All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:34
July 8, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
If you're on hold, I want you to stay there.
I got to get to your phone calls quickly as we can.
I really do appreciate your patience.
Again, I thought I could get this Egypt thing done in the time that I allotted.
And I found myself hurrying through it and not being able to give it the proper emphasis that it deserves.
There is big news out of Egypt, and it is important, but it's hard to understand.
The U.S. media, of course, is in a CYA mode for Obama.
If you look at what happened in Egypt, they basically had a coup to get rid of Morsi, and the military stepped in, and it's being reported in any number of different perspectives.
It's probably, well, it's not probably, it is a good development for the Egyptian people, but it's not good for the Brotherhood.
And it's not good for Obama.
Obama endorsed the Brotherhood.
I mean, you go back to his Cairo speech in his first year in Orifice.
And he's out there saying great things about the Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is just militant Islamists with a pretty face is what the Brotherhood is essentially all about.
So on Brett Baer's blog, Fox News anchor, the 6 o'clock show, he got a note from somebody in Alexandria who attempts to explain what happened in Egypt in ways Americans can understand by making the events that happened in Egypt happen here.
So instead of Morsi's name, you're going to hear Obama.
And instead of Egyptian governmental institutions, you'll hear American institutions.
The dates that you hear are not accurate as it relates to Obama's presidency.
They are the dates related to Morsi's presidency, but they have been transposed here to the Obama administration in a way to facilitate Americans' understanding of what happened from the perspective of an Egyptian citizen.
It starts this way.
In a nutshell, a lot of my dear American friends still ask me, what on earth really happened in Egypt?
So for their benefit and anybody else genuinely trying to make heads or tails of us crazy Egyptians, here's exactly what happened in Egypt over the past year, but expressed in American terms.
There are no exaggerations or lies, and all of these events took place.
On June 30th, 2012, the Democratically elected Barack Obama wins the election with 51.7%, takes the oath, and sworn in as President of the United States.
Actually, it's about Morsi, but you get the drift.
Five months, the first five months of Obama's term go relatively smoothly, where he makes almost no decisions except for some presidential pardons to a dozen convicted terrorists, including some convicted for their part in the assassination attempt of a former U.S. president.
Not the assassination attempt, the actual assassination.
So Morsi pardoned terrorists who took part in the assassination of a previous Egyptian president.
Suddenly, five months later, on November 21st, 2012, President Obama issues a presidential decree giving himself sweeping powers to the extent that his future decrees become uncontestable in any court.
In effect, his decisions henceforth are akin to the word of God.
His laws are a new Bible.
Nationwide protests erupt as a result of all of this, and one and a half million people organize a sit-in at the White House to peacefully request that he rescind it.
Some of Obama's Democrat Party supporters attack the peaceful sit-in outside the White House with guns and shoot five of the peaceful protesters dead.
A few weeks later, President Obama dissolves the U.S. Supreme Court, labels them all traitors to America.
If you're just joining me, this is a description of what happened in Egypt in the last 12 months, as though it happened here.
One short week later, after dissolving the Supreme Court, Obama fires the Attorney General and personally appoints a Democrat to replace him.
A month later, he annuls the entire U.S. Constitution and forms a constitutional committee to draft a new one.
The committee includes no Republicans, no independents, no Muslims, no Jews, and only a handful of women.
In a referendum not supervised by any judicial branch, this new constitution wins, and President Obama ratifies it the very next morning, despite it having only gotten the approval of 18% of all Americans.
Within a month, Obama invites top global terrorists, known jihadists and al-Qaeda members from all over the world to a rally in Yankee Stadium, where he cuts ties with and declares war on Canada.
Throughout this whole time, the U.S. economy is sinking, the stock market is collapsing, foreign investment has all but stopped, tourism has died, and electricity, fuel, and water shortages are a daily occurrence.
Unemployment has almost doubled, and the U.S. dollar has lost 20% of its value globally.
Oh, and President Obama also outlines his new plans to lease the entire Silicon Valley area to China for 50 years.
Democratically elected President Barack Obama has done all the above in his first year in office.
