All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:24
June 12, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We are back, as always, in command, in charge, your bulwark, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, EIB, an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact.
You get it over the air.
It's the only good addiction known to exist.
And once you get it, you are cured.
Happy to have you here.
Our telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882 and the email address Ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Okay, so where are I I want to close the loop on the hoovering here of metadata?
Well get to Prism in just a second, Snowden and all that.
Because as I say, the UK Telegraph says that that story, the Guardian story in that may be unraveling.
We'll see.
But where I left off on the metadata, just the sweeping of all phone data by the NSA from Verizon and probably every other phone company.
Okay, so where we?
The individual, and this is reputed to be constitutional law, the and statute law, by the way.
The individual law, uh individual has no right in his phone number.
He doesn't own it.
He doesn't own the contents of the telephone calls that you make.
You don't own that, the phone company does.
You have no right to it.
You have no expectation of privacy, in fact, because it's not yours.
The phone company owns it, and they have this is crucial, immunity granted by the government.
They have immunity from prosecution accution for giving it up.
Government wants it.
See, this is what bugs me.
If you call Verizon, look, I want the phone records of my neighbor, I don't like what the guy they laugh you out of the office.
Government call, oh, fine and dandy, here you go, and we want immunity fine, you've got it.
The automatic assumption that government is entitled to everything to run health care, to tell the oil companies how they can and can't run, to regulate everything, just bugs me.
The individual is said to have no right in his phone number.
The phone company is said to own the number, but the phone company can't protect it from the government because the government gets whatever it wants.
And so the courts are said to be the stopgap.
That's FISA, but FISA never turns any request down.
But here's where it all comes together.
If there's no expectation of privacy, is what we're being told.
You what we're being told is look, you're you guys, you're getting all exercised over nothing here.
The NSA collecting this data is no being it's not yours.
Your privacy is not being violated, you don't own your number, you don't own the data.
Okay, so if there's no expectation of privacy, if we're wrong in expecting that, and if we don't own it, if there's no property right, and therefore nothing we can do, there's no civil recourse to any of this, then how can there be any judicial oversight?
In other words, if if you and I have no rights, no claim to anything involving the use of our telephones, then what kind of judicial oversight can there be?
If we're not legally entitled to any of it, if we're not entitled to expect privacy, then how can there be judicial oversight?
There's nothing to defend.
There's nothing to safeguard.
If there's no expectation of privacy, and if we don't own it, if there's no property right, then there's nothing we can do in the courts.
So I don't know what kind of judicial oversight there is, and you say all three branches signed off on it, but where's the protection?
And then you add to this that it's all to be done in secret.
So we have what appears to be A nearly 100% court record in authorizing every kind of request in this regard.
Meaning, whenever the government asks the FISA court or any of the court for access to this data, it's granted.
What has been the benefit?
That is a question I have.
What's the benefit?
What are we getting for this?
Well, right here in the UK Guardian, NSA surveillance played little role in foiling terror plots, expert says.
Obama administration says that all of this NSA data helped make arrests in two important cases.
But in fact, in one of the cases, terrorists actually succeeded in a really horrendous attack.
And the other one was pretty bogus.
Here are the two cases.
When somebody says, What's the benefit for all this?
Okay, we don't own the number.
We don't own the contents, we have no property right, therefore we have no expectation of privacy, because it isn't ours in the first place.
We have no place we can go to seek redress if what we think is our privacy is violated.
We're told there's judicial oversight because all this stuff has to be granted by a court.
Well, it all is.
Okay, so all of this data mining, what are we getting out of it?
And they cite two cases where this collection of data has saved lives.
Well, lawyers and intelligence experts with direct knowledge of two intercepted terror plots that the regime says confirm the value of all this NSA data mining.
Lawyers and intelligence experts have questioned whether the surveillance sweeps actually played a significant role, if any, in foiling the attacks.
The defense of the controversial collection of data has been led by Diane Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and her equivalent in the House, Mike Rogers.
And they point to two cases in which the data sweep has been worthwhile.
One was the New York subway bomber, last name Zazi in 2009, the other David Headley, who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
If you remember, that was a huge attack that succeeded, if you recall.
It was blown to smithereens.
And they're claiming- Yeah, but we found the guy because of this program.
Yeah, we did.
We found the guy.
Court documents lodged in the United States and the UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data mining through PRISM and other NSA programs played minor roles in the interception of two plots.
Look, I don't want to go into details, but the point is, the regime says, well, for all of this sweeping of data, we've stopped two things.
Well, one thing wasn't stopped.
