I read a lot of tech blogs, and you can learn a lot about people by what they write.
Now, I'm not going to identify this blog, but this is from a tech blog that I read, and the poster here, the blogger, very, very upset about this metadata.
And listen to what he says are potential problems posed by the metadata.
Oh, when I said that Verizon was not the only one, how did I know?
Common sense.
Why would they focus only on one phone company?
Snerdley is asking me a note.
Why when the Verizon announcement came, I mean, the announcement that it was Verizon surrendering all the phone data, and I said, it's everybody else too.
How did you know?
Common sense.
ATT is out there, Sprint's out there, T-Mobile's out there.
I mean, if you're going to sweep everybody, you've got to go to all the providers.
Anyway, so this tech blogger is trying to alert his buddies.
Hey, don't be fooled by the fact that metadata doesn't tell them anything.
They can learn all kinds of stuff about you with just the metadata.
The metadata, again, just being the phone numbers involved, no recordings, no wiretaps, no listening in, just the phone numbers and the length of calls, the number of calls.
For example, this guy, I just want to, I want to share you, and this obviously is concerns.
They know that you rang a phone sex service at 2.24 in the morning and spoke for 18 minutes, but they don't know what you talked about?
Give me a break.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge, but they don't know what you talked about.
They know that you spoke with an HIV testing service and then your doctor and then your health insurance company in the same hour, but they don't know what you talked about.
They know you received a call, get this one, they know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after, but they don't know what you were talking about.
They know you called a gynecologist.
They know you spoke for a half hour.
And after that, you called a local Planned Parenthood number.
Nobody knows what you called about.
The guy's got a good point.
They can tell what you're doing by virtue of the metadata.
All they got to do is know who's on the other end of the calls.
And they can do that with reverse phone directories.
I mean, these guys can clearly find out whose name is associated with what number.
That was an interesting post.
And these people, they always tell you what their fears are.
Now, this is a leftist, obviously, with these fears.
Folks, I am noticing, and I don't think it's a tipping point because I don't want to send anybody here off in the wrong direction.
But there are a lot of youngsters who voted for Obama who are now having the whole idea of the idealism that they thought he represented blown up.
Just like this guy, the Snowden guy.
This Snowden guy said he didn't vote for Obama.
He voted third party, but he believed Obama.
He hoped Obama meant it when Obama said he was going to clean all this stuff up.
And then when Obama didn't clean it up and in fact made it worse is when this guy said, okay, that's enough.
I got to go forward.
I got to go public with it.
And he did.
Well, yeah, yeah, he waited till after the election.
There's a look.
There still are a lot of questions about this.
What, Snerdley?
You have a question?
What's your comment?
Oh, Snerdley wants to know if I think this guy ought to be punished right or wrong.
I must tell you, I am conflicted about this in a number of ways.
You remember, and I'll tell you, I'll give you a classic example.
Why, I think, well, not classic, but it's a good example.
Remember the Pentagon Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg released to the New York Times secret documents from the Pentagon about the Vietnam War.
And they had a profound effect.
Now, that action that Ellsberg took was against a Republican administration and a Republican Department of Defense.
And the media love this guy.
He's in the Whistleblowers Hall of Fame.
This guy has done 10 times what Ellsberg did.
This guy, you think about Nixon and Watergate.
Nixon is a piker compared to what's happening here with Obama.
Literally, I'm not even speaking to you politically.
Nixon didn't even dream of the stuff that's happening.
Nixon did not use the IRS against people.
He dreamed of it.
In fact, it was used against him.
Nixon did not do any of the stuff that this regime is doing.
And yet, this guy's not yet achieved Daniel Ellsberg hero status, has he?
The regime is saying this guy's not, this guy's got to be silenced.
This guy's got to be prosecuted.
And the media, they're going back and forth on how to deal with this because this has gotten a lot of people shaken up because Obama represented a panacea, if you will.
Obama, some of these people really drank that Kool-Aid and believed it.
They believed we had an idealistic utopia coming, that this was stuff exclusive to Bush, all this torture and all this spying and all this warrantless wiretap searching and the Supreme Court deciding who's the president.
These people were, I mean, they were consumed with this rage.
It literally was eating them alive.
So Obama comes along, leave the racial aspect out of it.
Obama comes along and promises none of this is going to go on and he's going to get to the bottom of it.
He's going to stop it.
He's going to expose it.
And the country is going to get its respect.
Now they're finding out that all he did was build on it.
And there are a lot of disillusioned people out there, but nothing's going to come of it, folks, because of race.
I told you, and I hate, look at it.
I don't mean to sign a C, I told you so.
I just know that there are a lot of people who are still waiting for the smoking gun or something that is going to cause everybody, low information, whoever, to wake up.
And there's still people who are dreaming that for the sake of the country's future, we have got to remove Obama from office.
I just don't, I just, it isn't going to happen, and it's not going to happen in large part because of race.
And I think that the opportunity still exists, and the focus of attention ought to be: this is what you get with liberals.
This is what you get with liberalism, or Democrats if you want, but this kind of big government, this kind of overreach, this kind of insecurity, this kind of violation of privacy, this is exactly what you get.
This is who liberals.
That, to me, needs to be the message.
There's a post at ricochet.com, which is a website that was started by, among others, Peter Robinson.
Peter Robinson was the guy who took over a firing line for Mr. Buckley and calls it uncommon knowledge.
It's not really fiery.
He took over the premise of the show.
He's got a website now, Ricochet, and he's got a post out there over the weekend by a woman named D.C. McAllister.
And this woman cites the Limbaugh theory, and she says, right on the money, except it's not complete.
And she completes it in her way.
Now, I'm not trying to be snooty.
That's not the word.
I have mentioned what she says needs to be mentioned for the Limbaugh theorem to be complete.
She agrees with every aspect of it, but she says that is not the full explanation.
Of why Obama gets away with being allowed to be unattached to all the things going wrong that are of his architecture.
And her theory is that it's what we've talked about here on this program.
I don't know how many.
White guilt.
Race.
She quotes Shelby Steele, as we have countless times here.
But it's a good post, and it's a good point.
And in addition to everything else of the Limbaugh theorem, the fact that there is so much guilt, white guilt, that's behind the election of Obama.
That that same white guilt is simply not going to show up and hold him responsible.
Not you and I.
I mean, we voted against Obama, so we don't have white guilt.
But there's a lot of white voters voted for Obama simply because of racial reasons, hoping to get rid of racism or wanting people to know they weren't racist or whatever.
But it's all oriented towards how Shelby Steele is described in, I think, brilliantly white guilt.
And Ms. D.C. McAllister's point is that that's another reason why Obama's not going to be held accountable.
It's why he's not going to be held responsible for anything.
Because the whole reason for his existence, and he's exploiting it, by the way, and knows it, is that enough people in this country feel so guilty over slavery and the civil rights violations that whatever is necessary to assuage that, they will do.
In other words, and I mentioned to you two weeks ago, maybe longer, that in my view, and I'd like to be wrong about this, but I just, I don't, I can't foresee any circumstance where the first African-American president be removed from office.
Who's going to, can you tell me who in the Congress is going to make that move?
Give me the member of the House of Representatives who's going to make that move and then be joined by enough other members to make it a reality.
Tell me who's going to do it.
Nobody's going to do it.
And why aren't they going to do it?
If it were ever justified, if it were ever something that were truly constitutionally justified, still not going to happen because of race.
So consequently, all of this has actually exacerbated racial strife.
It's divided the country even more so on racial lines.
And that was another thing that was supposed to end with Obama's election.
So let me take a brief time out here, folks.
We've somewhat set the tape.
You know what I'm going to do today also?
I'm going to review all these scandals.
There are more of them than you remember.
And they just keep adding up.
I mentioned on Friday I was going to have a couple of pieces from the stack at a groovyard of forgotten favorite items, a stack of stuff I hadn't gotten to, about all these people who think that it's over for Obama, that regardless of his – he's blown it.
UK Daily Mail is one.
UK Telegraph.
AP.
Liz Sidoti.
I don't know what happened to her.
She used to be a White House correspondent.
And now I guess she's in management.
They brought her out here to write a piece.
All upset.
And just Obama not fulfilling everybody's dreams here.
And what can he do to recapture the magic?
What must he do?
So lots ahead on the program as well as your phone call.
Sit tight, my friends.
Back with much more after this.
Let me try to explain something, ladies and gentlemen.
I – you look at all that we've learned about our intelligence gathering, not only our ability in this country, but how it's actually happening.