Ultimately, on June 30th, 2013, 110 million Americans, just over a third of the population, take to the streets in all 50 states, peacefully and politely demanding for four straight days that Democratically elected Obama leave immediately and not continue his remaining three years.
That's it in a nutshell.
Now, would you say, who would you say had legitimacy in this case if it had been America?
Democratically elected Barack Obama or the 110 million Americans who fired him.
Now, the point of this is to explain to outsiders exactly who Morrisse was and what happened over there and to explain why all those 17, 18 million people gathered again in Tahriri Square.
The sad thing is, and I don't mean to do a yin-yen, yin-ya-yan-ya, but when this whole first eruption at Tahriri Square happened, remember how the media played that?
Oh, this is an outgrowth of hope and change.
The Egyptian people have been inspired by Obama, and they're demanding a new government that mirrors Obama's with people this and people, and CNN sent Nick Robertson over there to talk about how great Obama was, get the people of Egypt telling us how great Obama was in their eyes.
And we even had certain members, the Republican or conservative media in this country, talk about how wonderful this was.
It equaled the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
And I remember there were a few of us who said, why in the world are we celebrating the ascension to power of a militant terror group in a nation that has been an ally of ours?
I mean, we send Egypt more foreign aid than anywhere else.
Why in the world?
So when this thing erupts over there, there were a number of us who said, well, we're not surprised this happened.
The people of Egypt were lied to.
They were defrauded in a campaign.
Yeah, Morsi was democratically elected, but he didn't tell them he was going to do any of this.
Does that sound familiar, by the way?
Morsi did not tell the people of Egypt he was going to get rid of the Constitution and replace his word or replace it with his word, that his word was the new Bible.
He didn't tell them that.
So there was a coup.
The military went in and got rid of Morsi.
Now, the regime here is kind of hamstrung because Morsi was their guy.
And even now, Obama is a little uncomfortable denouncing the Brotherhood.
It's fascinating in a way and highly, highly instructive.
Okay, I must take a brief time out.
We'll do that.
Come back and we'll get started on the phone calls.
Sit tight, folks.
El Rushbo, the EIB Network and Broadcast Excellence.
Back after this.
Okay, to the phones, we go to Chantilly, Virginia.
This is Carmen.
You are up first today.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Yeah, I'm really glad you waited.
Yeah, as I was telling Mr. Sterley, I'm a retired 767 captain, and I did want to point out to the listeners, although that pilot may have been relatively inexperienced in that particular aircraft, he did have a lot of commercial airline experience, if the reporting is correct.
And also, the pilot along with him was a very experienced pilot, because you don't put an inexperienced pilot with another pilot that isn't experienced.
And I also believe there were two other additional pilots in the cockpit which should have also provided some assistance with regard to situational awareness in terms of whether they were too high, too low, or getting too fast or too slow.
Okay, let me go back to the beginning.
So you're saying it's not any big deal.
They've got somebody experienced in the number two seat.
This guy, this is his first landing.
The guy in the number one seat's his first landing there, but he's done this in a simulator a number of times, right?
And somebody sitting right beside him has hours and hours of experience, right?
Correct.
Okay, so as a pilot, you know that the company and most everybody else are going to zero in on pilot error.
How does that make you, as a pilot?
How do you feel it?
Because they always zero in on pilot error.
They're already, before it even saw the black box, they're saying there was nothing wrong with the avionics.
Well, with any accident, there's always a multitude of factors.
And, you know, there is an initial appearance that there may be some pilot error involved.
But key is, you know, what automation was engaged or not engaged, what mode of the automation was engaged, you know, what the situational awareness was at the time.
That's why it's going to be so critical to evaluate the cockpit voice recorders, the flight data recorders.
We have the pilots to speak with.
Also, Fox News reported earlier today about the vertical profile that some distance away from the airport, that same flight the day prior was just under 12,000 feet, whereas this particular flight was, I believe, at 18,000 feet.
So that indicates that the aircraft could have been very high initially on the approach to the runway, and then the pilot would have to lower the nose to get back more on a vertical.
