Rush Limbaugh Program - June 13, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program

30:40

June 13, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And we're back, L. Rushbow, serving humanity simply by being here, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	And it's a thriller delight to have you with us, folks.
	Telephone number if you want to be on the program in the final hour of the fastest.
	Three hours in media.
	800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
	So you've been did you say waking up dreaming or nightmaring?
	Which is it?
	Snerdley has told me that he's been waking up the past three days singing Rush the Knife.
	Uh, one of the very, very early musical selections that we featured on this program, one of the parodies.
	Actually, it came in over the transom.
	Uh FedEx or UPS driver, I forget which, in Las Vegas, just went into the studio and wrote a version of Mac the Knife to Rush the Knife.
	And we haven't been able to play it because the uh the rights holders want a phenomenal amount of money every year.
	They do.
	They want a phenomenal amount of money every year for the for the licensing rights, the ass cap, whatever it is.
	And so it's it's one of the great things we haven't even we did, we we have skirted the issue on anniversary programs to uh to play it.
	Now you're telling me this because you you just want to hear it.
	So you yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You've been waking up singing it.
	What was that, Mike?
	What did you say?
	Yeah, he'll send you the MP3.
	But look, we've got other things.
	I just since I bring it up, I wanted you to know what Snerdley was talking about was 1990.
	We're going to continue now with the uh audio sound bites on this amnesty business.
	I mentioned that Chuck Schumer said that the Grassley bill, which is six months to get the border secure before anything else can happen.
	Schumer said, I can't do this in six months, it's gonna be years and years, ten years, thirteen, whatever it is.
	Here's Schumer.
	What is this amendment do?
	It's very simple.
	It says that the 11 million people living in the shadows cannot even get RPI status, the provisional status by which they can work and travel until the Secretary of Homeland Security says the border is fully secure.
	We all know that that will take years and years and years.
	Exactly right.
	It'll take years and years and years, but that's what we were told.
	And we all bought it.
	We all believed that this was one of the requirements that our guys had before they would support this, that the border would be secure.
	It's where it failed the last time.
	We did Amnesty in 1986, and they promised border security then, and there wasn't any.
	And the fact that there wasn't any led to whatever the number is today.
	I don't think it's 11 million, I think it's much more.
	Many more.
	But 11 million is the number of the day, so we'll go with it.
	Okay.
	So we're back where we were in 1986.
	Okay, well, secure the border this time.
	We've got to stop this.
	I'll tell you where we are now.
	When this happens, and if there is this 10-year, 13 year, whatever it is, wait, it's not gonna be either of those, but by the law and the gang of aid bills 13 years.
	In those 13 years, those people that Schumer's talking about cannot get Obamacare, they cannot get any welfare benefits.
	Guess what?
	That makes them more hireable.
	They're cheaper.
	Employers will hire the newly pathway to citizenship people, because they don't have to pay a fine if they don't have health care.
	They don't have to give them Obamacare benefits.
	They don't have to provide them workman's comp, any of that.
	They don't qualify, they're not citizens yet.
	And so, in that period of time that they're waiting, they are more hirable.
	They are more attractive to business.
	And there is that element of this that I should mention, and this I do understand.
	Big business people, of course, want labor costs to be as low as they can get them.
	And if you've got a pool of 11 million people and all of a sudden don't qualify for Obamacare, and you do not have to provide those benefits, and you do not have to pay a fine, guess who is going to be hired.
	I think there's another element to this.
	Nobody ever looks at this from the perspective of the Hispanics who are living here.
	But how about this take on it?
	You've got legalized Hispanic immigrants to this country who are now citizens.
	Do you think that they're eager to have an influx of whatever numbers of millions it is that are going to be competing with them for work?
	We are being told, pardon parcel of this, we're being told, and this is what the Republicans are buying, is that there is a monolithic relationship, that there is a monolithic, unified relationship of all Hispanics, and that they are all desirous that every Hispanic be granted a pathway to citizenship and an eventual citizenship.
	That there is a unified monolithic view that they all hold that there is this Hispanic solidarity, that all Hispanics want every other Hispanic in the country to be made legal simply because there is this loyalty of one Hispanic to the next.
