All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:38
June 12, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, I didn't forget.
I just got a lot of stuff to do here.
It's right here on the top of the stack.
I don't forget anything.
Well, that's not entirely true, but I don't forget much of what counts.
Great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address.
L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
Is Edward Snowden's story unraveling why the Guardian's scoop is looking a bit dodgy?
Now, this is the UK Telegraph.
They are a competitor to the UK Guardian.
The UK Guardian story written by Glenn Greenwald, who has a leftist hack, and we must make that point.
Greenwald has been a blogger and a leftist so-called journalistic hack.
If I'm not mistaken, it's the same guy who used to write for either Solon or Slate.
One of those two.
And he used to he used to post blogs all over the place.
And I was frankly, I was surprised when I when I saw his by life as the same guy.
And picture wise it looks like it is.
I was surprised he's byline in the UK Guardian.
Anyway, he had the story on Prism, he had the story on Edward Snowden.
Now there's a guy, Tim Stanley in the UK Telegraph, who says that questions are being raised about Snowden's background and his motivations.
Now that the dust is settled, after the Edward Snowden affair, time to ask some tough questions about the Guardian's scoop.
Snowden's story is that he dropped a $200,000 a year job and a very attractive girlfriend.
Have you seen the picture of the girlfriend?
Well, I haven't seen the picture either, but uh this guy.
Well, there you have it.
HR Who would know said that she's not bad.
Was she a pole dancer?
Is that what she was?
What was she what was she?
Yes, she was a poll.
That's what I thought.
She was a pole dancer.
Gymnastic pole dancer.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um he left her on the poll, so to speak.
He left the 200 grand and left Hawaii.
And went to a life in hiding in Hong Kong in order to expose the evils of the NSA's Prism program.
But bits of the story are now being questioned.
The first question people are asking, why'd he go to China?
It was always an odd aspect of Snowden's plan that he would choose as his refuge from tyranny.
A totalitarian state that happily spies on its own people and imprisons dissenters.
Now Hong Kong itself has a tradition of resistance to dictatorship, but it also has had a treaty with uh with the U.S. that would make it relatively easy for an American to be extradited back.
Perhaps Snowden simply has the worst lawyers in history.
But it would that was a curious w of all places to go Hong Kong and then to claim that he's in a bastion of freedom when he's there.
And yet while he's there in a bastion of freedom, he's holed up in a hotel that he won't identify.
And has only left the hotel room three times in the he's been there since May.
And living on room service.
The second aspect of the story that's somewhat curious is that his backstory is not entirely accurate.
Booze Allen, the consultancy firm that does work for the NSA says that his salary was 122,000.
It wasn't 200,000.
That's 40% lower than what he said it was.
A real estate agent says that Snowden's house in Hawaii was empty for weeks before he left.
Does the fact that he only worked for three months with Booz Allen and the NSA suggest he was planning a hit and run all along and he took the job of the NSA with the intention of stealing the documents?
The third aspect of the story that leads people to believe it may be unraveling is that the regime is pushing back now on the definition of what the Prism program actually is.
That it is not a snooping program.
It's rather a data management tool.
The call logging accusations are pretty much beyond doubt and and reason enough to scream Big Brother, but the PRISM angle is a little less clear.
Extreme Tech points out that it's a program that has hidden in public sight, that PRISM is in fact the name of a web data management tool that's so boring that no one had ever bothered to report on its existence before.
Now, in all fairness, none of this debunks outright Snowden's claims that the NSA is gathering data that it has extraordinary power or that has lied to Congress about it, but it does smack of a lack of fact checking on the part of the Guardian, and it risks giving credibility to those who think that this is a lot of fuss about nothing.
And this Tim Stanley guy, by the way, is one in that camp.
He thinks that this is a bunch of nothing.
He thinks it's a lot of fuss about not Prism.
The prison program is a bunch of stuff about nothing.
So look, this stands to reason that stuff like this would happen.
This was a big scoop, and it only stands to reason that competing newspapers would want to try to take pot shots at it.
Now, Snowden told the South China Morning Post, I don't know if Rupert Murdoch still owns that or not, but he once did.
Snowden, it's a Hong Kong newspaper.
Snowden said, I'm here to reveal criminality.