Wait, if he was 6,000 feet high, that would mean he had to descend fast to get back on glide path, right?
Correct, correct.
And that would cause your throttles more likely to be an idle, which there was indication or an idle, which also goes to the initial point I had with regard to what automation mode was engaged.
Speaking of which, you know, I did read, correct me if I'm wrong.
Did I read where somebody said the glide path, the instrument, the airport glide path stuff were turned off because it was not necessary weather-wise?
Well, I think it was up for service.
And that's another point I was hoping I could get to.
And that's not a very critical point because there are so many other means to the pilot to double-check the vertical profile.
That has a very advanced avionics system, and you can program both a lateral path, which also gives you vertical path information.
Now, what's a vertical path?
Remember, I got a layman here.
Right.
Well, let's say I'm 10 miles away from the airport.
As a pod, I would always back my automation up with just doing mental calculations.
And so I just multiply however many miles away I am from the runway times three.
So if I'm at 10 miles away, I should be about 3,000 feet.
If I was 15 miles away, I should be about 4,500 feet above the ground.
So the pod has that ability to verify whether or not they're high or low on that vertical profile because you don't want to be descending too fast.
You don't want to be descending too slow.
Also, that particular runway has a visual indication which is called a PAPI, which is a precision altitude path indicator.
And that gives a pilot a visual cue via lights, whether they're high on the glide path angle or low on the glide path angle or right on the glide path angle.
Well, you're making it sound like this shouldn't have happened.
It sounds like too many safeguards.
And is it true?
Here's another thing I thought I saw, that somebody in the cockpit told the pilot that he was going too slow seven seconds before the crash.
Right.
Well, if somebody in the cockpit knows it, what are they doing telling the guy?
Why don't they just do something about it?
Well, there's the pilot that flying should be doing something.
If the pilot's flying that isn't doing something, then the pilot not flying or monitoring should be advising that pilot to do something.
And if neither of those two pilots are saying anything, then the pilot sitting in the extra seats there in the cockpit, which we call jump seats, should be saying something as well.
We're talking with a caller, Carmen from Chantilly, Virginia, who's retired and flew 767s.
In case you're just joining us and wondering who the voice of authority is, what's the difference now?
777 are relatively new compared to the 67.
Cockpit differences, what are they?
You think you could jump into 77 and fly it?
I've played with their flight management computers and some of the automation.
In an emergency, I probably could, but it's a more advanced system, so there are evidently subtle differences.
But yeah, I mean, I would definitely want to be going through the full training program before I could consider myself any kind of an expert on the 777.
But they say it's going to be years.
It's always a long time.
They're saying years before we know officially what happened here.
But you sound like you seem to have this pretty much nailed down, that they were just too high, too close.
That seems to be part of it.
But then again, it's the situational awareness.
What did they do to correct, and were they monitoring all the information that was available to them to correct any adjustments that needed to be made?
Well, it seems like they try to abort it too late.
Yeah, that appears to be the case.
But the good thing is, you know, we got the flight data recorder, we got the cockpit voice recorder, we got the pilots, and also we have the radar data that we can use to determine both the lateral and the vertical profile and see how that looked.
Well, Carmen, I appreciate the call, and I'm glad you held on here.
Thank you, Rush.
Appreciate it.
Have a great day.
You bet.
Carmen and Chantilly, here's Debbie, Salem, Oregon.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Won't the IRS force people to put policy information on their tax returns, and then the government will use their incredible database to try to confirm them?
What do you mean?
Policy information.
Identify your party affiliation?
No, no.
Oh, you mean insurance policy?
Right, right.
I thought you meant public policy.
No.
Because that's possible, too.
Well, yeah, that's, but I mean, to verify that you, in fact, supposedly have it, whether.
Okay, so let's go back, David.
What is your question?
Isn't the IRS still going to ask you if your policy information.
Yeah.
Could they force people to put it on their tax returns?
Yeah, but that's the point now.
There is no way to verify.
But once you write up a policy at the exchanges or whatever, won't it go into the database for them to refer to later?
Perhaps, but I wouldn't count on that.