Mumbai blew sky high.
Well, yes, right, but we found the guy that did it.
Okay, cool.
And the other was the New York subway thing.
Now here's the again in trying to close the loop here.
What are we getting for this?
This massive data mining, massive sweep.
This is taking a lot of time.
It is it is costing a lot of money.
It has to be diverting resources from real law enforcement, if you ask me.
It has to be diverting attention to real national security issues.
This kind of sweeping access to every citizen's assumed private data would come under the category of a general warrant through the back door in this case,
but this is the kind that the founding Fathers objected to this kind of sweeping government power when they were putting the Constitution together.
And in fact, it was the states that demanded what became the Fourth Amendment.
That you are safe in your person and your home against unreasonable searches.
It was the states that demanded this.
Once they saw where this possible this this massive type of invasion of what most people would think is private, the states demanded what became the Fourth Amendment before they would ratify the Constitution.
So there are a lot of people that that uh and look at they're good people too.
I mean, John Bolton and and a number of others are are telling uh people like me to one extent or another, or you to calm down that you're really over you're overdoing this.
This is not some giant government conspiracy.
There's really nothing to see, it's all all three branches have approved of this.
There's nothing happening here that's putting you at risk.
There's there's no attempt to dig up data on you for the government to use against you.
This is perfectly fine.
We need to do this kind of intel gathering to stop terror attacks.
Um, I uh there are a lot of people that are appalled by this.
This this this this kind of massive ability, requests for this data up a thousand percent under Obama, and and I don't know how, maybe I'm being naive and and maybe I just don't know enough.
But as I've said before, when you have the same people doing all of this data mining who have used the IRS against people who are my friends, the Tea Party, to suppress their political participation.
I don't know how you overlook it and say it any big deal.
I have a story, I haven't printed it out yet.
It has been discovered that the IRS already has collected 60 million medical records of people from California alone.
I don't know under what authority, probably Obamacare, you would think,
But the I just I can't I can't imagine that when the country was founded and the Constitution was being put together, that this kind of thing was considered, thought of, and approved, this this is the kind of thing that this country was established in opposition to.
Now I will allow possibility that that maybe I am seeing this in in a maybe a tunnel-visioned way, because there are a lot of people I respect, and it's nothing to see here, Rush isn't any big deal.
This is common, ordinary, and in in most cases you ought to be glad it's happening because it's oriented toward security and safety and so forth.
And I, in a sense, understand that.
But when I see who's doing the collecting, and I see how they're lying about it.
Clapper and these guys.
Um, I'm not I'm not a f let me say it at the outset here.
Personally, and I think this is probably a lot of people's attitude, which is what allows this to happen.
Well, hell, I haven't done a knitting.
I'm not afraid.
They can find out whatever they want about me.
I'm not I there's the I'm there's nothing personal in in my having red flags about this.
This is simply I'm a small government guy.
This isn't small government.
This isn't limited government.
Just the exact opposite.
Okay, brief time out.
We'll come back and uh people have been lined up on the phones for days.
We'll get to them after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, to the phones we go, Barney in Tucson, Arizona.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
And it does matter who's doing this, and I'd like to answer your question why.
What the left wants most is to stay in power.
And this is a scheme to enable them to do just that.
You mentioned yesterday that you know they know if you call, for instance, the Romney campaign, so they also can generate a political profile on you.
This is the data they're after.
Because after they profile, if you're their kind of voter and you're not registered, their union buddies come to your door and have you fill out a registration form.
They did something similar in Colorado a few years ago.
It was the subject of the book Blueprint.
And in the last year in Arizona, they pulled off a few illegal maneuvers to influence elections here.
And this is the this is the scheme.
Well, uh it's an interesting uh look at it.
So you think they're profiling supporters and people who oppose them.
They've been doing it all over the country.
There when we did redistricting in Arizona last year, we were supposed to hire uh an Arizona mapping company for a half million to help with the project.
They hired at the cost of over a million, not a mapping company, but a micro-targeting company, and it was the same one that Obama used to profile for his election to target voters.
Okay, now let me ask you a question, Barney.
What what happens if the Democrats lose the White House?
Well, the the key here is this there's this one organization called Strategic Telemetry.
It's the organization that is responsible for for both projects.
And if any of this data is transferred to them, and I can't see these uh people who don't care about the law and not doing it, they have the material they need to do a profile on everybody with a telephone.
And what they do is it it's easy to profile, depending on who you call or uh what connections you make, and they know, hey, this guy is eighty percent likely to vote Democrat.
