All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:23
June 28, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'll tell you, there's some strange-looking people out there, folks.
I don't care where you go.
I don't care.
You can't miss them.
They're just some real weirdo-looking people out there.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Half the people I see on Fox today just look odd.
But that's not they.
We're not supposed to do that.
We're not supposed to notice or comment.
Form opinions.
Any of that.
There's another one.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh on Open Line Friday.
You get to talk about whatever you want to talk about if and when we go to the phones.
And we get a full board.
We're going to be going to the phones pretty quickly, so hang in and be tough.
I always appreciate the patience, patience of people on the phone.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushboateibnet.com from the Philadelphia Inquirer, former Florida governor and touted potential Republican presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, is to present the Liberty Medal to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary Rodham Clinton will receive the 2013 Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
Jeb Bush, who is the chairman of the Constitution Center, will present the award to Clinton at a ceremony scheduled for September the 10th.
So, by the way, that is one day, that is the day before the one-year anniversary of Benghazi.
Now, you see a story like this.
What in the name of Sam Hill?
It's bad enough the woman is getting this award.
The Liberty Medal?
She's getting this award because she's a good liberal.
And then to find out that somebody touted as a Republican presidential candidate, because he runs this organization, is going to be presenting it to her.
Well, of course, this will make the Democrats like us.
Women will have a greater appreciation for Republican men now that Jeb's going to do this.
That's the thinking.
Both Clinton and Bush are potential contenders in the 2016 presidential elections for opposing parties.
But in a statement, Jeb Bush only accentuated the positive.
He said former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to defending her president from bimbo eruption after— No, no, not wrong.
Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to covering up what really happened in Benghazi, where four Americans are dead in a night of anguish brought about by the total incompetence of the State Department.
No, no, I'm still reading the wrong thing.
Here it is.
Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to attempting to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy And nationalize health care and resulting in rising prices and less coverage and death pen.
Still the wrong one.
Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to making sure that her husband was never damaged by any of the many affairs and disrespectful behaviors he engaged in to her.
Sorry.
Having trouble getting to the former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy, said Bush.
These efforts as a citizen, as an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year's Liberty Medal.
This is the kind of stuff that causes my friend I was talking about in the first hour to think the Republican Party has been infiltrated.
Tickets for the general public who can't wait to attend this award ceremony.
It'll be made available in August.
Details will be released next month.
Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution.
Previous recipients include former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, U2 frontman Bono, the filmmaker Steven Spielberg, and Nelson Mandela.
Of course, there are other winners of the Liberty Medal.
They are Muhammad Ali.
He got the first one.
No, no, take that back.
The first one was Lek Vowenza, then Jimmy Carter, then Thurgood Marshall, then Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, then Vaslav Havu, then Sadako Ogata, then King Hussein and Shimon Perez, then CNN International got it, a network.
George Mitchell in 1998, Kim Daijung in 1999, James Watson and Francis Crick in 2000, Kofi Annan, 2001, Colin Powell, 2002, Sandra Day O'Connor, 2003,
Hamid Karzai in 2004, Viktor Yoshenko in 2005, Victor Yushchenko, Victor Yu, the WHO Revolution,
The orange – Victor Yushchenko, was this the guy poisoned by Putin in London with polonium-238 who died in the hospital?
Am I confusing with a different Victor?
That might have been Viktor Yevtoshenko.
This is Viktor Yushchenko.
There's a guy, Victor something or other, that was poisoned by Putin.
I was right.
This is the former Ukrainian Ukrainian, Ukraine, former Ukraine.
This is the guy with the sandpaper face.
Dioxin poison.
Yep, yep, Viktor Yushchenko.
George H.W. Bush and Clinton got it 2006.
Bono and Data DAT, whoever they are, 2007.
Gorbachev.
Gorbachev got.
There are no conservatives.
Well, Lek Vowence, First one for you, foreign conservative.
I don't see a conservative Viktor Yashchenko.
No, no.
George H.W. Bush, no, we're just going to conservative.
There isn't one on here.
There isn't.
Well, it's not that conservatives hate liberty.
It's that they just don't deserve any awards for anything.
Okay, so Jeb's going to give it to Hillary.
And if you're interested, tickets will be going on sale in August.
I don't know how much they are going to cost.
Let's see.
There's a stupid story here.
Stocks gain on encouraging news about the economy.
It's an AP story.
What brazen liars?
There is any encouraging news.
You know what this is about?
Last week or the week before, Bernanke announced that he was no longer going to print money anymore.
By the way, they don't print.