And Sturdly asked me if I thought this guy, Snowden, should go to jail.
And I mentioned I'm conflicted.
And here's why.
See, I – it boils down or comes down again in my mind to who's doing it.
Because a person's ideology matters.
Do I want somebody in charge of this kind of surveillance who doesn't like this country as it's founded?
Do I want somebody collecting this kind of data on everybody who is in the middle of trying to transform this country into something the founders never intended it to be?
On the other side of this is you would hope that our country and our intelligence agencies are able to determine planned attacks against this country and citizens against this country and uncover those in enough time to thwart them.
In that sense, you want this kind of ability.
And by the way, the ability exists.
This genie is not going to go back in the bottle.
So in my mind, it does matter who is in charge of it.
It does matter.
The political identity of the people who administer something like this matters incredibly.
You look at the focus on how the leak happened and the motives of the leaker.
If you focus on that, I think you missed the main question.
The main question is, why is such a gigantic surveillance operation even necessary?
What is really going on here?
Who, and I mean this, who is the enemy?
The Tea Party, we know, is an enemy of this administration.
We know that conservative Republicans, and I could give you names, are enemies of this administration.
We know that this administration has people in it who consider conservative Republicans to pose a greater threat to them than Islamic jihadists.
So this, in deciding how you think or how you feel or what you think about this, I don't know how you take that out.
The government's not just this thing sitting there that people run.
There are certain kinds of people running it.
Off to a rousing start.
Rush Limbaugh on a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here's another story about this representing the demise of the regime.
And it's from the UK Daily Mail.
You'll not see stories like this in the US media.
You'll see them lately dance around this, but you won't see this.
This is by Damian Thompson.
Headline, Edward Snowden has blown the whistle on this presidency.
You have to wonder, will Obama see out his full term?
UK Daily Mail.
Now, the UK Daily Mail doesn't understand what it is that's propping Obama up.
They don't understand what it is that's excusing Obama from any accountability.
Folks, if there were any other president, any other, I don't care what party, who had been in charge for five years, and with the economy alone what it has been, it'd be history.
The guy would be reviled.
There wouldn't be any effort by anybody to allow the guy to scapegoat himself.
Would not happen.
And there are two reasons why this does happen.
And the racial component is one that cannot be denied.
So this UK Daily Mail headline, you have to wonder, will Obama see out his full term?
That's not the question.
The question is, will America last through Obama's full term?
That's the question to me.
Will the country survive the implementation of Obamacare?
Will the country survive all this spying and all this data collection?
Will the country survive amnesty?
Will the country survive every plan this man's got?
That's the question.
The question is not, will he serve out his second term?
Because that's a no-brainer.
Yet, the UK Daily Mail, because they live in the real world, and my gosh, the population of any country learning this about their president, and they'd be livid.
Not here.
Not here.
The racial component alone is not going to permit it.
He's not going to allow it.
That coupled with the basic ignorance of the low-information voter.
And by the way, there are a lot of intelligent low-information voters.
There are a lot of low-information voters that don't watch TMZ.
These are people that just, they don't care to get involved in this.
It just makes them nervous.
They're not all ignoramuses.
Some of them are, but not all.
But listen, this is some outtakes here, or some excerpts from this piece in the UK Daily Mail by Damian Thompson.
I don't see how Obama can talk his way out of this one.
Snowden is not Bradley Manning.
He's not a disturbed disco bunny.
He's a highly articulate network security specialist who has left behind a $200,000 salary and a girlfriend in Hawaii for a life on the run.
He's not a sleazy opportunist like Julian Assange either.
As he says, I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, Internet freedom, and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine that they're secretly building.
It'll be very difficult for the Obama regime to portray Snowden as a traitor.
For a start, I don't think U.S. public opinion will permit it.
But any explanations that it offers will be drowned out by American citizens demanding a no.
So how much do you know about me and my family?
How can I find out how much you know?
And how long have you been collecting this stuff?
What are you going to do with it?
This is what the American...
This is the UK Daily Mail.
This is what they think the American people's reaction to this is.
Suddenly, the worse-than-Watergate rhetoric does not seem overblown.
And I do wonder, can a president who's presided over and possibly encouraged Chinese-style surveillance of the land of the free honestly expect to serve out his full term?
That's Damian Thompson, the UK Daily Mail.
That's, again, I submit to you, not the question, folks.
The question, will the land of the free survive Obama's full term?
That's the question.
With everything, the economy, and there's no substantive improvement in the economy.
And don't be gulled into thinking that what's happening on Wall Street is representative of what's happening in the economy.
It's not.
There's no real uptick on jobs.
There aren't any careers being created.
People have lost jobs.
Jobs are vanishing.
Taxes are going up, skyrocketing high.
The divide between rich and poor is only going to get worse.
Obamacare is going to be fully implemented.
If it is, folks, $20,000 for a family to be insured.
Then we're talking immigration, amnesty, 11, 12 million people.
You look at what's on tap.
If Obama could, there'd be—he'd wipe out the Second Amendment.
If he could.
You know who he is.
I know who he is.
You know where he's headed.
Everybody in his administration is headed the same way.
Look at the IRS scandal.
Look at what the FDA is doing and the EPA and the autocratic-like dictatorial regulations coming out of the various branches and cabinet positions of this administration.
And the question is not, is Obama going to survive?
The question, will America as founded?
It's always going to be in America.
I don't want to be misunderstood.
I must always clarify.
I think, like I said Friday, we are in the midst of a coup taking place.
This government, this nation, is being—what terminology would not offend you?
Taken over?
Is that too dicey?
Is that make you too nervous?
Transformed?
Regardless, there's a peaceful coup d'etat going on.
Most people, when you think—you tell them there's a coup going on, they think of rebels in tin-horned dictatorships riding around in 25-year-old jeeps firing machine guns at the rebels and at the citizens on the dusty road.
That's not what's happening here.
That's not the kind of coup that's taking place here.
The kind of coup that's taking place here is nationalizing one-sixth of the economy, the health care system, under control of government.
They've taken it over.
They are attempting to totally bastardize the immigration system in this country, take that over and destroy it.
If you look at the IRS scandal, this is what happens in tin-horned banana republics.
Enemies of the regime are targeted, punished.
Votes suppressed.
Not allowed to raise money.
Basically, not allowed to be in opposition.
We're in the middle of a coup.
And the question is not whether Obama survives it, folks.
It's whether the country does.
Sorry.
I wish the UK Daily Mail's take on this was right, but it isn't.
Normally, it would be.
But we have a unique set of circumstances here that accompany Barack Obama in the Oval Office.
And those circumstances are like an impenetrable fortress around him.
And he is fully aware and exploits it.
Guess what he's out doing today?
He's back on the war on women.
He's revving that back up.
It's some 50th anniversary of some equal pay act or some such thing.
And he's out there talking about women bringing home the bacon, but they don't get the bacon.
I've got the sound bites.
Let me put them at the bottom of the stack just to keep things in order.
Let's get somebody 22 and 23.
And we're going to take a break.
And we're going to come back and start on the phones.
Here's Obama this morning in Washington at the White House, 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act.
Women are now the primary source of income for nearly 40 percent of American families.
Forty percent, almost half.
That's not something to panic about or be afraid about.
That's a sign of the progress and the strides that we've made.
But what it does mean is that when more women are bringing home the bacon, they shouldn't just be getting a little bit of it.
I don't know a woman who eats bacon.
Do you?
You eat bacon?
Do you?
Really?
Well, I'm honored to know you.
Congratulations.
You're not afraid to eat bacon, Dawn?
Are you kidding me?
My faith in womanhood is always being real.
Anyone who says 77.
Ha!
How are you, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity?
America's foremost serious political analyst, while combined as one of America's premier entertainers.
A combination not found anywhere else in the drive-by or mainstream major media.
Now, Friday night on Bill Maher's real-time show, he had a guest, Kevin Williamson, from National Review Magazine.
National Review Magazine used to be a conservative magazine when Mr. Buckley owned it.
They had a guest.
Maher had a guest named Kevin Williamson, who is a... Roving reporter is what he's called.
And they were talking about statistics last week that we just played Obama talking about, that 40% of America's breadwinners are women.
Now, we mentioned this last week.
And I did not have a single disparaging thing to say about it.
I didn't even try to crack a joke about it.
Just mentioned it, threw it out there for people to ponder and think about it.
I made a bonus, but I hardly even spent any time on it.
So little time, I don't even remember exactly what I said.
Do you remember what I said about it?
Well, how would you know?
You weren't even here that day.
Dawn, do you remember what I said?
You're a woman.
You'd be interested.
Do you remember what I said?
You do or you don't.
No, no, no.
Don't.
Don't.
There's no reason to be afraid here.
If you do remember, don't be afraid to tell me.
What do you remember me saying?
Right.
But there was no snarkiness.
No, there was no snarkiness.
There was nothing.
I tossed out the fact that there was nothing that made you people on the other side of the glass nervous.
Right?
Okay.
So let's go to the audio soundbite.
Bill Maher, real time, Friday night, Kevin Williamson, and they're talking about this statistic that 40% of women are the breadwinners.
The issue of women working and their outcomes for children has been studied and studied and studied and studied.
There's really no ill effects for kids.
Daughters seem to do better when they have working mothers.
The second thing is that Republicans really have a problem telling their elected officials from their entertainers.
You know, it's one thing to have Rush Limbaugh say something.
You have the governor of Mississippi also saying the same thing this week, that, you know, this all started to go wrong when women started leaving the house and going into the workforce.
And there's just no real evidence to support that.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that.
My own wife is the CEO and the president and the grand poobah of the tea company.
My own wife runs one of our businesses.
And, oh, he doesn't mean me personally.
He means me generically.
Like Xerox.
It's one thing to have Rush Limbaugh say something.
The governor of Mississippi said the same thing.
I didn't say anything last week.
Is that your point?
I'm just Xerox.
So whatever some nutcase on talk radio happened to say, it's me.
Well, okay, I am talk radio.
So whatever was said on talk radio, it's me.
Whether it wasn't me.
Okay.
All right.
Fine.
Now to the phones.
Let's see.
Here's what I said.
In fact, I'm going to read to you what I said.
While I was gone, the Pew Center, Pew Research Center, released a study that revealed that mothers are the sole or primary providers of income in a record 40% of all households with children under the age of 18 in the country.
In other words, women have become the primary breadwinners in 40% of the households.
Analyzing data from the Census Bureau for 2011, the report investigated changing gender roles.
Cases where married women out earn their husbands.
I should say spouses now.
Now, it's not husbands anymore.
And the income gap between married and single mothers was quite large, as expected.
But both groups of breadwinner mothers, married and single, have grown in size in the past five decades.
That was it.
That was all I said about it.
Oh, and I did talk about it.
Since I was gone, some other people took some heat about this.
Some women, I forget the names.
There were some commentators who had some deleterious things to say about it.
But it wasn't me.
So I got slimed by National Review.
Anyway, here's David, Placerville, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, what an honor.
Thank you.
Talk to you.
I've been waiting so long to get through.
And today, today you were talking and you asked the question to the audience about, you know, what's behind Obama and this NSA thing?
And, you know, is he truly concerned about the country?
Is there some other motivation?
And, of course, you alluded to the fact that there was.
And I got all excited and I go, I know the answer.
So I thought I would call you.
And this is basically part of this, like you mentioned, is enemy's list.
It has no, no, it's not any different to anything else that he's done.
He has this list and that is what drives this guy.
And so I wanted to just share that with you briefly.
Well, this, I don't know that you're ever going to find a written list.
But that's the point.
You're not, people are looking for a smoking gun memo from Obama instructing the IRS.
There isn't one.
And there isn't one because it's not needed.
Obama put people there who he knew would do what he would do if he were there.
Everybody is Obama in this administration.
Some people say, my gosh, how could some of these wackos gotten past Obama's vetting prep?
They didn't get past him.
It's exactly who he wants there.
He wants people there who he doesn't have to send a written memo to.
He doesn't want to have to have instructions written down or an owner's manual.
And these people, they're not hard to find.
They're all over academia.
Not hard to find people that want to crucify the Tea Party.
Not hard to find people that want to make sure Obama's opponents don't raise money.
You don't have to work very hard to find people in this country who'd love to help Barack Obama make sure that conservative Republicans' votes don't count or don't even take place.
He'd have to look long and hard for people like that.
So that's why I said it matters who's collecting this data and for what purpose.
It matters.
I can see good purposes for this if it's in the hands of the right people who have a handle on who our real enemies are.
But in the wrong people's hands, it could be really problematic.
That's what's frightening about it.
Correction, ladies and gentlemen, the Damian Thompson piece asking if Obama will complete his second term was the UK Telegraph.
▲
Export Selection