And so they they can this, they go to the door if you're not registered and say we want to.
But wait, but wait a minute, wait a second.
They're not going door to door all over the place.
They are.
They are they've not come to my door.
They've not wrung my buzz, they're not go they're not doing everybody.
You're but what my my question is what happens if they lose an election?
What happens to all this?
The data is still kept in the coffers of this company, which is used by a lot of Democrats running.
What they've been doing is targeting key states.
I'll give you an example of what they're able to pull off in Arizona.
A few years back, we used to be seven to one Republican in Congress.
But with this scam they pulled in redistricting last year, even though all thirteen statewide races were run by Republicans, not a single Democrat in Congress, they managed to shift us to to blue, where five four Democrats in Congress due to this targeting they've pulled off.
And they did it a few years ago in Colorado.
And I'm convinced that this is what they're using this data for.
Because this administration doesn't seem to give a dang about the national security.
We know that from lots of different areas.
Well, I that's see that that now rings a bell.
Because the Boston bombing happened.
And by the way, they were sweeping before the Boston bombing.
They just renewed it after the Boston bombing.
This is the renewal for the sweep every three months.
They didn't start the day after the Boston bombing.
It intensified.
But I I think what Barney is talking about.
Now we played the soundbite.
We went back, played this again for you.
Cookie, find this in the archive.
We did we played it earlier this week.
You remember Maxine Waters?
And Mar I I tell you what Barney is talking about.
Organizing for America, the campaign organization that Obama has established that's being run now.
Which is part of the Limbaugh theorem.
Obama's he's doing three fundraisers Today, folks, he's out three fundraisers today.
For what?
He's not running for election again.
What is he what are you doing fundraising?
And he's not really these are not Democrat Party things.
These are organizing for America.
Now, Maxine Waters said that Obama had the most massive database ever collected in America.
Information on everybody.
It was unprecedented.
Nobody had ever had any kind of a database like this.
I think this is what Barney you are in part referring to.
This there Maxine Waters lets a lot of truth slip.
She let it slip during a commercial or congressional hearing that talks some airline people, I think, some CEOs or some industry.
Well, what we want to, we want to nationalize.
We we want to take over your business.
The oil industry.
We won't take over your business.
And the rest of the Democrats on the committee kind of hung their heads, oh geez, I don't think she's some sort of the idiot.
But instead, what they were doing, oh, come on, Maxine, shut up.
What are you giving up the game for is what their reaction was.
So we'll find the Maxine Waters bill.
Don't discount it.
She would know, and she would also be loose-lipped enough to mention it.
And she was proud of it.
This massive unprecedented database that uh Obama was collecting on everybody.
That's why we've raised the question.
You go to the uh health exchange and you want to get a policy, did you vote Obama or not?
Depends on where you end up in the line.
People guess about that.
Here it is.
This is Maxine Waters originally broadcast on February 3rd of 2013.
Uh remember this guy Roland Martin used to have uh well, he was uh, I guess an analyst.
We show up now and then kind of guys on CNN, and then he did something that got fired, probably attracted an audience.
Uh but he has his own show on something called TV One.
And it's called Washington Watch with Roland Martin.
And back in February, he interviewed Maxine Waters, and they were talking about Obama's second term.
And uh Roland Martin said to her, the reality is like anything else, you'd better get while you what you can while he's there.
Because look, come 2016, Obama's gone.
So this is a this is a program aimed at minorities, and get what you can means, you know, score your phones and your benefits, whatever, while you can, because once Obama's gone, who knows?
This is what Maxine Waters said.
Well, you know, I don't know, and I think some people are missing something here.
The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.
That's going to be very, very powerful.
That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.
Now, it's Maxine Waters.
You hear this, and you think you've uh you know taken up residence in Cookville, and you reject it.
But she lets the cat out of the bag on a lot of stuff the left is doing.
The president has put in place an organization that contains a kind of database no one has ever seen before in life.
Hello, prison, hello, sweeping of every freaking phone call in America.
It's going to be very, very powerful.
Every phone call in America, the data is swept by Obama's NSA.
That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.
And then she said, whoever runs for president on the Democrat ticket will have it.
It's something Obama is leaving as a legacy to the Democratic.
In addition, he'll use it, I'm sure, as he and Michelle put together the Barack Obama presidential library for social justice, wherever they do it.
She said that whoever runs for president on the Democratic ticket has to deal with it, meaning we'll have access to it.
They're going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can't get around it.
And he's been very smart.
It's very powerful what he's leaving in place.