Let me explain this whole quantitative easing thing.
It is like $85 million a month, but it's million.
$85 billion.
I mean, that'd be maybe, no, I don't think.
Now you're confusing me.
Wow.
Anyway, whatever amount it is, they don't print the money.
It's actually not hard currency.
They just digitize it.
This is really a scary thing, folks.
Stop and think.
You have, let's say you got $10,000 in the bank, but you really don't.
Okay, it's $85 billion.
You really don't have.
I mean, if you went to the bank and said, I want my $10,000, they might give you the cash, but there is not $10,000 worth of cash in a drawer with your name on it.
What says that you have $10,000 is a figure in a computer.
If you have $25 million, what says you've got $25 million is a figure in a computer.
Now, what the Fed does, they digitize $85 billion.
They just add $85 billion to electrical accounts, electronic accounts that end up being invested in the stock market.
Securities, stocks, and other things are purchased.
And this is why Wall Street loves this.
The money that Bernanke is digitizing or printing, however you want to look at it, is not being sent into general circulation.
It goes right to Wall Street.
Well, two weeks ago, Bernanke has said, yeah, we've got to stop this.
The quantitative easing is over.
And that's when the market plunged.
The market plunged because people there realized that Bernanke wasn't going to be funneling them $85 billion.
Well, Bernanke said that he's going to start doing it again.
The market realizes that Bernanke is going to have to continue to digitize $85 billion a month despite remarks to the contrary the other day.
And that's why the stock market rebounded.
It has nothing to do with the economy because there isn't an economic recovery going on.
And that's why this is a brazen lie in the AP.
Okay, your phone calls are coming up next, folks, as we take our first obscene profit time out of the hour.
We'll be back before you know it.
Here's Michael in Cleveland as we head back to the phones.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
You're up first and hello.
Hello, hey, Rush.
Thank you.
What an honor.
I'd be a first caller today.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, I was thinking a little bit about what you were saying in regards to Samsung and Apple and it being a teachable moment.
And you touched on a great point, but there was also another point that I think maybe the conservatives can learn is that when Steve Jobs was alive, I did not see him doing any Samsung commercials.
And I think Marco Rubio and maybe some of the other conservatives could learn from that and realize that you're in competition.
You're not in bed with the enemy.
And I think that's something that they need to look at.
What do you think about that?
And I lost you.
You didn't see, oh, when you see, you didn't see jobs doing commercials for, I mean, you've never seen Apple do a commercial for Samsung.
Exactly.
So what do you say the Republicans, you think they're doing commercials for the Democrats by joining them on things?
With all the amnesty stuff, it's like you said, you made a good point that Apple does what the conservatives do, and they don't come out and respond, which I think is a good thing, like Bush did.
He didn't respond to the criticism.
But one thing that they do do that Apple doesn't do is that they come out and say they need to be more like the opposite, like the competition.
Oh, okay.
They need to be like Samsung.
Well, except Samsung did copy Apple, and they got sued for it and fined a billion dollars.
Samsung's answer to Apple.
Go back and look at cell phones made by Samsung before the iPhone, then look at the iPhone in 2007 on every Samsung phone, and they're a direct copy.
So to follow your analogy, Samsung is the minority, Apple the majority, Apple's kicking butt, winning big.
Samsung wants to catch up.
They copied Apple.
What are the Republicans doing?
They're copying the Democrats.
Yes, but they're not coming out and acting like Apple, and Apple is not coming out and verbally saying these things.
They may be doing it behind the scenes.
I know.
But when we say she has with Marks, the correct analogy would be that Samsung is not coming out.
It's Samsung that's in second place here, and by a far mile, don't believe.
You think Samsung's winning.
No, they're not.
But no, I'm just telling you guys, I want your analogy to be correct.
For your analogy to be correct, what Samsung would have to be doing is coming out and publicly admitting Apple's got the better ideas and that we're joining Apple and we're going to make products like Apple.
They're doing that.
They're just not saying so.
I get your analogy.
The Republicans are coming out and actually trying to do what the Democrats do and saying so by getting in bed with them on things like immigration and other things.
And it's an excellent point because to you and me, what the Democrats have become is the greatest opportunity in the world for us to contrast what we believe.
And we can't believe the Republican Party doesn't do that.
We've never had this kind of opportunity.
We've never had this big a collection of radical socialists in power and running the country in the Democratic Party.
Therefore, we've never had this great an opportunity to contrast what we believe.
But we're not doing that.