But he didn't reveal criminality.
I mean, specifically, he detailed process.
The South China Morning Post is very pro-CHICOM, very pro-Beijing.
Yeah, it was Salon that Greenwald used to write for.
Political activists.
He's so far left.
Greenwald worked for political action committees that were organized to defeat Democrats who were too moderate.
Greenwald thinks the mainstream media is too conservative.
That's who he is.
Anyway, so he didn't make 200 grand.
He may not have worked at the NSA that long.
And you want to, there's a bit of news out there today.
This has got a frost Democrats.
It has to frost Obama.
And it's in the politico.
For the first time since April of 2005, Americans view former President George W. Bush more favorably than unfavorably.
It's a Gallup poll.
According to the survey released yesterday, 49% of Americans now view Bush favorably, 46% unfavorably.
This, according to Gallup, is the first time in more than five years the president's held a more positive opinion.
And that puts him right up there with Obama.
You know, Obama's hovering, depending on the poll from 49 to 52%.
In fact, in the Gallup Daily Practice poll, Obama's at 47.
And Bush is at uh 49.
Did you ever think you would live to see the day where that was the case?
That in any poll, George W. Bush had a higher favorability rating than uh than the one.
Again in Gallup, it's Bush 49, favorable Obama 47.
CNN Money.com, fed up with declining payments and rising red tape.
A small but growing number of doctors is opting out of the insurance system completely.
They are expecting patients to pony up with cash.
You knew this was going to happen.
Some doctors who've gone that route love it, saying they can spend more time with and provide higher quality care to their patients.
Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from the system.
Let me skeptical.
Now let me tell you what's going to happen.
In fact, an early prediction, way back during the Hillary healthcare days.
Because you know, one of the reasons low information voters support this is because they think that it's going to equalize everything.
By definition, it's going to take away from the rich, and the rich are finally going to find out what it's like to live like everybody else has to.
And fact of the matter is that this is the model.
In fact, you go to UK, go to Great Britain.
They have national health care, except for the rich.
They have their own hospitals, they have their own doctors.
They opt out because they're able to.
And there are doctors who will opt out because they've got patients who will pay them.
And the same thing is going to happen here.
Every time low information people end up supporting something they think is going to stick it to the rich.
It just they end up being the ones stuck.
So this is going to happen with greater and greater frequency.
And what does this do, by the way?
Doctors treating patients for cash.
It used to be that way.
Medical profession in standard normal everyday cases, other than catastrophic accidents, and things that have always been very expensive.
It used to be, you know, and I'm I try to avoid being a little fuddy duty.
But when I was a kid, you go to the dentist, get treated, go home, and the parents get a bill at the end of the month.
Same thing with a pediatrician.
Go to the doctor, doctor sends a bill.
And you pay the doctor cash, like you would pay any other vendor, like you would pay any other independent contractor.
This takes out the middleman, takes out the insurance companies, it takes out the government, it eliminates them, and it makes everything cheaper.
It makes everything more efficient for those that afford to do it.
And it is almost like medicine used to be before the government made it fair.
This is how it used to happen.
Here's another poll.
This is an NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
This is not going to go down well with the uh Reverend Dax.
As the Supreme Court prepares to once again weigh in on the issue of affirmative action.
A record no number of Americans support it now.
Only 45% of respondents in the poll said that they believe affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract counteract the effects of discrimination against minorities.
An equal 45% feel that the programs have gone too far and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites.
The number of Americans supporting affirmative action has been in decline over the past 20 years.
In 1991, it was 61%.
Now down to 45%.
I remember when affirmative action first came up.
Where was I was in this Kansas City.
So that would have been before 1979, because I was still doing radio shows then.
Left to go work for the Royals in 1979.
And I did, I had to do, you know what they made me do at this station.
The station was short on its community service commitment when it came to license renewal.
You have to, I think still, but back then it was really a focus.
You had to prove to the FCC every three years for license renewal for the radio station that you were devoting a certain percentage of your programming to the community.
And like most radio stations that played top 40 music, we did all that from like 3 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Sunday morning.
You go get the local sewage guy bring him in for an interview, then the uh uh the local welcome wagon lady bring her in at 4 a.m.
I mean you pre-tape all this, you air it when nobody's listening, and it won't take away from your audience levels, but you can say that you aired it, you can say that you've fulfilled the requirement.
Well, somehow, the radio station where I worked at, even doing that was low.
So they came to me.
I was a DJ.
We Want you to start taking phone calls between records about community issues.
Take a phone call here and there between records and uh do it two or three times an hour.
And I ate that up.
I mean, oh wow, this is cool.
Did such such topics back in the day did topics.
When you die, how do you want to go?
That kind of thing.
Just just silly little stuff.
And I was quite the novice at it.
I remember.
26, but affirmative action somehow ended up being one of the things that I was being discussed.
And I ended up with a radical community leader from Kansas City who called and got through.
Had to local Obama had to screen my own calls between while the record was playing.
I had to screen the calls.
Screen my own calls.
That was it was fun.
It was amazing.
Anyway, I had this guy on and I asked him.
I said, okay, he was uh affirmative action.
It was okay to call it quotas back then, in fact.
In the early days, I didn't care.
And so when is this going to end?
And the thing that bothers me about this is okay, you're be you're doing this to make amends for past transgressions, right?
He said, that's exactly right.
You got it.
We have been mistreated, we've been discriminated, he said to skimp.
been discriminated against ever since slavery, ever since this country was founded.
We need some reverse discrimination here to make it even.
I had this community leader actually calling it reverse discrimination, affirmative.
I said, okay, well, when does it end?
who Who's gonna decide that enough amends have been made?
Who who's gonna decide that we've now leveled the playing field, that we've settled the score?
And he said, never.
I said, never.
He said, that's right.
We're never gonna they're never gonna end affirmative action.
We're never gonna end quotas.
What are you talking about?
When does it end?
Well, I said, well, I'm s who who is going to be sitting in judgment of of when the programs finally succeeded.
Never.
We don't intend for it to ever end.
I wish I could remember the guy's name.
He was he was uh he was nice because he was he was ecstatic uh with the airtime.
And I was prevented from arguing because this was community service.
It wasn't about what I thought.
It was about what he's got.
I had to sit back and whatever they said.
That that was the whole point.
Now I couldn't help it, though.
Couldn't I uh I uh it doesn't make sense to me.
That's something there has to be an end to it.
Nope, never.
And he was being entirely honest.
There isn't gonna be any end to it.
In fact, it's only now discrimination uh includes women and Hispanics, everybody.
There is no end to it in sight, but at least affirmative action itself is now supported by fewer and fewer.
Not that it's gonna change and back to the phone, so you go to the Cleveland, this is hope.
And it's great to have you.
Hi, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, thanks.
Please don't let don't buy the argument that there's nothing to see here with the NSA story.
I think there's everything to see here.
The NSA never had a mandate to operate within the borders of the United States.
Wait, wait, well, don't don't bar the argument.
Well, when people say there's nothing to see here, there's everything to see here.
Oh, oh, okay.
They never had the mandate to operate within our borders.
And if that's what they're doing now, it it's I mean, the nature of the business, it's signal intelligence.
That means surveillance, search and seizure of information without probable cause.
That's why they're not supposed to turn it on Americans.
Well, what if the courts say they can?
Then they've lawyered.
It's our Constitution.
Everything's legal.
Everybody Obama was elected, members of Congress were elected, the Article II judges were appointed and confirmed, or whatever they do, what do we do?
I mean, it's all I hear I I hear you, and they've lawyered this thing, but the law still has to stand up to the Constitution.
And and what they're doing is not right.
Because they're spying domestically on people.
Yes, exactly.
Well, who says the wait a second, who says the NSA can't play devil's advocate?
Who says the NSA can't spy domestically?
They can't, of course.
They never it was never allowed.
It was never allowed.
Are you sure you're not confusing them with the FBI?
I am I mean with the with the CIA.
No, I'm not confusing it.
Everything that was done at the NSA was supposed to be done outside our borders because of the nature of the business.
Well that, if that's the case, then the Constitution's been shredded for decades because the NSA has been collecting data domestically for as long as you and I have been alive.
Uh I'm not sure I believe that.
I think whatever happened happened after 9-11, and people changed their minds.
Well, if the NSA, and you probably right, the NSA is not supposed to monitor U.S. citizens, then uh.
Why in the world are all of the learned constitutionalists saying nothing to see here, everything is cool.
Because they're they're mired in legal arguments without testing it by constitutional the the rights that we have.
Okay.
Well, I have look, I'm I'm sorry, I've got my clock expiring.
I've got to take another break.
Hope I'm glad you called.
Thanks very much.
EIB Network and L. Rushboard.
Brief pause back before you know it.
Don't go away.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, tumult, chaos, spying.
And even the good times.
Rush Limbaugh seeking a pathway to the shadows.
Here at the EIB No.
No.
Look to explain this again.
Here this is something that really does interest me.
We've got we've got all the data mining going on with the NSA and the Verizon Prism, whatever it is.
Bottom line, every phone call, every phone record of everybody making a phone call in this country is being hoovered, is being vacuumed up and swept up somewhere.
Somebody has access to it and they want to put it through their database algorithms, whatever.
But somehow, we can't find the 11 million illegals.
They are in the shadows.
Well, I want to be where they are.
Wherever they are, and the NSA and the regime can't find them, that's where I'd like to be.
We are being told that we have to grant them legality, a pathway to citizenship, in order to drag them out of the shadows, in order to find out who they are, so that we can put a stop to it.
If we don't know who the 11 million, that's the number being bandied about.
If we don't know who the 11 million illegals are, then we can't identify who's new and who has been here a while.
We've got to identify them.
Now the NSA and whoever else is doing the data collection can find everything on us.
But apparently this is not a way to identify the illegals.
The only way to find out who they are is to legalize them, right?
Well, wherever they are is where I want to be.
That's why I want a pathway to the shadows.
I want to be undetectable.
I want to be unknown.
I want to be unfindable like they are.
Well, if I no, I get I could get off the grid if I could find out where they are.
The shadows, where is that?
That's why I'm looking for a pathway to the shadows.
They're looking for pathway to citizenship.
I want a pathway to the shadows.
I know it hasn't worked out.
I did.
I'm in the New Year's resolution to go low profile and you know, not scare 24-year-old women as much.
But it kind of blew up in my face.
A fee?
You pay.
Oh, pay the government a lot of money to you pay the uh government basically to ignore me.
And thereby end up in the shadows.
Oh, who would you pay?
Organizing for America?
What Obama pack would you pay?
And how much?
And even then, they'd double cross me.
They're never not gonna keep track of me.
No matter what promises they would make.
Okay, here's uh Joey in Hollywood.
Joey, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Great to speak with you, Rush.
I love you.
I've been listening to you for years, thanks to my father who turned me on to you.
And yes, I uh work in Hollywood.
Um very tight-knit uh, you know, group out here, but um there are you know a few uh conservatives in the mix, but I just think that what's going on now are textbook tactics by the liberals to discredit the prison story, because basically the bottom line is did Obama roll back the spy program?
Answer no.
Can the government get your phone records and from the past and your emails?
Yes.
Did Obama do anything to stop that?
No.
Does he have the capability to do that?
Yes.
So, having said that, let's turn the tables and I'm gonna make it so that all the low-income and low info voters will understand.
And that is once the shoe's on the other foot, because conservatives after this will be in power.
If this doesn't stop, all that Obama is doing is helping conservatives because he is going to fine-tune and find ways for it to be more sneaky about how they steal their information.
No, no, that's not what's gonna happen.
It's fun to pretend that that's what would happen.
That's not what's gonna happen.
All of it let's say everything else in your call is accurate.
They're doing all the data mining.
They're taking all the all the data, they're collecting it, and they're putting it in ways that can be used, like Maxine Waters said, Obama developing greatest database ever, the government has access to it.
Right.
Some point a Republican administration is elected and is therefore theoretically in possession of it.
Day one, day one, the Democrats begin an assault on the Republicans for violating your privacy.
Day one, they start accusing the Republicans of taking this information, spying on you for the and and they they make the Republicans give it up.
The Republicans will buckle that kind of pressure.
They just ratchet it up.
If they can tell lies about Mitt Romney, not caring whether some guy's wife died of cancer, it won't take them long to start trashing the Republican president and whoever else that has access to the data and start wild accusations about what they're doing with it.
Um they just I agree.
I agree.
We're the if we were in power, we this is what's going on now is unprecedented, but how the liberals work, I like I said, I'm in Hollywood.
There are focus group meetings that are planned and strategized how to push the agenda on all platforms of media, radio, movies, and TV.
It's it's it's not it's an onslaught against Christianity.
It's an onslaught against everything that conservatives stand for.
And it is it is down to a T. Nothing on TV and nothing in movies is everything is scripted.
Everything has a purpose.
I'll tell you a secret.
Glee, when that first came out, the whole idea of Glee was to introduce homosexuality and promiscuity.
The sex in the city, that is about the writer and producer.
That's about his gay life and his gay life with his friends.
All the gay scenarios, he tried to sell it, and they're like, the public's not ever gonna go for, they're not gonna do it.
And they're all okay, just make it make it girls with guys, that's fine, okay, good.
But everything is an onslaught against religion.
It's not about you know everything else.
But it with this specific context, I think that all of the news outlets uh you have reporters that sit down and conspire on how they can fool the public.
If they knew That somehow that their conversations can then be recorded and found out.
If that's possible, they would be shaking in their boots.
If the shoe is on the other foot.
And so right now I'm telling you.
Let me tell you something.
I I know that I know Hollywood has an agenda, and I know the elements of it.
And you're I know the details of what you're talking about.
How they try to do it using the pop culture.
No question about it.
It's undeniable.
It's undeniable.
They use the pop culture to stigmatize opponents and push their own agenda.
Uh but I don't.
You know, the the the idea that these meetings that they're having were recorded, perhaps, and might be used by opponents who might someday be in uh in power.
I'll tell you what's going to happen is right now.
You are being hunted down.
You are being searched.
They are trying to find out everything about you so that they can perhaps intimidate and threaten you so that you never ever make a phone call like this again.
Look, it's an interesting thing to toy with.
Okay, what happens?
All of this has been assembled, all this data has been assembled, and it's there.
I uh the but the bottom line is all of this is going to travel with the Democrats.
Obama's not going to leave this stuff behind.
This is not the property of the United States government.
This is not the property of the NSA.
It's organizing for America or whatever agency, but it's all going to travel with Obama.
It's all going to stay within the Democrat Party.
It it this stuff is never going to be accessible to us.
And we are not the kind of people that would go around and collect it on them.
For fear we would be discovered.
Anyway, look at Joey.
I know exactly what you're talking about, and you're right on the money, but the idea that we might someday be in possession of this data, and they are quaking in their boots over is not going to stop them from doing it.
Anyway, I gotta take a break.
I'm way long.
We'll be back here in just a second, folks.
Don't go away.
Grab soundbite number 10.
We've got two soundbites of the guy that did the video that caused all the trouble in the Middle East.
and Fox News found him.
Nakula Basili Nakula.
Joshua Miller interviewed the filmmaker.
Question, do you feel that you were used by the U.S. government as a scapegoat for the failures that led to the consulate attack in Benghazi?
I cannot say nothing against that.
You know, he's so more than me.
He knows more than me.
Who am I uh who uh criteria Commander on the chief?
And there you have it, entire intimidation.
Full-fledged intimidation.
This is what happens in authoritarian regimes.
This is the guy who is in jail without bail for ostensibly causing all the trouble.
His video didn't lead to any problem.
He's been totally lied about.
They found him.
I can't say anything about the no, no, no, you you know, you know the president know more than I do.
He know more than me that.
Well, who am I to commit to put it?
Please leave me alone.
Next question.
What were you trying to do with your film?
What was your objective?
Is not religious a movie.
I'm looking probably in that illusion.
I have threatened Muslim defense.
I have a lot of Muslim defense.
And not all the Muslims believe in terrorism culture.
Not all of them.
That's why we need to fight with the culture, not with the Muslim.
But I didn't have it in mind not criticizing the commander in chief.
He know more than me.
He saw more than me.
You're not going to get me to criticize the commander in chief.
That's the guy, that's the filmmaker.
I just wanted you to hear him.
Nakula Nakula.
With the uh the middle name Basili.
That's it, folks.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum at the Rushlimbaugh.com website.
And if you haven't visited it, you really should.
The virtual museum is awesome.
Thanks for being with us today, folks.
▲
Export Selection