	Republicans are being told that, and the Republicans are therefore believing that if something upsets that monolithic view, that if you make one Hispanic mad because you quote unquote mistreat another Hispanic, then all Hispanics are gonna hate you.
	be the same thing as saying all women are going to hate you if you don't do this all men are going to hate you if you don't do that okay All homosexuals are gonna hate you if you don't do that.
	They're all gonna hate you.
	And the Republicans live in fear of being hated.
	And it's the Democrats telling them who's gonna hate them.
	And it's the Republicans believing what the Democrats are telling them about how to be loved.
	And you better not make the Hispanics mad.
	Yet what if it isn't true?
	What if there isn't this Hispanic solidarity that's monolithic?
	What if there are Hispanics who look at other people as just people first, not Hispanics first, and who don't want additional competition for jobs, particularly among people who are less educated and less qualified and therefore cheaper?
	We're being asked to believe so much that just violates basic human nature.
	We're and it's all it's all part of believing that minorities have a solidarity that every minority thinks exactly alike, and that every member of a minority group hates every member of the majority, and that every member of a minority group is in solidarity with everybody else, and that they're all unified against whoever is going to deny one member of that minority group whatever they want.
	It flies in the face of basic human nature.
	At any rate, the point is that Schumer says we can't get that in a number of years, Dingy Harry says, we're not gonna ever do border security, you guys are whistling a pipe dream.
	Let's go to Rubio Rubio on Fox this morning.
	Bill Hemmer talked to him.
	It's obvious that you will not get Republican sport unless you convince your colleagues that border security will happen and it'll be a priority.
	Will you make that happen?
	I think we can, and because what we're asking for is very reasonable.
	Two things borders and benefits.
	On the benefits, we want to make sure that this is not a strain on the American taxpayer.
	It is not fair to ask the American taxpayer to pay for benefits for people that have violated our immigration laws.
	And on the border, it's not just border, it's e-verify and entry-exit tracking of visitors.
	We want to make sure that this never happens again.
	We don't want to be back here five years from now Talking about another five or ten million people who have entered our country illegally.
	I don't know how this stops that.
	I don't know how this stops.
	And I the thing I don't get is why, just because the Democrats want to do something that we have to go along.
	Why why can't our reaction to what they want be no?
	Why must there always have to be an alternative that is rooted in what they want?
	They want 11 million new voters.
	They don't say that.
	They say they want citizenship for these poor people that have risked everything to come to America, the great America.
	They want their freedom from oppression.
	They want this.
	They want who are we to deny these people their humanity?
	We must grant them a pathway to citizenship.
	They're here and they're in the shadows.
	And the Republicans say, hmm, you know what?
	Since you guys want it, we better come up with a version of it, or we're going to be hated.
	Why can't the Republicans say, no?
	No, I'll tell you what we're going to do.
	We're going to shut down the border.
	Everything stays the same until we shut down the border.
	The country and the sun are going to come up tomorrow.
	The sun's gonna set, everybody's gonna go along, nobody's in great danger, nobody's threatened here right now.
	We're gonna secure the border first.
	And then we'll we'll talk about what to do about the people who are here.
	But the first thing we gotta do is stop the influx.
	Why can't we do that?
	Why must every initiative they put we have Obamacare because they want nationalized health care.
	And we didn't say no.
	We said, well, okay, we've got to have an answer to this.
	We've got to have our own version of this.
	We've got to have our own smarter way of doing this.
	Pick the issue.
	The Democrats are always driving.
	They're always the ones wanting, they're always the ones wanting bigger government, more government, and we never say no.
	We always think we have to have an alternative to whatever they propose.
	Why don't we take the initiative?
	Say, you know what?
	We need to get rid of some government and make them.
	We own the House.
	Why don't we do this and that?
	We can stop everything they want to do.
	We would force Obama to do it by executive order.
	We can stop everything they want to do, but we don't.
	We don't push back.
	I guess we have a mindset of permanent minority.
	We have a mindset, apparently, that says most people hate us.
	The Democrats advance something.
	People love Democrats.
	The people must want this, so we better look like we're in favor of some of it, otherwise we're gonna be hated.
	That's how I interpret what the Republicans react to things, how they react and what they do.
	Hammer then said to Rubio, are you saying that you can get Republican support because of border security?
	You're saying that you can convince your colleagues and moderate Democrats that illegals will not get the benefits of federal government.
	You believe at the end of this year, as Speaker Boehner said, the immigration will be signed into law 2013?
	Well, that will depend on border and benefits.
	If we have an immigration reform bill that secures the border, ensures that we don't have another wave of illegal immigration in the future, and protects the American taxpayer by denying federal benefits to those who have violated our immigration laws.
	If the Democrats or whoever refuses to agree to that, we will not sound good.
	Sounds good, but then I've got the story here in a remarkable turn of events, all gang of eight members voted to table the Grassley Amendment to have control of the border for six months before amnesty kicks in.
	So it it it sounds good, and they're not gonna get benefits.
	That's the law where they will not get benefits.
	Does anybody expect that to survive?
	Can you see Schumer finding the nearest camera and microphone within a couple weeks?
	These people, we have just said that they're now legal in terms of a pathway to citizenship.
	We have officially welcomed these people, and we're denying them health care?
	And we're denying their chid their kids education?
	What kind of a country is this?
	And the pressure will then be brought to bear to have an amendment that allows the benefits.
	Well again, it's intelligence guided by experience.
	Vice versa.
	I mean, pretty predictable.
	So then let's see.
	This is last night, I guess uh the O'Reilly factor.
	O'Reilly is talking to Pat Lahey.
	Nope, sorry.
	Still Rubio.
	Ah.
	O'Reilly said Senator Leahy from Vermont says that he wants gay illegal aliens to bring in their gay friends and their gay partners or whatever, and he's trying to get that writer, that amendment on the immigration bill.
	Is that gonna happen?
	If that happens, the bill is dead.
	It certainly won't have my support.
	I've been very clear on that.
	I respect people's views on the issue, but that is not an this is already tough enough as it is to inject something as divisive as that.
	If that gets on the bill, the bill's gonna die.
	There's no doubt about it.
	Why what I have to take a break, but I don't understand why.
	Why would that kill it?
	Why would whether the people coming are gay or not matter.
	Why not?
	Why would what what what is it matter if if let me take a phone call.
	I'm gonna form my thought on this.
	Um McHale in Lincoln, Nebraska.
	Welcome.
	Great to have you on the program.
	Glad you waited.
	Hi, girl.
	How are you, sir?
	Uh uh uh I'm doing great.
	I am a rush baby finishing school, so mega dittoes.
	You are a female.
	Yes.
	Well, I'm glad glad to have you.
	Well, I just wanted to call you and tell you how right you always are, and when it comes to the political piece that you shared at the beginning of the show, you are right on as always.
	And what I wanted to do was to apply the limbaugh theorem to what we see in the political article about the members of Congress being all up in arms that suddenly their health care is going to be so expensive.
	Right.
	And the Obama uh the uh Limbaugh theorem says that Obama isn't gonna take the heat for any of it.
	And I think I see that in this article.
	I see that the Obamacare is going to be terrible.
	Anyone who knows anything knows it's gonna be awful.
	And so and his name is attached to it, obviously, so we can't have him.
	You know that's it, you know.
	I gotta tell you something.
	You're really on to the because in this political story it's not called Obamacare, it's called the Affordable Fair Act Care Act.
	It is it isn't called Obamacare.
	Now it's a minor point, but these people in Congress who are, oh my God, I can't afford it.
	You're right.
	None of this is Obama's fault.
	No, it's not.
	It's not Obama's fault.
	And so what they're trying to do is now they're trying to say, see, even the rich can't afford it.
	Healthcare's way too expensive.
	Obama needs to save us.
	And so they're trying to shore up support because it's gonna be bad.
	And so I just wanted you to know that you were right, and the Limbaugh theorem is right, and you know, that's you've given us the tools to see through things like this so that we don't have to be fooled, and we don't have to scratch our heads.
	I appreciate that because you're right.
	It does answer almost everything.
	You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, display, chaos, lies, deceit.
	And yes, even the good times.
	Now we had a we had a news story the other day from the Washington Post and the Pew Center for people and the press and whatever, but most Americans, well, not most, but 55%, something like that.
	We're just fine and dandy with all of this NSA spying.
	Didn't have a problem with it.
	It was cool.
	Because Obama is trying to protect us.
	Well, actually, Americans are not ambivalent over this surveillance.
	A couple of uh new polls find that a majority of Americans Disapprove of the NSA's data mining programs.
	The head of the NSA says he's ready to provide evidence that they've helped prevent terror attacks.
	This is a headline from the Christian Science Monitor, Washington.
	At first blush, it seemed that most Americans have not gotten too exercised about the revelation the NSA has been secretly tracking everybody's phone data in the name of protecting national security.
	That was a takeaway from a Washington Post Pew Research Center poll on Tuesday.
	But two new polls out yesterday, one by Gallup and other by UGov, taken for the Economist, paint a different picture.
	Both find that a majority of Americans disapprove of the NSA data mining program.
	In the Gallup poll, June 10 through 11, 53% of Americans disapprove, 37% say it's okay.
	UGov found that 59% disapprove of the program, 35% approve.
	And there are a couple of other polls.
	Don't have them at my fingertips that indicate a majority of Americans is upset overall with the direction that the country is headed.
	So all kinds of conflicting data.
	And the first poll, the Washington Post Pew poll, it just didn't jibe with what common sense would tell you most people are very concerned about their privacy.
	I mean, even these people that are vomiting everything about themselves, think it's okay for them to do it.
	But if somebody digs in and finds it, that's a whole nother ball game.
	And they don't like that.
	Yet these two polls said that most Americans, they're fine, find out whatever you want about any of us because Obama's doing it and we love Obama.
	Turns out that isn't true.
	CIA deputy director to be replaced with a White House lawyer.
	This folks has the potential to be a disaster.
	This was announced after the program yesterday.
	Now, many of you know this, but for those of you who don't, in government agencies, especially agencies like the CIA and the NSA, it's the deputy directors who run the show.
	The directors, while powerful, and while the last word on things organizationally, they are largely appointed figureheads.
	They are good at dealing with Congress.
	They are good as the face of an agency, but they have often not worked there.
	And so they are not involved or haven't been involved in the nuts and bolts of day-to-day operations.
	It's the deputy guys, because those are career people, the deputy directors of the people that have been there for a long time and actually run it.
	I once ran into a former director of Central Intelligence.
	And I asked him point blank, did you know everything the agency was doing as director?
	And he told me no, it's not possible.
	Which, in a way, made sense.
	It's my same question I look at the Pentagon and I ask, is there anybody?
	Is there one person that knows everything going on in there?
	And of course, no.
	Now you would think that somebody does.
	It's the Department of Defense, and there has to be a final authority, and there has to be approval, but there's also secrecy.
	There are safeguards, and there are elements that have assignments that nobody's allowed to know about, but I've always wondered like the CEO of a company.
	Like, does the CEO of Exxon know everything Exxon's doing?
	Well, now that's a different different take.
	Tim Cook at Apple.
	Does Tim Cook know everything Apple's doing?
	Does Tim Cook know all the back and forth about the new iOS 7 and about the new desktop system?
	Does Tim Cook have final authority of what comes out of there?
	Can Tim Cook walk into any department and be told and see what's going on, or is the secrecy prevent even him?
	I would think CEO, he can find out whatever he wants, and in fact is the final authority.
	I've often wondered I don't know that I have what it takes to be CEO because I wouldn't want to delegate very much.
	I'd want to know everything.
	I'd want to be the final authority on everything.
	But that's just me.
	But when you get to something as large as the CIA with operatives all over the world, it's of course it's not possible for every detail of every operation to be known.
	But does the director know every operation?
	He told me point blank, no, it's not possible.
	But does the deputy director?
	Well, now the the point of all this is that the deputy directors are the people that really are hands-on and know what's going on.
	And this is not, by the way, anything nefarious.
	It's just the way these agencies work out.
	The the directors are appointed and largely they're figureheads, and they are the face of the agency and they deal with Congress.
	And some of them uh Richard Helms, for example, was the old CIA director, he was very hands-on and and and came out of the agency.
	But George H. W. Bush was director of the CIA for a while.
	He had no direct intelligence experience before that.
	He did a lot of things in government.
	Ran the CIA, did another bunch of agencies, but the deputies matter.
	The point of this is the CIA's direct uh deputy director plans to retire and is going to be replaced by a White House lawyer.
	A guy named Avril Haynes.
	Haynes is going to succeed the career officer Michael Morrell on August the 9th.
	Haynes has served three years as Obama's deputy counsel in charge of national security issues as legal advisor to the National Security Council.
	So now the CIA is going to be run by a White House lawyer who has absolutely zero real life experience in intelligence.
	In fact, her only experience in the field is as a lawyer.
	And this is the way Obama wants it.
	He is going to be running the CIA.
	Now you might say, well, what's wrong with that?
	He's president.
	I understand.
	But the deputy director is key.
	The deputy director's the nuts and bolts.
	The deputy director never goes and testifies.
	The deputy director maybe sometimes sits at the right hand of the director on a congressional hearing, but the deputy director is not always.
	I mean, there are exceptions to everything, but the deputy director, CIA, NSA.
	They are the ones with the sleeves rolled up and really doing things.
	And so, yeah, there's a reason here to be very, very suspicious.
	CIA is going to be run by a White House lawyer with absolutely no real life experience intellence.
	So what they're doing, they're they're reigning in these counterterrorism programs while they ramp up the targeting of America's.
	Obama's putting people in there in all these agencies who have a problem with America and the way America's always done things.
	Anyway, I gotta take a break.
	I look at the clock.
	Sit uh tight, folks.
	We'll be back and continue with mere moments.
	Don't go away.
	Here's Doug in Wichita.
	Doug, glad you call.
	Great to have you here, sir.
	Hi, Rush.
	Uh big fan, of course.
	Um, I am a uh I'm a family physician that uh played the insurance game for many years, uh, was completely fed up with it and wondered why it is that every other service person, whether it's a plumber or an electrician or a mechanic, they're able to charge cash for their fee.
	And yet physicians, and when we transfer or transition out of a insurance model into a cash only model, everybody goes into an uproar as if this isn't a business also.
	Um we've gotten a lot of attention here in the uh the the middle of the country with what we're trying to do.
	Um you know, there's concierge and all sorts of models, but well, you're trying to stay in business.
	Right.
	And and if you look at the market, my partner and I, Dr. Josh Humbert, he we said, if we could build this thing from scratch, what would we do with the clinic?
	One, no insurance.
	Two, we run a membership model that it's a monthly fee, ten dollars for kids, fifty dollars per month uh for adults.
	A lot of people spend more on Starbucks, but for that they can come in as much as they need, free procedures in the office, medications and labs discounted.
	We have we've saved people more money on the community-funded free clinics than what it costs them to be.
	Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, but wait a minute.
	I just want to know the the financials here.
	How in the world can you charge somebody as little as ten dollars a month, fifty dollars for adults, and give them free proceed.
	What kind of free procedures are you talking about?
	Oh laceration repair, putting in stitches, uh doing uh uh wound dressings, if we need to cut off uh moles, um toenail removals, uh joint injections with steroids, you name it.
	I mean, if I can do it in my office, you know, even an EK.
	Like if I if I wanted to, if I wanted to strike like an advertising deal with you, I could offer members of this audience five free stitches for the wound of their choice.
	And if I as long as I paid you, don't hurt themselves.
	Well, yeah, but if it's it's just it's not an abusable thing.
	I mean, people don't get injured or you know, we freeze off warts for free.
	People don't get warts just to come in and have them frozen off.
	But if you look at the power in numbers, a lot of doctors have to have several thousand people to keep their office full.
	Right.
	We limit to five or six hundred.
	Every patient gets at least a half an hour appointment, same day appointment.
	Right.
	Well, you know, the reason the reason why you catch grief for this is because it isn't fair.
	It's not everybody can afford your prices.
	Not everybody can do health care without insurance.
	So you are you are essentially establishing a cask system, a class system where you're saying insurance people are undesirable.
	That's why they jump all over you.
	They try to make it out to be like you're some greedy, selfish, unfeeling, uncaring dork.
	Right.
	We we recommend a high deductible insurance, but one family in particular utilizing a high deductible plan, three three member family, ten adults in the I just got to have time is running out, but I'm just gonna tell we we we did the story yesterday about this kind of thing, and it's gonna spring up more and more.
	As Obamacare is implemented, people are going to seek and people are gonna offer affordable alternatives.
	It's a fluid free market still, despite what the Democrats are trying to do.
	We'll be back.
	Don't go away.
	Well, that's it, folks.
	Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellences in the canon on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
	And it's been great.
	It's always great to have you with us.
	It's always a thrill, and already open line Friday tomorrow, and the official Obama criticizer.

▲