We're actually being told that we have to be more like the Democrats and do things the Democrats are doing in order to be liked by the same people that like the Democrats.
Speaking of all this, you've provided me a transition here.
Byron York, a D.C. examiner, in a story after the amnesty bill passed the Senate.
I'm excerting.
This is not how it actually begins, just excerpts, little portions of it.
Republicans were able to keep their heads down in part.
I want you to listen to this now.
Republicans in the Senate were able to keep their heads down and keep plowing forward because there was not a lot of pressure coming from the anti-reform conservative base.
Byron York says that the Republican senators weren't getting a lot of complaint phone calls.
And he said the reason for that is Marco Rubio.
The gang's decision to dispatch Rubio, a Tea Party favorite, and viewed as a future leader of the Republican Party, has the face of the bill eliminated or reduced a whole bunch of conservative Republican members of the base calling and complaining because there's a desire in the Republican Party not to harm Rubio.
The Democrats knew this, so they made Rubio the face of the bill.
And they knew doing so, or they rolled the dice, they thought doing so, would limit criticism of it because the Republicans don't want to damage Rubio's chances.
Menendez told me, this is Ryan Lizza, the New Yorker being quoted here, Bob Menendez, the Democrat senator of New Jersey.
Menendez told me that Rubio's role was to work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion maker universe, in order to neutralize them and in some cases proselytize them.
That's Ryan Lizza referring to Robert Menendez.
The leader of the gang, Charles Schumer, was, quote, delighted to have a Tea Party conservative who could sell an immigration bill to the right.
And the plan worked brilliantly.
Conservative talk radio hosts who might have instinctively opposed the immigration reform, as conceived by Schumer, gave Rubio a respectful hearing and a lot of room.
When Rubio told him the bill would secure the border first, they believed him.
Later, when it became unavoidably clear that, in fact, the bill would first legalize millions and only after that start the work of securing the border, some conservatives began to express skepticism and disappointment and opposition.
But Rubio's neutralization campaign had bought the gang precious months to write the bill and gather momentum before conservatives began to realize what was actually in it.
And the gang also got lucky.
During the time the bill was under consideration, a lot of Republicans became distracted by the various Obama troubles.
And this was by design, folks.
IRS, all that stuff.
And it was real.
But amnesty is what they really want.
You get amnesty, you've got your 60 million permanent underclass Democrat voters.
You get all that?
So this story basically says that Rubio was used to silence conservative opposition because they didn't want to harm him, and he did it brilliantly.
And we will be back.
Folks, I'm sorry.
You got to forgive me, but this is so frustrating.
Just said to our last caller, you're making the mistake of believing that Samsung has overtaken Apple.
It's not even close.
I had an email during the break.
You didn't know what you're talking about.
Apple losing everything.
Folks, I'm telling you, this is so teachable of a moment.
This is so instructive.
73% of the total profit in the smartphone business is owned by Apple.
In this country, 73% of all profit is Apple's.
Now, this email, you look at market share, Russia, Apple's losing market.
Their market share is below Samsung because Samsung sells 50,000 different kinds of cheap little phones.
And Apple sells one.
But market share versus profit is an it's an age-old business argument.
Which did you want?
And any business will tell you that they'll take profit first.
It's a no-brainer.
You can have 80% of the market and no profit, and you're barely hanging on.
It's easy to get market share.
Give your stuff away.
That's why I always say when I started this, I want to be a legitimate and real number one.
I don't want to be number one because of buzz, because the media says so, or a PR campaign says so.
I want it to be a real, genuine, legitimate number one.
And over the course of this program, for 25 years, you've read ratings are down, Limbaugh losing sponsors, Limbaugh.
None of it's true.
We have both the market share and the profit.
But this is, all of this is so fascinating to me because of how easy it is to make people believe things that aren't true.
And it's also, I'll tell you what, for me, it's also a teachable moment in learning how people deal with this kind of thing.
In Apple's case, they never respond to it.
Never.
Now, I just happened to see during the break, Apple's share of the mobile phone market in May skyrocketed.
It went up again.
They haven't had a new phone since last September.
Their share of the mobile phone sales market went up again.
There's no evidence other than a bunch of BS in the media that they're losing their and the falling stock price.
And by the way, all of this negative news has an impact on the stock price.
Scares investors and all that.
And to me, this is all there are correlations between all of this because it's all media and it's all how you make people believe things.
And it's all how there are lies everywhere.
Politics.
There are lies in the Trayvon Martin story.
There are lies in the Gandalfeen story.
In every story, there are lies, mistruths, and false premises and statements.