This is what Barney, our last caller, was talking about, and this is what's going on.
And this is why, I'm sorry.
The fact that it's just metadata and it happened under Bush and so forth, not to this extent with Bush.
I felt pretty confident they were looking at foreign-related phone calls to or from.
I never heard anybody in the Republican Party start bragging about this massive database Bush is putting together.
Start bragging about what kind of legacy the Republicans were going to have with this.
And it's just like with the IRS.
All of this data collection and all of this monitoring is in itself intimidating.
It's intimidating to any opponents of the regime.
It could be intimidating to any opponent of a Democrat candidate.
Look at what they're willing look at what they did to Romney in the form of TV ads without even any data collection.
They just up and out wide about Romney's character.
But anyway, aside from the collection of data, look at the intimidation.
When somebody smiles to you at you and says, you know, we know everything about you.
And we're finding out everything you do tomorrow.
That carries with it a degree of intimidation.
So now critics of Obama not only have to worry about the IRS, they've got to worry about the NSA.
And the NSA then telling the IRS and the FBI.
And then those people downloading information to ProPublica, which is left-wing journalists, and that's how the data on you can end up in profiles in the media, as in the attacks on Romney donors.
And all of that is intimidating.
And in that case, the intimidation was if you're going to make sizable donations to a Republican, this is what's going to happen to you.
These people politicize everything.
Government is the biggest prize in the world.
Take, folks, if I can personalize this, whatever in life you have, I want to speak to all of you as individuals here to try to make this point.
Don't care what it is, no judgmentalism here.
Whatever.
I want you to stop.
What is the one thing in life you want more than anything?
Whatever it is.
Imagine the passion you have about achieving it or acquiring it or succeeding at whatever the most desirous thing you and everybody has something like this that you want more than anything.
Now, some of it, it's always going to be a fantasy because it's unattainable.
But regardless, think of the emotion attached to the desire, whatever the one thing in life you want more than it.
Well, to these people, the one thing that they want more than anything is the total control of the biggest and most powerful institution in the world, the government of the United States of America.
Their reason for being politically involved has nothing to do with the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with preserving freedom or liberty or enhancing life and circumstances for citizens.
It is the acquisition of personal power.
And these people are also unified around something else that's just as crucially important.
That is they want to get rid of any substantive opposition.
However, they can do it.
So if they achieve in acquiring this power, control over the government, then they'll use that to make sure they never lose it.
That's what Barney's talking about in his call from Tucson, Arizona.
That's what Barney thinks is underway.
That's what Barney thinks Maxine Waters database is all about.
A permanent, never-ending control of all of the most powerful institutions in the world that are all here in the U.S. government.
That's what they're after.
Now we, as conservatives, can't even relate to that when it comes to government.
We want to get government out of everybody's.
That's why there isn't any commonality.
That's why there's no chance here for compromise or bipartisanship, especially not with this latest bunch of liberal Democrats.
Now, most of their little low information followers haven't the slightest idea what's going on.
They don't have any they don't even the awareness this is if you if you sat them down and told them this is what Obama's doing and why one ear and out the other.
Couldn't comprehend it, wouldn't even want to try to.
But they willingly facilitate it by supporting it.
Now, let me ask you this.
People like Obama and his buddies, associates, Democrat Party, who want all this power.
Do you think that they could have it if they came to us and said, This is what we want.
We want you to elect us, we want you to support us because we want the power.
We want to be able to control everything.
They of course not.
So how are they doing it?
Well, there's the limbaugh theorem to explain Obama's detachment, but the trick is they have to mislead everybody as to their true ambition, as to their true desire, in order to acquire this power.
Because it is is such an ethema to the American human spirit and condition.
You acquire all of this data on P. You think about how easy it is to manipulate low information voters with this kind of information, this kind of data.
The way this bunch does it is they claim to be the kings of compassion, the kings of love.
All they want to do is help people.
All they want to do is give you this and give you that, make sure that that can't be taken away from you and that and so forth, and what they're ending up doing at the same time is the exact opposite.
Now you know this, and this is why all of this is so upsetting.
And it's once once you realize it, it's simple, it's obvious to see.
So the frustration sits in why don't other people see it, why don't they believe it when I tell them about it?
Because most people can't conceive of wanting this kind of power.
And the people seeking it never ever give any indication that it's what they want.
Or they wouldn't stand a chance.
Brief time out, folks, back with much more phone calls when we get back.
Sit tight.
Meeting and surpassing.
All audience expectations all the time, every day.
Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, America's real anchor man, truth detector, doctor of democracy, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball package.
Here's uh Jason Ellisville, Missouri.
Welcome, sir, to the program.
Where's Ellisville?
Ellisville is roughly about, say, twenty miles west of St. Louis, one of the suburbs.
Oh, okay.
Well, great to have you on the program.
Oh, it's great being here.
Thanks so much, and it's an honor and a privilege to speak to you, Russia.
And Mr. Snerdley, by the way, my wife just about jumped out of her skin when she found out that I talked to him.
So wait a minute.
Your wife jumped out of her skin when she found out you talked to Snerdley?
Oh, yeah.
She she loves she loves him.
She loves listening to him whenever uh he steps in on the microphone in place of you.
Oh yeah.
Well, you know, speaking of which, official Obama criticized her.
We haven't we haven't heard from the official Obama criticizer in a while.
Maybe this week.
Because there's uh there are plenty of stuff to criticize.
Um Mr. Snerdley's unique real slave blood angle.
Anyway, Jason, what is it that you uh well you called about?
Okay, sorry to segue like that, but essentially the uh the nuts and bolts of what I called in for uh sort of dovetails along with uh the conglomeration of power uh that the Democrats seek right now, in that uh with uh with this whole uh uh amnesty uh angle or the the the Senate bill that's now getting talked about and uh and now uh Mr. Representative Boehner is now speaking towards that we're going to get some kind of amnesty
bill through the Congress at some point this year, and Senator Rubio speaking that it will be um legalizing um illegal aliens first before securing our borders.
And I think once they do that, and then they decide to then allow folks to uh vote, well then it's the game's done.
That's the nuclear option, the nuclear bomb on the country as we speak, because the Republican Party will cease to exist, and that will be the total end of uh uh, I guess bipartisan discussions on the direction of the country.
And I cannot tell you how seething mad I am, as I'm sure a lot of your listeners are, um, especially hearing, you know, one of the great hopes of the young Republican class, Senator Rubio going down his path doing exactly opposite of what he initially said he was going to to go to go to.
Well, let me clarify for you what he told me on the phone today.
Uh and he reminded me that he said this while he was here whenever his last interview was on the program, and he said it then too.
Uh and his his point is he's not relegating border security to secondary status.
He has just decided that we need to get these eleven million people, whatever they are, identified, so that they're it, that they're the end of it.
It stops after them.
And the only way to do that is to immediately put them on the pathway to citizenship.
But it's all part of securing the border, is the point that he's trying to make.
He uh his point is he's really not changing his strategy or his opinion on this.
And he points out there's still the the 10 to 13 year waiting period before they're granted citizenship.
And I did on the phone this morning, I asked him, Well, what about the idea?
We had it yesterday that those people during that 13-year period are not eligible to vote.
They're not eligible to get Obamacare benefits or any other.
So what about the idea that they're gonna be hired first?
They're cheaper.
He said, Yeah, that's uh that that's a problem, and it goes to show what uh that we we've got to deal with Obamacare as well.
But he's insistent that the the legalization process is not the right to vote immediately.
It's not the right to collect benefits immediately.
It's simply drag them out of the shadows so they can be identified so that we know that's it, no more after that.
Then we secure the border to make sure that doesn't happen.
Yeah, and see, and I and I think that's political speak again, simply for the fact that at least with something like Obamacare and stuff like that, we at least have the hope that it can be taken back.
As soon as this is the button is pushed, the final signature by the president is on that bill, the final bill.
That's it.
You can't you can't do take-baxis with eleven, twelve, fifteen, twenty, thirty million people that will instantaneously get legalized status in our country.
So your theory meaning that they're gonna all or the vast majority of them vote Democrat.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
And to me.
Well, that's why we lost California.
It's exactly how we lost California.
You can trace.
You go back, California, early 80s, 70s, early.
The Republican Party owned that state.
They literally politically owned that state.
The governors were Republican, the legislature was Republican.
When I got to California in 1984, uh Republican Party was still viable, Pete Wilson and the gang, and they that was still a viable political party that that that shared power.
Amnesty hits in 1986, and from that point forward is when the Republican Party began to fade into practical non existence in California.
So the fear is that that's what would happen nationally.
And, of course, a lot of people agree with you, and that's why the Democrats want this.
The big mystery, the big mystery is how come we're the only ones that see this?
Why don't the Republicans see it this way?
And that's...
I can't tell you that.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
I don't know where these two have gone.
They're out there somewhere.
It'll be republished at Rushlinbaugh.com later this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection