All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:12
June 10, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers, drill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, our telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rush for the IBNet.com.
And another correction, I have been misquoting or misidentifying a story today as coming from the UK Daily Mail.
The Daming and Thomas piece that we uh quoted from somewhat extensively in the last hour was actually UK telegraph.
The data doesn't change.
It's just I identify in the wrong paper, and I wanted to correct that.
This is the story about the guy who said that he doesn't see how Obama can survive this.
Will Obama see out his full term?
And that's not the question.
The question is, will America.
Will America make it through Obama's second term and be America as founded at the end of it?
That's the question, because Obama's not going anywhere.
I don't mean to depress anybody.
If you've got your hopes up for that, I just don't see it.
It's no way.
It already happened.
There were already, I mean, this this stuff is already, it's been unacceptable for three years.
The real question is, we're we're in the middle of a coup.
Are we going to survive it?
We're in the middle of a peaceful coup d'etat.
There is no idiamin dada running around here.
It's just a peaceful coup d'etat.
This country is undergoing a major transformation.
This country is being run by people who do not appreciate the way it was founded.
They do not appreciate the Constitution as written.
And they are in the process of implementing and behaving as they wish the Constitution existed.
They wish a constitution existed which invests in government all power.
They want all power.
And they're in the process of behaving as though they have it.
Nobody's really pushing back to stop it.
And that's what this all of these uh data mining scandals really focus on.
We're looking now at this uh Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old young man who has gone public with the PRISM program.
And the real danger here, and I look, John Bolton is out.
Snerdlies livid at this guy, a lot of people are.
John Bolton's out.
This guy's a traitor, and he needs to be charged and and tried as a traitor.
And there's some people think that if we'd have dealt with Bradley Manning when he gave up all those documents to Julian Assange, that this wouldn't have happened.
Other people are sympathetic because this guy admitted he had all kinds of high hopes for Obama to stop this stuff, and Obama's only exacerbated it and made it worse, which is why he's come forward.
One of the reasons he stated that he's come forward.
The real danger to me, though, is not one or two rogue employees at the IRS or the NSA or the CIA.
The real danger is having a rogue administration.
And we do, I think.
This is the primary challenge that we that we face.
I mentioned the first hour that I wanted to go through some of the scandals.
Or, if you will, some of the irregularities.
Here's a brief summation.
Might call it ScandalGate, but whatever you want to call it, these are clearly irregularities.
These are occurrences that had they happened either individually or collectively, under any other administration, a far different reaction would have taken place to any and all of them.
Benghazi.
What did Benghazi expose?
Benghazi exposed that this administration Will lie about the death of four Americans in order to get re-elected.
It entailed a direct involvement of top administrations, officials in the Obama regime.
The administration lied about it to the public, lied about it to Congress, the talking points of the video.
They openly, brazenly lied for weeks about what had happened and why.
And to this day, we don't know where Obama was while the actual murder and mayhem, the terror attack in Benghazi was taking place.
We don't know where he was.
The IRS Tea Party scandal exposed that the regime openly, willingly, laughingly, suppressed its opposition.
Basically, at the sandbox level, what they did was cheat.
It was unfair.
They denied tax exempt status to organizations assembled by their political enemies.
As such, in my mind, they suppressed the votes of millions of Republicans because they suppressed the fundraising opportunity of millions of Americans.
While that was happening, lying about who Mitt Romney was was the order of the day.
With campaign donations sent by any number of wealthy donors from Hollywood to Silicon Valley.
I don't know whether there was direct involvement by Obama in the IRS scandal or not, but there doesn't need to be.
Because everybody working for Obama knows exactly what he wants.
They idolize him.
They are true believers.
They want what he wants and they want to make him happy and they want to be noticed by him.
They've heard Obama's speeches.
He's a rock star to these people.
They know everything he's written and said.
They know exactly what he believes and they're right in there with him on it.
He doesn't need to issue any instructions.
The IRS Tea Party scandal shows that the regime wanted to find out who was donating to Tea Party and Republican groups.
The IRS lied about it to the public and to the Congress.
The AP Fox News Department of Justice probe showed that the top Obama administration figures were willing to use the FBI to go after the press, especially the opposition press, Fox News.
And they lied about it to Congress.
Eric Holder.
This administration has named its enemies and has encouraged people to disregard them.
Then you have the NSA phone record monitoring.
This showed that Eric Holder and probably Obama ordered the data mining against Americans on a scale never even imagined before and without warrants from the FISA court.
They thereby got information that could have easily been used by the campaign for Obama's re-election.
Data mining was central to the Obama campaign.
They credit it for winning the election.
An unprecedented amount of data collected on average, ordinary, everyday Americans and everybody else.
And as I say, it matters who the people are who are collecting the data.
And this is where the ideology of leadership comes into play.
It matters, folks.
The people collecting the data, it matters who they think are the nation's biggest enemies.
And if they happen to believe the biggest enemies are their political opponents domestically, then they've got access to a lot of data about them.
Then there's the NSA credit card financial transactions monitoring.
This showed that Eric Holder, Obama, ordered the monitoring of the content of Americans'purchases and bank records and without FISA warrants.
Since these credit card and financial transactions records show their content by their nature, they're not outside of the envelope information.
That is, these records show what was purchased, where it was purchased, and who purchased it.
And again, this data could have been used by Obama for his re-election, especially any information about donors to Tea Party and Republican groups.
People say, well, Russia was only metadata.
They can't learn anything from metadata, right?
Okay, they've got your number.
And they see that you make a phone call to the Romney for president.
Number.
Office where you live.
You spoke to him for five or six, maybe five or six calls.
They don't have to know what you said to know what you're doing.
You call a suicide prevention hotline.
They don't have to hear what you're talking about to know what you called for.
Any number of examples where metadata can tell them anything they want to know without once having to hear the content of anything.
It matters because of who's doing it, in my estimation.
Then they've got this prism business.
And uh Edward Snowden.
This shows that the NSA is getting information from internet companies, including the content of emails.
Now, this isn't really new.
They've supposedly got this information only on foreigners and FISA warrants and not directly from these company servers.
What happened was the companies would set up in a if you want to visualize it, a separate private room away from the main servers, sort of like a backdoor, and the NSA, the government could go there.
And this gives plausible deniability to the data companies.
But again, in the context of the other Obama scandals.
Plus, you it look not just scandals, but Obama policies.
Obama care, the IRS scandal, the things that have been done to the economy.
When you put all of this in context, it does not paint a picture that says, don't worry about it.
Standard operating procedure, government does this, and we should be glad the government does this.
In context, this is problematic.
There's every reason to believe, in context of the other scandals, that this access, this prism access, could have been used to target Americans.
And for political reasons, all the while we're told that the purpose is to stop terrorism and to find foreign activity that's suspicious.
But given who's collecting the data, there's no reason to think that this access might not have been used to monitor Obama's political opponents and not just terrorists.
David Petraeus comes to mind.
And the outing of his affair.
Somebody knew about it and somebody outed him.
And it happened for political reasons.
Then we have the secret email accounts of members of the regime.
The existence of secret email accounts shows that the regime has political appointees in all of the top bureaucracies who are unaccountable, who are engaging in activity that is absent oversight.
Obviously, this is being done purposefully.
And these secret email accounts keep these emails from being subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, and they prevent any official record of activity.
This would allow these political appointees to avoid accountability, and this practice could also explain the lack of direct connection between the White House and Benghazi talking points, the IRS scandal.
We can't find.
Everybody looking for a smoking gun?
There may well be one.
I doubt it when it comes to Benghazi, and I doubt it with the IRS, but let's say there was.
If there's a smoking gun, it's going to be with these secret email accounts that nobody can have access to except the regime.
This is just a brief summary without getting into other aspects of policy, such as Fast and Furious, whatever the intentions the regime has on immigration, which we have a pretty good idea, and guns.
But it's safe to say that the America you all were taught about and all grew up in is, subject to being transformed because people running the show today do not like it.
Gotta take a quick timeout.
We'll come back and resume after this.
Don't go away, folks.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
We go to uh Jacksonville, Florida, and this is James.
It's great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Uh two reasons why it's critical for America that we go through the impeachment process.
First reason is the IRS profiling of conservatives and Christians was intentionally intentional voter suppression.
And and that's an that's a constitutional legacy for our kids.
It's something we inherited, and it's something we owe to our children.
But Rush, the second most important reason is um Obama left two SEALs to die in the dirt in Benghazi.
And they were sitting there for six hours.
There was military that was ready, willing, and able to rescue him, and they didn't.
And Rush, if we don't at least go through this process for America of the impeachment, we're really leaving them to die in the dirt also.
Well, let me play devil's advocate with you for a moment because I understand what you're saying.
We have got to take action that alerts and advises the American people what's gone on, and we must plant the flag.
You're essentially asking us to plant the flag and say this is who we are and it's what we stand for, and this is what America is.
Correct?
Yes.
On the other side of this, I want your thoughts on this.
I'm not I'll I'll just ask on the other side of this, out there we have low information voters.
We have white voters laden with guilt, who support Obama and will never not support him simply because he's the first African American president.
In the process, the Democrats see all of this and they label the Republicans as all these horrible rotten names, mean spirited, they can't win in the arena of ideas, so they gotta go out and try to get rid of our poor great young president.
What do you think the political ramifications for opposition politicians of Obama the Democrat Party would be if this were to happen?
Well, uh, you know, I would defer to our leadership as to the Republican leadership as to whether they do it, you know, where this is before or after the election.
But Rush, we can't go quietly into the night here.
I mean, the what happened to our guys in Benghazi has got to be answered, and to put up with the response of what difference does it make, makes a huge difference.
And you know, Rush, we may not win this fight.
It may be that the House impeaches him and he gets off in the Senate, which is what happened with President Clinton.
But we've got to go through the process.
It's more about us as Americans than it is about Obama.
We've got to go through this process.
Well, without saying yes or no, up or down, pro or con, I just want to tell you that in terms of a wild guess as to whether or not this would happen, the Republicans think that they are still paying the price for impeaching Clinton.
They think they are still paying a political price.
And if you want to understand, for example, why Lindsey Graham, do you remember him?
He was one of the House managers who presented one of the cases against Clinton in the trial in the Senate, and look what's happened to him as a result.
He has done everything he can to erase everybody's memory of that.
The Republicans think that the budget battle of ninety-five and the impeachment of Clinton, because they in fairness, all of the optics and the impeachment of Clinton somehow were were the whole thing was misplayed,
and and the people, the low information crowd, the voters, literally thought that the Republicans sought to impeach Clinton because he had sex with Lewinsky.
And that's not what it was about.
It was about a sitting president lying under oath during grand jury testimony.
Arguably the nation's number one law enforcement official, The president of the United States lying under oath.
He was disbarred.
He was sanctioned for this, but the impeachment was thought to be because he was getting Lewinskied in the Oval Office.
And there wasn't, there aren't too many Americans who think they should lose their jobs for that, so why should Clinton?
And that's any impeachment that occurs is going to have to be correctly stated.
It's an interesting thought.
I know what you're saying.
We've we've we've got to plant the flag.
America and what it stands for and what we're devoted to has got to be stated, particularly in these times.
We can't just I'm s no, no, I know what he's saying.
Look, we can't just not do this or not do that because of low information voters aren't going to understand it.
We can't do this or can't do that because of political ramifications.
There are certain things that triumph or or that rise above politics.
I know I but I know I'm not saying I I'm just that's what he's that's what the caller is saying.
But remember, he also deferred to the leadership when it comes time to, you know, the rubber hitting the road.
Well even if the leadership figure had to do it.
Well, it ain't happening if you're doing that.
Yeah, they didn't call witnesses.
They didn't they weren't serious about it at all during the Clinton Patient.
They went through the process for the exact purpose the caller is suggesting, but we'll be back.
And we're back, El Rush Bowl, and the most listened to radio talk show in the country.
Happy to have you with us.
We go to Russell San Angelo, Texas.
You know what I love about San Angelo is you have to be going there to get there.
You will not accidentally run into this place.
How are you, Russell?
I'm doing well, thank you, Rush.
Edward Snowden, I'm absolutely convinced should not be uh prosecuted for uh any kind of leak.
I I believe in the whistleblower law, and I think he should be immune to prosecution.
Uh my reasoning is this the whistleblower laws were specifically designed for folks who understood they were being ordered to do something that was illegal or participated in something where higher ups told them to do something, and just like the Nazis, you don't have a dead defense doing something wrong or immoral because you were ordered to do for do so from the top.
And therefore, if what was going on that was illegal above him is true, he has a defense under the whistleblower law, and I think he should be immune from prosecution.
Well, let's take the occasion of your of your phone call.
Let me let I need to ask you a question, though, seriously, Russell.
What what if everything well it wouldn't be?
I was gonna say, what if everything was the same, but yet a Republican president?
Um Snowden did not go the route of whistleblowers.
He should have.
He should have done the he didn't.
He actually is not did not choose that route to go.
But how much try to be as honest with me as you can, is I want to find out what you're really thinking.
What what percentage of your thinking that he should not be prosecuted is because he's exposing things happening under Obama.
There is a part of that, but the other part of me also believes that things that Richard Nixon directed that were illegal, if he did indeed direct them, uh, should not have been protected uh down the line.
So to me it's re it it doesn't matter if it's a Republican administration or a Democrat administration, if in the chain of command, and I learned this in the military, if you're given an order to do something that's illegal, you have a responsibility to disobey that illegal order and to do what is right.
So to me, it doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush, Nixon, Reagan, it doesn't matter.
He has a responsibility uh to blow the whistle and say something illegal is going on.
Well the name Nixon keeps coming up here.
And Nixon.
Nixon didn't even dream of stuff like this.
We are So far beyond what happened in Watergate with this?
It's astounding to me.
We're so far beyond the attempted bugging of the Democrat National Committee and covering it up and all this deep throats.
I mean, we're so far beyond that.
Obama has done that and more.
Nixon failed to bug.
What are you what are you exercised about in there, Snurley?
What's got you so upset?
Well, Snerdley, okay, I this is the conflict.
There are people who think that no matter what you don't compromise your intelligence gathering like this.
No matter what you're exposing, and no matter who you're exposing, you just John Bolton probably would uh would gain your approval today.
Bolton thinks this guy ought to be tried for treason.
He ought to be pursued right now.
They ought to be dragging him back here by the knuckles, bring him back here and draw this guy up no matter what, because this is an expose of the entire technique and ability that we have that our enemies are.
And by the way, people now say, is this guy a Chinese agent already?
Was this done to coincide with Obama's meeting with the Chicom's?
There is there's try this theory, folks.
I uh when I read this, I I had the laugh.
It's from some learned think tank.
I don't remember who it was.
They said, well, let me tell you something.
The reason why all this happened.
The Chinese are behind this.
The Chinese are behind Snowden.
The Chinese are tired of Obama accusing them of hacking here and hacking there.
So the Chinese released all this to show the world it's not just them hacking, it's the U.S. hacking everybody.
I actually saw that explanation for what this is all about.
Is that Chicoms have their feelings hurt?
That Obama's accusing them of hacking everybody, and so the ChaiCom's, all right, well, let's just show that the U.S. is doing it as well.
Now, Snowden did not go the root of whistleblowers.
He should have.
Snowden says that he wanted to leak information starting within a year of his working at the CIA in 2007.
But he he leaked the Prism information less than three months of working for this consultancy, Booz Allen, essentially the National Security Agency.
Whatever that means.
I think it's a good opportunity to go through who this guy is.
and He was an NSA employee, essentially working through outside contractors, twenty-nine years old, lived in Hawaii, lived in a number of places, got hired by the CIA, supposedly of the NSA, with no high school diploma, no formal education at all.
He was hired as a tech specialist.
He was entrusted with some of the most intricate of this nation's secrets.
I mean, there's a lot about his biography here that is just mind-boggling.
If you listen to him, if you read what he says, and then you learn that he's 29 years old, you wonder, where does somebody, how's he been alive long enough to know everything he knows, and to have the accompanying maturity and wisdom to go along with what he knows.
Now, could be like a one of these really focused tech people who are in their area just out of sight brilliant.
And they they do exist.
But I made the mistake, but I found myself when I was reading transcripts of interviews with the guy in the UK Guardian.
When I was 29, I wasn't Capable of speaking that way.
I didn't know anywhere near what this guy knew about the ways of the world, not just about CIA, but the ways of the world.
I had I don't think I had anywhere near that level or degree of maturity, at least as I read what the guy had to say.
29 years old.
But again, there's a lot of other factors here that mitigate.
Who's the source?
Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald, UK guardian, is as far left a journalist in this country as you can get.
Okay, so that's a red flag for me.
So I'm I'm in a on hold, a holding pattern just to wait and see.
Because as you know, I do everything I can to avoid the conventional wisdom of the day.
To follow the crowd, I do everything I can to not get caught up in what the daily media focus or energy is.
And right now it's this guy and what he did and PRISM.
And well, it's not just that, it's everybody's take on it, too.
So I I'm sitting here sort of undecided.
Snerdley's been asking me, you think this guy ought to be tried for I don't know yet.
I've I'm I'm not going to be hurried into judgment on this.
Because it to me, it doesn't it it matters who has this kind of information.
It matters to me who's collecting it.
It matters ideologically who they are.
Yep, I do defend institutions and traditions, but they can become corrupted.
And if this guy is participating in dealing with corruption, if he's ultimately trying to do something good and protect something that's going on.
Now I know it doesn't look like that right now.
It looks like he's exposing it.
He is impugning it.
He's maligning it.
There's also some confusing stuff.
This guy says he's in Hong Kong because it's a it's a beacon of hope and freedom.
Where?
Is that ever established?
Hong Kong.
The Chikons can pull anybody out of Hong Kong anytime they want.
There's no extradition agreement between China and the United States.
Hong Kong.
You're really, this guy could go to any number of places.
He'd go to Sweden.