And it takes real effort and genuine skepticism of everything combined with a profound curiosity to weed through it.
And that's what this program is all about.
Stripping away the intricately woven web of deceit that is the Democrat Party in the media and getting to the nub of the truth every making the complex understandable because what I've always believed is that a fully informed or as informed as possible,
educated, participating, functioning population is the best way to ward off attempts to overthrow it, overtake it.
And by the way, I think I'm right about that because all this is happening in this country as the American population gets dumbed down.
Here's Ron in Pennsville, New Jersey.
Ron, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Oh, thank you, sir.
What an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
I wanted to talk with you about what I think is the strategy behind the left's assault on religion.
And what I'm thinking is that it's an assault on the Constitution because the underpinnings of the Constitution are natural law and unalienable rights.
Let me ask you a question.
You seem like a well-informed and considerate person.
You're thoughtful.
Would you explain to people what your definition of natural law is?
I happen to think a lot of people are confused when they hear, they go, what natural law?
What do you mean natural law?
God.
How would you explain it to people?
I would explain it that as a human being, we're given certain rights and liberties by our Creator, and those are the natural laws.
That men, women are meant to be free and to live in as much liberty as possible.
And the underpinnings of the Constitution are that, natural law, and the so-called unalienable rights.
That's true, folks.
This is true.
Natural law is the law that comes by virtue of creation before any human being, dictator, or whatever comes in and starts writing them.
Exactly.
And the yearning to be free, the right to be free is a God-given right.
You're exactly right.
And the Constitution, the founders, you're right.
Heavily dependent on natural law.
So your theory is that the attack on God is an attack on natural law.
If there is no God, there is no one to give us natural law.
Right.
Right, if there's no God, there's no natural law.
If there's no God, there's no normalcy.
There's no right or wrong.
I'm sorry.
No, it's up to people to decide for themselves what right and wrong is.
There's no final arbiter on anything.
Right.
Other than the Supreme Court.
Yeah, government, Supreme Court, or what have you.
Well, I think you're right.
I think the assault on God's been going on since before all of us were born.
God's a frightening thing to people who don't believe.
It's scary.
To people who don't believe in God, it's one of the scariest things that they can contemplate.
And they want to get rid of it.
It's not something believers can prove.
It requires faith.
People don't want to invest faith.
It just scares the hell out of them.
And they don't want to run around guilty all day.
They don't want to feel guilty if they're having fun as they define it.
So just get rid of it.
And in the process of getting rid of God, get rid of the country, get rid of the Constitution.
And Ron here is exactly right about that.
That would be the quasi-intellectual pursuit.
For just your average run-of-the-mill, low-information anti-religious person, they just want to get rid of God because they just are uncomfortable with the whole idea.
To hell with the Constitution.
I don't even know what that is.
Just the whole idea of God and morality, and who the hell is anybody's right to impose that on me?
To hell with them.
So.
But those people and their ignorance are, of course, used in the project.
Warren in Blue Springs, Missouri.
You're next.
This outside Kansas City.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to be on the show with you.
I've been listening to you since about 90.
Thank you.
And I've really enjoyed your truth.
What I really want to ask you about is your logo.
I joined Rush 24-7, and I got a t-shirt, and I'm looking at that logo, and I must have stared at that thing for 15 minutes.
Turned the shirt upside down, and it said the same thing.
And I go, you know, this is genius.
It's brief, concise, and to the point.
And I just said this is just like Rush Limbaugh to come up with something like this.
But what I really wanted to know is how much input you had into that.
Well, the logo, first I should tell you that a lot of people at first objected to it because they thought it looked too much like the Motel 8.
Oh, man, I never thought that.
It looks like an 8.
They didn't see the I in the motor.
They just saw the fattened 8 in the EIB.
You can't do that.
It looks like a Motel 8 logo.
I didn't originate it.
We sent it out early, early on in late 1988, first part of 1989, to a bunch of graphic artists, and they submitted their ideas.
I really can't claim any creative.
Well, let me just say this to you, Rush.
All I did was choose the one that I wanted.
Well, that shows a little genius there, too, because this was genius.
You know, on your fuchsalage, or is it on your tail of your plane, you have EIB on it?
God forbid anything ever happened to that plane, but if that thing's upside down, buddy, it says the same thing, and they'll know exactly who you are.
But I'm just going to tell you this.
I figured that that was a stroke of genius, and I just wanted to know about that because whoever did that for you and submitted that to you, I'd kind of keep them in the mind for the next project.