The employer was in the early stages going to provide the mass of information, the majority of information on verification, because most people still get their insurance there.
Now, that huge database is not going to exist.
And I don't, this is an example here.
Wouldn't it all go into the same database, though, whether it's an individual or an employer?
Yeah, but this is my point.
I don't think that they have any way of actually collecting this data and entering it and have it present, able to be called up with a snap of your finger.
It's too massive.
It's too big.
There's too much fraud.
There's too much dishonesty.
Not everybody's going to be in the exchanges.
They're only in 26 states.
And the other states, the feds, have to set up an exchange, and they haven't even started.
Oh.
The feds, the law did not contemplate the federal government.
In fact, the law says, Debbie, that the federal government cannot run an exchange.
The states have to do it.
But 24 states have said, no way, we don't want any part of it.
Only 26 states are doing it.
And only a fraction of people in those states are going to be in the exchanges.
We're talking about what's the population over 300 million people in the country here.
There's not going to be a database that's going to be sufficient for the IRS to be able to rely on.
So the whole point here, I think, is to drive as many people to the exchanges as possible to get them signed up that way.
Obama wants people, as many people as he can get, covered by the government.
Exchanges, however you want to phrase it, making, and the more the better, and the sooner the better, making it impossible to take it away, meaning making it impossible to repeal Obamacare.
America's real anchor man doing the job, the drive-by media, well, doing the job they maybe used to do.
I don't know that they ever really did it.
At least not like we do it here.
Great to have you.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, here's Paul in Vero Beach, Florida.
Welcome, sir.
Thank you for holding on.
I appreciate it.
Hey, Rush.
Just to make the point you guys made earlier, you made earlier, which is rational thought.
You guys made it.
I meant, well, I was thinking of you and Mr. Will.
Oh, ah, okay.
That was you and Mr. Will.
And that is rational thought is the worst enemy of Obamacare.
And a good case in point is the pre-existing condition requirement.
If I'm a 20-something, I'm going to take my chance with the penalty if I'm thinking rationally rather than paying the full freight on a policy.
Because if I get sick today, I buy a policy tomorrow and I'm covered.
And I've foregone however many years, months, whatever without coverage until I actually needed it.
So this crowd of 20-somethings that Obamacare is counting on buying into the risk pool, if they're thinking rationally, they're not going to play.
They're going to stay out, pay the $300, $1,600, or $2,000 penalty, whatever.
Well, actually, actually, on that example, I think that the regime is not counting on the irrationality.
I think the original purpose, and maybe out the window now, what with the delaying of the employer mandate, the original purpose of the fine being so much cheaper than a policy, was to get people out of the private sector health insurance market, which is what Obama wanted to eliminate so as to turn everybody to the government.
He eventually wants a single-payer system.
So he makes the fine cheaper than a policy.
He wanted kids paying the fine.
He wanted them doing that instead of having insurance.
And then in a few short years, the fines become more expensive than the policy, which will then force them to the only place remaining to get a policy, the exchange.
And I think that was by design to do great damage to the private sector health insurance market, which Obama wants to eliminate.
We all know his objective is single-payer with the government running everything.
He said that.
We know he's a liberal.
We know that's what they want, whether they say it or not, but he did say it to his union buddies at the SEIU, I think back in 2007.
We played the soundbite for you here.
I don't know how many times where he talks about how it's going to take years, but the union guys want it tomorrow.
He says, get me elected here, gang, and give me five, ten years, and we'll get that done.
Maybe take 15, but it'll eventually get done.
Can't do it all at once.
Now, what Paul is referring to is that George Will on TV yesterday said that the only way Obamacare can be implemented the way it's designed is everybody acts irrationally.
And what he meant by that specifically was the business requirements.
If a business has 50 or more full-time employees, then they all have to be covered or the company has to pay a fine.
Well, if a company has 49 employees and most of them are part-time, they don't have to do anything.
The rational move is to let people go and convert them to part-time.
The irrational thing to do would be sit there and take the hit.
And what George Will was saying, there's no rational business that's going to sit there and take the hit.