He'd go to any number of places if he really wants to be.
It's Hong Kong.
I don't understand that at all.
I also, I don't see what secrets he revealed with Prism.
He basically told the story of a process, but he didn't give away any secrets, Nerdley.
What secret did he give away?
Well, everybody.
The fact that we're doing it on this kind of a massive scale, I'm sorry, but if you didn't think this was going on already, then you need to reapply yourself.
The Google guys alone are helping the administration do this kind of stuff.
I've got a story.
I put it somewhere here.
There's a new story about Eric Schmidt and his investment in the Obama administration, data mining and all kinds of stuff.
I just printed it out.
I must have put it on the bottom of something.
The high-tech specialists of the world, in Silicon Valley, have been working with Obama since 2007, 2008 to give his campaign in the Democrat Party a leg up and all this stuff.
The fact that it's going on to this degree doesn't surprise me at all.
I think there are some myths when I hear the guy say that he could read an email of the president if he wants.
I don't believe that.
Not without a warrant.
This guy says he could, as long as he had somebody's email, he could go find anything about them he wanted without a warrant.
I'm not sure that I really believe all that.
That's why Simon a holding pattern on a lot of this stuff and trying not to jump any kind of a gun.
But he didn't really reveal any secrets.
He revealed A process that's taking place.
I thought that we already knew everything that the Washington Post reported, except for the NSA's direct access to servers.
That was new.
But when I first heard about Prism, this is just to illustrate.
When I first heard about Prism, whenever last week, the first story that all these high-tech companies were agreeing and supplying the government with this kind of inf, I wasn't surprised at all.
I've been under the impression this kind of stuff has been going on for a long time, and that a lot of Americans are very much aware of it, either directly or subliminally.
You've got cameras on every street corner now.
Everybody thinks their phone calls can be bugged.
Everybody thinks their emails can be read.
If you have Google or Yahoo, you know your emails are scanned for target advertising purposes.
Anyway, I'm a little long.
I've got to take a quick time out, folks, but we will continue right after this.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you one more question about all of this data that's being collected.
Because Mr. Schnerdley may represent his thinking may represent the thinking of a lot of you.
And that is you seem to accept as okay that the government, intelligence agencies, would be collecting all of this data on Americans.
And what makes you mad is that this little twerp has come along and exposed how it's done.
Do any of you care why this is being done?
It matters to me who is doing it.
I think that I've accepted that it's being done, just like a lot of you have.
But there's a question that I think needs to be asked, and that is why are they doing this?
No, no, no, seriously.
You might say that, well, we're taking terrorism, but they're sweeping data on everybody.
In addition to who is doing it.
What about the why?
Any of you interested in that aspect of this?
Well, of course they say national security, and then when you say national security, oh, oh, okay, okay, fine, fine.
And then you forget about it, and then well, you don't forget about it, you just assume every I think everybody's walking around at some level of consciousness, thinking that if somebody wants to find out about them, they can.
In addition to that, everybody, if you go to these social networks, Facebook, Twitter, everybody or a lot of people are volunteering every bit of information about themselves without having to be spied on.
Putting a lot of trust in everybody, putting a lot of trust in their fellow citizens and their friends in government, because they want fame.
They want to be known.
That's its own problem, which we have addressed.
But in addition to who is in charge and has access, there's another question to me that's relevant, and that's why.
Now, here's the Eric Schmidt story.
This is...
Well, no, no, the source of it, but uh business week, Bloomberg Business Week.
Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt is pouring several million dollars into creating a digital analytics firm made up of uh Obama for America alumni.
The new consultancy, Civus Analytics, is being headed up by a guy 30 years old named Dan Wagner, based in Chicago.
The new outfit plans to apply the same data strategies that produced a win for Obama last year toward advancing other progressive causes and only progressive causes.
Now, I'm not equating what Google's doing with the NSA.
Don't misunderstand.
Spying on everybody.
But Google is the place that the Obama regime goes to to find campaign worker support.
And you can be fairly confident that Google is doing everything they can to find out everything about as many people as possible so as to make that data available to the Democrat Party so that they can use it in ways that benefit them.
Well, the Republicans are doing the same.
Well, I don't know if they are or not.
I'm just it's just another example of massive data hoovering that's taking place out there.
Look at, I'm sorry, folks, another brief timeout.
Necessitated by the programming format clock.
Be right back.
Okay, folks, it's the fastest three hours in media.
I don't know where time's going, but we still got lots to do.
Lots to dissect, lots to analyze.
And of course, we'll throw your phone calls in the mix as well, so sit tight.
▲
Export Selection