All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 11, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone serving humanity, my friends.
And how does that happen?
Easy.
I just show up.
Great to have you here.
And, of course, looking forward to speaking with you on the phone.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbov eibnet.com.
Speaking of polling data, this is an NBC poll.
And some might look at this as good news.
To me, it's all meaningless because if we had a poll that shows, we just finished with a series of polls, reviewing a poll from the Washington Post and the Pew Research Center, which basically said that most Democrats are all for all of this government surveillance, every bit of it and more.
All for it.
They trust Obama.
They like Obama.
They like the Democrats.
If it were Bush doing it, they would all oppose it.
So it's ideological.
Depends on your party affiliation.
Now, this poll from NBC says that many Americans blame government welfare for persistent poverty.
Big whoop.
They still elect Democrats.
So what does this poll mean?
What does it really mean?
Two decades after President Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it.
Now, that just ignites me.
Bill Clinton fought welfare reform tooth and nail.
How many times did he veto it?
Twice?
Three times?
Bill Clinton only signed welfare reform into law in order to get re-elected in 1996 or to help his re-election.
Welfare reform was and always will be a conservative idea.
And yet NBC has a poll, and it says that most Americans blame welfare for persistent poverty.
So how does this stupid story start?
Two decades after Bill Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it, Bill Clinton didn't do any such thing.
Well, he was forced into it.
He never would have done it if left to his own devices.
Nevertheless, this is what I mean.
Media crediting Bill Clinton for this.
So two years after the great and wondrous Bill Clinton gave us welfare reform, Americans blame government handouts for persistent poverty in the United States.
They blame that more than any other factor.
Given a list of eight factors and asked to choose the one most responsible for the continuing problem of poverty, 24% said too much government welfare that prevents initiative.
Now, you might say, well, where were these people in November?
Where are these people at any time voting for Democrats?
Do they not know what the Democrat Party stands for?
Folks, this is where I share every ounce of your frustration.
This is where I am totally in compliance with you, in agreement.
This is as frustrating a bit of news, poll, and it's probably designed to be just that.
And who, of course, has exacerbated this?
Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has blown the welfare system up smithereens.
More and more people in this country are on welfare.
More and more people in this country are on disability.
More and more people in this country are on Medicaid.
More and more people in this country are not taking care of themselves.
More and more people in this country are not providing for themselves.
And in the midst of all that, we got a poll saying the vast majority of Americans disapprove of it.
Well, who did they re-elect?
So, yeah, this is one of those things you throw your arms up, your hands up, and in total frustration.
Whether Americans are too dependent on government was a flashpoint of the presidential campaign last year, this story says: Shrinking government has been a focus of the Tea Party movement, which has risen since the election of Barack Obama, yet Obama still won.
Lack of job opportunities was the second most popular answer to explaining persistent poverty.
That was 18%.
Lack of good educational opportunities was in third place.
Breakdown of the family was in fourth place at 13%.
The other four options in the poll: lack of a work ethic, lack of government funding, drugs, and racial discrimination.
Now, the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll asked a similar question about poverty in September of 1994 during a congressional campaign that focused in part on personal responsibility and the role of welfare.
That poll asked about poverty in our nation's inner cities.
It did not include welfare as a possible response.
The leading answer was lack of job opportunities at 31%.
So, between the two polls, the shape of the country's approach to fighting poverty has changed markedly, particularly after welfare itself was overhauled in 96 under Clinton.
Folks, that is just BS.
If welfare has been an option as a response, it would have polled at the top back then, too, but it wasn't.
If welfare had been an option in the poll in 1994 to explain persistent poverty, it would have been at the top back then, too.
So, here you have a poll that most of the Americans, most of the American people, voted totally against what they know and what they believe.
And as far as anybody in the low-information crowd's concerned, Bill Clinton was the last politician that ever cared about reforming welfare.
UK Guardian, the Obama administration, will stop trying to limit sales of emergency contraception pills, making the morning after pill available to women of all ages without a prescription.
Justice Department said in a letter yesterday that it planned to comply with a court's ruling to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B one step and that it would withdraw its appeal on the matter.
This move is the latest in a lengthy legal fight over the morning after pill, which was until recently only available without a prescription to women 17 and older who presented proof of age at a pharmacist counter.
Now, anybody, your five-year-old, can walk in there and pick this stuff up.
Al Roker's 14-year-old can walk in and pick.
He just heard about this by Al Roker, very upset.
This has been in the news for how many years, and he just heard about it today.
We played the soundnoid for you in the first hour of the program.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Have the Washington and media elites upset about Edward Snowden.
Let me ask you, didn't we just go through an election where we were told that the youths of America had all the answers?
We had to get the youth of America interested in American politics.
We had to get them interested to the point that they cared.
The youth of America, it's their future.
The youth vote, that mattered as much as anything.
Whoever got the youth vote was going to win.
On contraception, gay marriage, immigration, redistribution of wealth, national security, we were told we needed to get with it because the youth of America all wanted these things.
The youth of America demanding gay marriage, the youth of America demanding contraception anytime, anywhere, any place.
The youth of America demanding immigration and amnesty.
The youth of America wanting redistribution of wealth.
We got to get with it.
Republican Party, a bunch of old white men, a bunch of old fogies.
Okay, so now here comes a youth, 29-year-old Edward Snowden, an ideal young potential Democrat, except for this.
So we have a montage here of media people and inside-the-beltway types commenting on the guy.
Snowden is 29 years old.
He doesn't have a high school diploma.
The 29-year-old.
The 29-year-old behind these sensational U.S. security leagues.
29 years old with a GED.
29-year-old.
High school dropout.
Individuals like this, 29 years old.
I got a problem with a 29-year-old deciding U.S. national security policy.
A guy with a patchy beard who's 29 years old.
He is 29 years old, a millennial, a generation known for its independence.
29 years old, he feels like he knows it all.
Oh, it doesn't sound like they're so enamored of 29-year-olds here.
Does it?
Sounds like the fact he's 29-year-olds is a reason to think the guy's not worth listening to.
29-year-olds, it's a punk.
And it wasn't that long ago, I kept hearing how important it was to find out what the millennials thought.
How important it was to pay attention to what the millennials thought their future would be.
Okay?
This is a pretty good example of a millennial.
And now all of a sudden, the only difference between this guy and a bag of excrement is the bag because he's 29.
He's just a punk.
Not worth listening to.
What a creep.
Who does this guy think he is?
That's the attitude now.
Before the election, these guys were Adonises.
Yeah, the patchy beard.
At least his beard is better than Jay Carney's beard.
There's no question about that.
Okay, back to the phones, and we go to Atlanta.
John, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
I just wanted to, I was listening to your show from the start.
I listened most days, and the letter you read out from your subscriber really hit a cord of me.
I'm not actually, don't live in America.
I'm Irish, and I'm on a publicity tour trying to speak out about illegal immigration and the bill in the Senate.
And the one thing I've noticed...
Okay, hang on, hey, hey, hey.
John, I need you to slow down a little bit so that I, with my hearing disability, can understand what you're saying.
I got you're from Ireland, and you're here on a publicity tour.
You're trying to speak out about illegal immigration.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And I'm speaking to a lot of people.
And the one thing I've noticed is something similar to what that person emailed you in.
And it's greatly upsetting to me because as someone who loves this country so much and admires everything you've done, the founding principles, it's the first three words of your Constitution are we the people.
And the fact that people are saying that, what can you do?
We can't do anything.
And they seem to almost be powerless.
And the one question I get asked all the time is, well, what difference can one man make?
And I always say there's a load you can do.
You can inspire people.
You can talk to your fellow workers.
You can break down the issues.
Be a voice for freedom.
Because what I see in America today is something similar to the way the Cold War was treated in the 60s.
No one thought this issue could be won.
Reagan changed that.
He inspired the American people.
He spoke up about the American people.
He believed in freedom.
I believe if Americans take that mantra and speak to their co-workers, to their friends, to their families, to people in the church, and stop looking down on your country or feeling bad that you've been so successful and speak it up with pride and be proud of your history, I think you can recover everything that you've lost and start off.
You know, you're singing my song in one sense, in the sense that I have constantly told people they have much more influence over people just by living their lives than they possibly will ever even know.
But you're hitting on something, and I want to ask you if I maybe am interpreting you incorrectly, but you said you're responding to the guy that sent me the email, and it sounds to me like what you're saying is, hey, guys, stop waiting on somebody else to do it and join the crowd and try to help make change yourself.
Exactly.
Because this is what America was founded on, individualism.
You know, you have to get rid of this collective mindset that's, you know, because Barack Obama is great for, you know, you have to fit into a certain criteria.
And you can only do things together and for the common goods.
You know what?
Even look at people like, because I heard you talking about Apple.
If Steve Jobs thought, you know what, when he was sitting back up in the 70s, I could never do the iPad or the iPod as an individual, he would never have been successful.
But he didn't.
He kept on pushing forward.
And with the free market, he achieved so many great things.
But everybody can do it.
This country put a man on the moon.
Are you telling me that individuals, by speaking out, by not, obviously the average American has other stuff.
I'm involved in politics 24-7, so they can't do that.
They work and they've family and their friends.
But if they can talk about freedom and just forget about, like I was watching Cease Ballot the weekend and everybody was defending the wiretaps thing, well, George Bush started it.
It doesn't matter who started it or who continues it.
It's about whether it's right or wrong.
It's not about Democrats, Republicans, or Conservatives.
It's about the American people.
They're first and foremost.
And that's what needs to be discussed.
And also, America is short on ideas.
Those ideas will come from the people.
If you leave it up to Washington to come up with the ideas for the future, you're going to be in a shortage.
John, you're hitting on a number of things here.
One of the themes that you're talking about is individualism, rugged individualism, I call it.
This is one of the aspects of life in America today that has so many people frustrated that people are willing to throw away their individuality in exchange for being accepted by some community.
Whatever community it is, not just the town, but the group of people, like-minded thinkers, like conformists.
Americans, way too many of them, are way too interested in conformity and what people think of them and getting along and letting Washington make decisions for them, trading the old adage about trading a little freedom for security here, trading some there.
The individual is under assault in this country as a selfish, mean, spirited, you fill in the blank.
And so there's a ignorance is rewarded.
Conformity is rewarded.
And they're just, I think that's a great point of frustration that many people that you're talking about sense and think in this country that way too many others are just blindly accepting of what's happening without being concerned about it in any way, shape, manner, or form.
I agree.
But also there's a fact that, you know, like when you see people who are on benefits, so you know, a lot of it's to do with the Republican Party and there's a lack of ideas, but they've lost the message of freedom.
They lost belief in it somewhere along the lines.
Like you look at the Democrats and you go, okay, so you get a certain amount of money off the government for your Obamacare and your Obama phone and whatever other benefits.
And let's say it's $1,000 a month and that's in your left hand.
And the Republicans seem to see, well, you know, we used to talk about freedom and liberty and individual and free market in our right hand.
All of a sudden, it's like, well, because $1,000 is tangible and you can touch it and you can do things with it, that's better and we need to compete on that ground.
You don't.
Freedom is priceless.
It's not something like this.
Well, you know what else?
Let me tell you what else freedom is.
In America today, freedom is a tough sell.
And you know why it's a tough sell?
Because part and parcel of it is accepting personal responsibility.
We have some real cultural problems.
The way you're speaking, you're speaking the way people spoke of this country as recently as 30, 40 years ago.
Today, the way you're speaking about America gets laughed at by a lot of people in different parts of this country.
You're talking about freedom and the founders and liberty.
Nobody thinks their freedom's up for grab.
Nobody thinks their liberty is being lost.
Not nobody.
A lot of people don't think any of this is at risk.
They think people trying to warn them of it are a bunch of extremist conspiratorial kooks.
That's what we're up against, is that you're speaking like you have roots to our founders.
You have a greater attachment to the founding of this country than I can't tell you how many millions of people who were born here who don't know half as much about it as you do.
But you're right.
I'm just observing for you.
I'm trying to tell you what people like you and the rest of us are up against in trying to reestablish this country as the Constitutional Republic it was founded.
Because it is up for grabs right now.
You're great, John.
I really am glad that you got through.
Thanks so much.
We'll be back after this.
Ron Paul said it in his so-called farewell address to the House of Representatives.
One of the things that surprises him the most is how difficult it is to sell freedom to people.
How hard it is that freedom is a burden that people don't want.
You have to take care of yourself.
You have to work.
You have to stay informed.
You have to be an individual.
It's tough.
It is a sadly, it is a tough sell.
Get this, folks.
This story just cleared the Washington Examiner.
The Senate's comprehensive immigration bill is set for a procedural vote later today, the cloture vote.
And lawmakers still have not resolved a thorny problem under which the bill, get ready for this.
Lawmakers have not resolved a thorny problem under which the bill would effectively encourage employers to hire newly legalized immigrants over American citizens as a way of avoiding Obamacare taxes.
Now you say, well, how can that be?
That doesn't make sense.
Let me explain it to you.
Provisional or legal, provisional, illegal immigrants can get preference in employment over full American citizens.
Here's why.
As provisional citizens, they are not qualified to get Obamacare.
So they can be hired.
And there are no fines to pay because they're not qualified.
So my question is, this is an intended consequence or unintended.
Here's the relevant pull quote from the story.
Under the existing Senate immigration bill, immigrants who have been in the U.S. illegally can obtain a provisional legal status after they pay some fines and after they meet certain preconditions.
However, this group of people, according to the bill, as written, would have to wait at least 13 years to be able to obtain full citizenship.
And it isn't until full citizenship that they could qualify for government benefits such as Obamacare.
Therefore, it would make far more sense for an employer to hire one of these newly provisional, formerly illegal immigrants because he doesn't have to give them health care.
They're not entitled to it.
So he doesn't have to buy it for them.
And he wouldn't have to pay a fine.
And I'm not making this up.
It's in the Senate bill that's going to be voted on today, procedural vote, cloture vote.
Now, here's the little dose of reality.
This 13-year business, you know, and I know that that isn't going to hold up.
That's just in there to get the bill or to have some chance of this bill being passed.
Because I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen if this happens to get passed with this 13-year waiting period.
Within six hours of Obama signing the bill, Chuck Schumer is going to find the nearest camera and microphone, and he's going to start wailing and moaning about how unfair that provision is.
13 years to be able to be a full-fledged citizen after we have just made them legal?
13 years?
That's inhumane.
That's unfair.
We may as well allow them to become citizens and vote tomorrow.
I guarantee you that's the design.
I guarantee you that is an unspoken objective or goal.
This business of having these newly legal, provisionally legal immigrants wait 13 years for all the goodies of citizenship.
You have to be born on a turnip truck to think that that's going to hold up.
That's just but if it did hold up, the point is, if that this is another reason why it won't hold up six hours, maybe maybe fewer, maybe fewer than six hours, maybe six minutes.
I mean, Chuck Schumer will leave the signing ceremony at the White House, and he'll find the nearest camera outside the driveway.
And he'll start talking about how unfair this 13 years is, and he doesn't know how it ended up in the bill, but it's unfair, it's unjust, it's un-American, it's discriminatory, all of these things that they know now that they're going to say, and then public pressure will be put on because all the Democrats want the Democrats are going to want these people to vote in 2014, folks.
And by hook or by crook, they're going to find a way to make that happen if this bill passes.
I imagine there's some Republicans in the Senate and the House listening or staff members listening.
No, no, no, you're wrong.
Rush, please don't say that.
It is not going to happen.
The 13 years is hard and fast.
All right, I'll allow that you believe that and that that's what's intended, but I know Democrats.
I know what the purpose of this amnesty bill is and that there isn't one element of it that is geared toward compassion.
That's a selling point, but what they're really after is you want to, you want to, I'll say it again, if you want to, if you want to throw this bill up into total disarray, have a Republican say, Jeff Sessions, somebody, somebody with instant credibility, I'll support it.
I'll change my mind.
I'll support this.
They can't vote for 25 years.
And then see what happens to this bill.
Then listen to the cat calls and of a reaction to that.
Don't make it 20, make it 10 years.
Can't vote for 10 years and see what happens.
Expose the purpose of this.
Speaking of which, grab soundbite number 20.
Obama, again, took advantage of all the focus here on Edward Snowden, thereby taking the IRS scandal off the front page, taking Ben Ghonzi off the front page, and taking the Verizon, the metadata sweeping of data off the front page.
Obama had a big ceremony today leading up to the procedural vote in the Senate on immigration.
And with some soundbites, and here, this is pretty explanatory.
Here's the first, we have three bites.
I don't know if I'll play all three, but here's the first one.
Right now, our immigration system keeps families apart for years at a time.
See?
People who came here legally, who are ready to give it their all to earn their place in America, end up waiting for years to join their loved ones here in the United States.
It's not right.
No.
But that's That's the broken system we have today.
Yes, yes, they broke the rules.
They didn't wait their turn.
That's right.
They shouldn't be let off easy.
They shouldn't be allowed to game the system.
But at the same time, the vast majority of these individuals are looking for trouble.
Stop saying, stop it.
Whatever comes after Butt doesn't matter.
Whatever happens, whatever he said after Butt doesn't matter.
Because what it means is what came before Butt is irrelevant.
He just said that if you're going to say, look, right now the system's broken, keeps families apart, came here legally, ready to give it their all to earn their place in America, end up waiting for years to join their loved ones, it isn't right, but that's the broken system we have today.
Yeah, they broke the rules.
They didn't wait their turn.
They shouldn't be let off easy.
They shouldn't be allowed to game the system, but we're going to let it all happen anyway.
When you throw a butt in after all that, you are just canceling out everything that came before the butt.
What he said was, I'm not going to waste time playing the bike.
What he said after the butt was, but at the same time, the vast majority of these individuals aren't looking for any trouble.
They're just looking to provide for their families and contribute to their communities.
And who the hell are we to say they can't do it?
Yeah, they came here illegally, but so what?
Yeah, they broke the rules, but so what?
Yeah, they didn't wait their turn, but so what?
Yeah, they shouldn't let it off easy, but so what?
They're not looking for trouble.
They just want to contribute to their communities.
You don't think after this bill gets passed, if it does, that that 13 years isn't going to hold up?
The same speech.
Okay, we've signed immigration into law.
Amnesty is the law, but they got to wait 13 years.
Obama goes that our immigration system is still broken.
Even after this comprehensive immigration reform, our system is still broken.
We just made people who've been here illegally for years legal.
And now we've told them that they can't really be legal for another 13 years.
All they want to do is be part of their communities.
All they want to do is look to provide for their families.
And how can they do that if they have to wait 13 more years?
Our system is still broken.
But if the 13 years hold up, employers will be motivated to hire these people because in the 13 years, they're not eligible for Obamacare benefits.
And they're not eligible, ostensibly, for other safety net benefits.
It's a joke and insult to our intelligence to say that that's going to be held up.
But the point is, I don't know if this is an intended consequence or unintended.
But how do you feel?
And what do you think when you hear that illegal aliens, immigrants, whatever, will be given hiring preference over you because they will be cheaper.
They won't qualify for health care.
The employer, therefore, won't have to pay it.
And the employer won't have to pay a fine because they don't have it.
So the employer saves a whole lot of money.
The employer doesn't have to spend all the money that Obamacare demands be spent because these people aren't eligible to receive it.
Intended or unintended consequence.
You decide.
Back after this.
Back to the phones, Rich in White Plains.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You know, Rush, over and over again, I see a news, something in the news, and I form an opinion.
And sure as heck, it's the exact opinion you express in your next show.
And the last one was this young man, Snowden.
My first reaction was, what did he do to make him so dangerous?
And Rush, what's interesting is everybody's opinion before he revealed himself, I think, was more concerned about the government having our phone numbers.
But now that there's a person associated with it, they're going on the attack.
It's almost like they enjoy having somebody to scapegoat.
And when you said yesterday that what did he reveal?
He revealed a process.
Unlike Obama, for the sake of Zero Dark 30, revealed some real details that could really put people in danger.
You know, that is an excellent point.
In fact, there have been a couple of stories.
I don't remember where.
One of them asked the question, did somebody in the Department of Defense actually give the producers of Zero Dark 30 literal intel for the purposes of having themselves portrayed wonderfully in the media taking place?
It was speculation.
But he's right.
There is a substantive publicizing of Intel.
What this guy, Snowden, didn't reveal anything.
All he did was reveal the process.
He didn't give away any secrets.
In terms, well, he didn't reveal anything that has been learned.
All he did, and I don't mean all is though it's inconsequential, don't misunderstand, but he just detailed the how.
He detailed the capability, but he didn't divulge one bit of intel.
I don't think anybody was shocked.
I wasn't.
I wasn't.
Now, a lot of people are feigning real anger over this.
And John Bolton, by the way, we had a soundbite on Bolton yesterday so we didn't get to it.
But John Bolton said, you know, this reaction that this is getting is hysterical.
And he didn't mean funny.
He said, this is an unwarranted hysteria.
Every branch of government signed off on this.
His point was there's nothing rogue about this.
Every bit of it happened according to the law.
You had the Pfizer court, judicial.
You had the intelligence committees, legislative.
You had the president, executive.
Every branch of government knew what was going on.
Every branch of government okayed it.
There isn't one branch of government doing something here without the permission of the other two.
And therefore, there's nothing to see here.
Well, wouldn't you agree with that, Snerdley?
Therefore, don't get so hysterical about this is standard operating procedure.
This is how Intel happens.
This is how information gathering takes place in 2013.
It's a dangerous world out there.
The United States is a great nation at risk in a dangerous world, and we've got to make sure that the American people are protected.
That's what causes people to start asking questions.
Is this about protecting the American people or is it about targeting them?
And that's where this guy's detailing of the process started raising, at least my curiosity.
Now, he didn't reveal anything that was illegal, which was Bolton's point.
And it wasn't illegal because all three branches had signed off on it.
I guess under that line of thing, if all three branches signed off on doing something, I guess it's okay.
Bolton's point, there was nothing unconstitutional here.
There was nothing illegal here.
And therefore, there's nothing to see here.
Basically, this is the sausage making of intel gathering.
And nobody wants to see the sausage factory.
You want to eat the bacon and the lynx.
Well, except for Snerdley, but you don't want to see how it's saving here.
That was Bolton's point.
My, and I understand it.
You know, I'm a mature, relatively mature 62-year-old.
But I hearken back to it matters who's doing it and who has the power.
And this regime is targeting Americans it doesn't like.
And that's why it bothered me.
And I think that's only common sense as far as not paranoia.
Russia has okayed legislation that would ban gay propaganda.
A bill that stigmatizes gay people, bans giving children any information about homosexuality, overwhelmingly was approved Tuesday in Russia's lower house of parliament.
▲
Export Selection