And this takes us back to the thing that we discuss quite frequently on this program, and that is when government programs are proposed, there's always a static analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
Let's look at a tax cut, for example.
No, let's look at a tax increase bill.
Let's say they decide to raise income taxes by X percent.
The government just assumes everybody's going to pay it.
It's going to sit there and be docile sheep and bend over, grab the ankles, and take the hit.
What happens is, in the dynamic, as opposed to static, in the dynamic world, people start taking steps to avoid being subject to the tax increase, and the government always ends up getting less money than they project because not as many people are going to pay the new rate as it looks like will on paper.
That's static analysis, and that's what happened here with Obamacare.
But look, all of this is to miss the point, and I don't mean to be uppity about it.
This was the idea that this is chaos and unworkable and undoable, all by design.
Now, there might have been some idealistic liberals who write a 2,200-page bill and believe that it's utopia on earth and that they can control everything and it's going to be hunky-dory and fair and equal and wonderful for everybody.
But a lot of people realistically understand that the real objective here is a full-fledged socialist country.
And that means the government controlling all of this and creating chaos that upsets the status quo and forces people out of their current arrangements and into new ones run by the government is what this is all about.
Now, the employer mandate, remember there were two things that happened last week.
One was on Monday, and the second one was on Friday.
And the one on Friday, hardly anybody noticed, it's the 4th of July weekend.
And that's where it was announced that you can show up at an exchange and say you qualify for a subsidized policy, and you are automatically given one.
You don't have to prove diddly squat because nobody will be able to.
The employer was to provide the massive database of who had insurance by virtue of having the employee benefit.
But since the employer has now been granted a one-year waiver, there isn't going to be this massive database.
And so the government's not going to know who's got insurance and who doesn't.
They don't care.
What they want is for as many people as possible heading to an exchange.
Remember now, the regime is out there.
They're campaigning on this as though it were another election coming up.
There are two reasons they're doing this, folks.
The 2010 midterms, the Democrats got shellacked, and it was because of Obamacare, Tea Party erupted, spending debt, but it was Obamacare that was front and center.
We can argue about, okay, this actually started in the 90s with Clinton healthcare, but Obamacare was right there in the middle.
It was the bullseye.
And the Democrats lost big.
And the Democrats want to win the House in 2014.
And what they're trying to do is with this campaign, have all these Hollywood celebrities and Silicon Valley celebrities and all these people out there singing its praises, all these athletes, the NFL, the NBA, talk about how wonderful Obamacare is.
It is to get low-information voters loving Obamacare, thinking it's cool.
It's the greatest thing in the world, so that it's not an albatross around the Democrats' neck when the election happens in 2014.
The other reason for the ongoing advertising is to get people to sign up at the exchange since the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance now.
You know, way the lat shoe drops.
You're talking about rational and irrational behavior.
If a company doesn't have to provide health insurance now, and there's somebody somewhere else that an employee can go get it, what's the employer going to do?
Sayonara, see you later.
Head off to your exchange.
The people are going to get health insurance benefits are going to be key employees.
The ones that the employer really wants to hold on to.
The others, take your pick.
You go to exchange, go somewhere else to find it.
The employer is going to, oh, this is in the cards from the first day of Obamacare.
Employers have been one to offload these costs for as long as I've been doing this program.
Employers, the guy that former Rick, I forget his last name, the GM CEO.
Rick Wagner said after a couple of years on the job, I thought I was going to run a car company.
I didn't know that I was become CEO of healthcare because that's all my company is.
My number one objective, my number one responsibility, the thing that takes up most of my time is health care for my employees.
Well, if they can offload that, they're going to do it.
And now they've been given the freedom to do it, essentially, by not having to provide it until after the 2014 election.
So it's not till 2015 that employers have this mandate.
And even that may not hold up.
Now it's whatever Obama wants is what Obamacare is, because if he can sit there and just have somebody, what do they do?
They had somebody from the Treasury Department announce this on the internet that the employer mandate was being delayed by one year.
There are arguments on both sides whether the law permits Obama to do this.
This is not even something I think people agree on.
Some people have analyzed Obamacare and said, yeah, he's got this authority.