Well, I appreciate it.
Are you the one who did it?
No, sir.
But I've been in advertising, and I just couldn't take my eyes off of it.
And I said, that is just like Rush Limbaugh.
I can't do it.
You know, I can't thank you enough for this.
I really, you are one of the first people to comment on the logo.
I happen to be very proud of it.
Well, you should be.
And I'll tell you what, I want to send you an EIB engraved iPad.
Since you love the logo, I want to send you an iPad that has it engraved on the back with my signature.
And in addition, I'm going to throw in a couple of 2FIT tumblers with the Rush Revere on one side and the Revered Rush on the other.
And the logo is on the Revered Rush side on the microphone boom, just as it is here.
So if you hang on, you want an iPad or an iPad mini?
Which would you rather have?
The large one.
All right, cool.
So you hang on out there, Warren, and Mr. Snerdley will get you.
You'll be home tomorrow.
We'll send it FedEx Saturday delivery.
You take my breath away, son.
I appreciate it.
Well, I love sharing this stuff.
So you hang on, Warren, and we'll get your address, and we'll get you, we'll send you a black iPad.
I think that was.
I'm not sure we have any big white ones left in there.
So at least a black one and a couple of tumblers.
The tumblers won't be tomorrow, but the iPad will.
We'll get the tumblers out as quickly as we can next week.
Sit tight, folks.
Don't go away.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Okay, let's study audio soundbites here.
Kind of predicted this yesterday.
This is some soundbites.
We have some soundbites here about the testimony of the star witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial, Rachel Gentel.
And last night, Piers Morgan Live, communications strategerist Maya Francis was the guest.
And Piers Morgan said, I watched it all live, and I did find her not only a compelling witness, but also somebody that overall I tended to believe, even though she was awkward and a bit edgy and confrontational and so on.
I think that would any of us, you know, at 19 be that polished to be able to relive over and over and over again those excruciating details.
I thought that the defense, after a while, really started to look like a bunch of bullies because they were trying to trip her up.
And regardless of what you think of her delivery, she was consistent.
A bunch of bullies.
That defense lawyer was doing everything he could to soft pedal what was going on.
This is such, this is, this is polished?
Look, she was consistent.
There's no question that Rachel Gentel was consistent.
Polished?
Most people, most of these leftists watching this yesterday just felt sorry for her for a whole bunch of reasons.
But she was the last one to talk to Trayvon Martin, and that supposedly is very traumatic.
She's the last person to talk to Trayvon Martin, and that's just, that's traumatic.
Most of us wouldn't be able to relive over and over those excruciating details.
So yesterday on CNN, they just, they all day and night, they may have their white anchors asking black guests to tell them what creepy ass cracker meant.
The issue is the word cracker.
She said that this was, that he was being targeted because it was a race thing.
But then she said the word cracker itself wasn't racial.
Did you hear that?
Yeah, and it made total sense to me.
You know why?
A lot of black folks all over the country, for a lot of southern folks, nothing wrong with that statement.
There is a cultural divide that is going on in this trial that played out between Rachel Gentel and Don West.
Right.
It's a cultural divide.
He doesn't understand it.
She's the victim.
I tell you, if she's the star wit.
Well, I don't know because you can't predict juries.
I mean, this is an all-female jury.
And we've had those before.
You remember the Menendez trial?
The two brothers that slaughtered their parents?
Well, they were acquitted.
Lyle Menendesny was acquitted.
And they had some of the female jurors went on Oprah.
And you may remember this.
Some of you may have forgotten it.
But I am not exaggerating.
A female member of that jury went on Oprah.
So we felt so bad for him because he was going to have to go through the rest of his life without his mother.
Yeah, that's because he killed her.
In fact, after he thought he killed her, he came back in the house, reloaded the shotgun, and fired again to make sure.
Yes, said the female juror, but it's so tragic.
He's going to spend the rest of his life without his mother.
Yeah, that's a reason for that.
He killed her.
Well, that's true, but it's still very sad that he's going.
So, folks, that's a California jury.
This is a Florida jury.
You can't predict juries ever, but especially now.
But this witness, yesterday was a star.
If that was the best the prosecution has, they have to be in trouble in the real world, the sane world.
And there was a witness today that just blew the prosecution out of the water in a sane world.
But we don't live in one of those.
Speaking of women, a Wall Street Journal story, basically about how women become too educated.
Well, highly educated women are becoming mothers.
It's not fulfilling, and they're becoming alcoholics at home, drinking way too much white wine.
▲
Export Selection