He can implement or not implement various elements of it on a whim.
And other people say, no, he can't.
The law is the law.
He's got to go to Congress to get these changes.
Well, he didn't, and nobody's saying he has to.
So essentially, Obamacare can be whatever he wants it to be from day to day, which is how he's been doing a lot of things, by the way.
I'll tell you, I never thought I would see the day where Congress was so ambivalent about a president usurping its powers.
I never thought I would see that day, but this guy just says, you know what, we're not implementing this portion of the law.
Now, most of the signers of the law, most of the people that voted for the law in Congress are Democrats, and their loyalty to Obama is going to make them shut up.
But they aren't the majority in the House.
The Republicans are.
And the idea here that the president can just willy-nilly pick a part of a law and say, you know what?
I don't like that right now.
We're not going to do that until 2015.
Oh, okay.
That's, I don't know, it's unprecedented, but it's really not the way things are intended to work.
I got to take a break, folks.
You sit tight.
We will be back.
While we are at it, folks, the Heritage Foundation, we talk about their blog every morning, the Morning Bell.
Today's Morning Bell lists a number of implementation failures with Obamacare.
And as these illustrate, it's not just the employer mandate that's flawed, it's the entire law.
Last week, the regime attempted to spin its announcement of a one-year delay in the employer mandate as an effort to implement the law in a careful, thoughtful manner.
What the hell is that?
You mean it hasn't been carefully thought out up till last week?
Last week, they just thought about being careful with this.
Look at folks, even Democrats have admitted this thing has turned into a massive train wreck.
There are delays, glitches, problems.
It's unworkable.
It is going to implode on itself.
The danger is that when that implosion happens, there are going to be so many people enrolled in it that we're not going to be able to repeal it.
So here are some things that were implemented that have been failures and some repealed.
The Class Act is the first one, abandoned and then repealed.
One Democrat famously called the new long-term care entitlement a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.
And it proved to be so.
In the fall of 2001, or I'm sorry, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services admitted that class could not be implemented in a fiscally sound manner, and they repealed the program outright.
Missed deadlines.
Most states resisted Obamacare's call to create the exchanges, choosing to let Washington create a federally run exchange instead.
But a GAO report noted that critical activities to create the federal exchange haven't been completed.
Many of them haven't even been started.
The HHS mandate delayed and is now under legal challenge.
The regime announced a partial delay for Obamacare's anti-conscience mandate.
However, many employers have filed legal actions against it.
It forces them to fund products that they find morally objectionable or pay massive fines.
That's been a fire drill.
The child-only plans, unintended consequences, drafting error in Obamacare has actually led to less access to care for children with pre-existing conditions.
As I go through this list, I remember talking about all of these when they happened.
The government-run plan for states created as part of Obamacare has been delayed, prompting one Democrat to criticize the regime for failing to live up to the law and implement it as written.
Anyway, the list goes on.
There are 13 of elements here of Obamacare that have either had to be repealed or delayed or just erased.
And they all affect people in substantive ways.
One of the ones mentioned here again is the Medicare expansion.
Last year, the Supreme Court made Obamacare's Medicaid expansion optional for the states, ruling that Obamacare as written, engaged in economic dragooning that puts a gun to the heads of states.
Many states are resisting Obamacare's call to expand Medicaid, meaning pay for it, knowing that expansion will saddle them with additional unsustainable costs that they don't have, money they don't have.
This is Obama offloading expense to the states so they get that federal cost under that magic number of $1 trillion.
Anyway, the whole thing is a disaster.
The whole thing just needs to be torn up and thrown away right now.
Don't, you know, I've heard some people say, well, we need to not delay the implementation of the personal man.
No, no, no.
Don't start playing games with what exists.
Get rid of what exists.
That ought to be the play.
In my humble, unprofessional, I'm not a Republican consultant mind.
Just trash the whole thing.
It could not be worse than what this is going to end up being.
No, no, no.
I didn't forget this NFL story.
I don't forget anything.
We'll get to that.
I got lots of stuff still yet to go, my friends, and it's all yours.
▲
Export Selection