All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
July 16, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right.
99.7% of the time.
Happy to have you with us, my friends.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
America's truth detector.
And the doctor of democracy.
So many emails.
I I kid you not.
Honestly, folks.
So many emails from people thanking me for for uh explaining what Rachel Gentel was saying.
I'm number of emails I'm getting in that regard with that gratitude is kind of surprising.
Snerdley says he even had a couple of phone calls from people.
Anyway, if you'll indulge me, I want to go back to February, this program.
February 13th.
February 13th, a New York Times story came out, the polling data story, and that's when the light went off in my head that led to my creating the limbaugh theorem to explain why, with the country going to hell in the handbasket and the country going in directions that a majority of people opposed, Obama's approval numbers kept rising.
How is it that Obama's policies, responsible for the nation's decline, did not attach to him?
I mean, the very people who did not like and do not like the direction the country is going say they approve of the job Obama's doing.
I said, How in the world is it because it was the first time, and it is the first time in my professional career that a plummeting, plunging, horrible economy has not harmed a president standing, re-election, poll data, you name it.
But there was the story in the New York Times that just it it it it was like the biggest bolt of light I had ever seen.
It finally became clear to me.
And so the limbaugh theorem was born, and I have explained it countless times, maybe more times than you really would rather hear, but I must spend some time on it today because it's been discovered by the New York Times.
However, the writer of the story is being credited as a genius for figuring it out, Peter Baker.
I'm not mentioned in the story.
But I want to take you back just a couple of minutes here.
And for those of you new to the program, it'll be the first time you've heard this, and it's enlightening.
February 13th, 2013, on this program.
Obama's not seen as the guy who does not like the way the country was founded and is trying to take this country in a different direction.
He's not seen at all the way he really is.
You may have figured this out long ago, but it just hit me.
And if you figured it out long ago, and you've been trying to get through here and tell me I wish you'd gotten through, for those of you who figured it out and I didn't, I'm just not getting to it.
I apologize for being uh a later rival of the party, but now it all makes sense.
For five years, Obama has never once allowed himself to be seen as governing.
He is constantly campaigning against mysterious forces who have ill intentions, trying to harm you and this great country.
There are these figures behind the screen behind the curtain, Romney was one, Bush was one.
There are others, Obama's trying to expose them.
Throughout history, dictators, for example, have never really been blamed for the bad things that happened in their countries.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, none of them were blamed by the rank and file citizenry.
They were instead the leaders of the revolution.
This is what you and I are gonna have to learn and learn fast.
No matter what is said, no matter what evidence happens, no matter what's reported, It will not be possible to connect Obama to the negativity that's happening in the country today because he's campaigning against it himself.
That's the reason for the perpetual never-ending campaign.
It is why in eight years he will never allow himself one day to be seen as actually governing or presiding over any of this.
That's why constantly blaming Bush, blaming what he inherited, the big mess, it was worse than he thought.
The constant campaign allows Obama to adopt the same position on all this that most people do.
They don't like the job situation.
Obama's out campaigning.
He doesn't like it either.
He's working hard to fix it.
And therefore, people do not associate the economy with Obama's policies.
Specifically now the low information crowd.
They do not.
That has been the purpose of the never-ending campaign.
It was a New York Times story that showed this in polling data.
I mean, and the headline I can't recall it, I'd have to go get it from my Evernote file, but I I didn't know this was going to happen today, so I don't have it at hand not to get it during a break, but it just literally, I'll get it, because it's it's eye-opening.
Because I really felt this was an important discovery, the limbaugh theorem.
And even today, even after discovering it in February, Obama continues to practice it, still in the campaign trail.
Now he's campaigning on what Obamacare.
It's already the law of the land.
What's he campaigning for?
Well, I've explained it.
There are a couple of reasons he's doing it.
New York Times headline, polls show dissatisfaction with country's direction, but support for Obama's agenda.
So wait a minute, how in the hell can that be?
How can polls show dissatisfaction with the country's direction but support for Obama's agenda when Obama's agenda is the reason for the country's direction?
And I thought this is profound, folks.
I mean, in the world of politics, to be able to affect this kind of change and transformation and not be held accountable for it when you're when you're president.
This is a profound political achievement.
Because in Obama's case, he is employing policies that are ruinous.
He's employing policies that are doing great damage to the U.S. economy.
And people don't like what's happening, but they don't associate him with it.
He's not seen as governing.
He's seen as opposing these mysterious powerful forces making all this happen.
So let's now jump forward to today.
The headline in the New York Times, in second term, Obama's scene as using hidden hand approach.
Peter Baker.
In the nearly two weeks since Egypt's military seized power, President Obama has promoted a better federal bureaucracy, given a medal to George Lucas of Star Wars fame, and had former President George Bush to the White House for lunch.
What he has not done is publicly addressed the violent upheaval in Cairo.
Now, this is not to say that Obama's not involved in the privacy of the West Wing away from the cameras.
He has made calls to leading figures in the Arab world, and he has met with advisors trying to influence the crisis.
But his low profile, his low public profile on issues like immigration, health care underscores a calculated presidential approach that admirers consider nuanced and detractors called passive.
Well, I have called it a way to avoid all responsibility.
And that's what it is.
Obama has perfected, and I'm telling you in the world of politics, this is genius, folks.
Now it couldn't happen without a slavish supporting media.
But even if even with that, he's got it, but he knows how to use it.
Barack Obama has managed, we're now five and a half years in To avoid all responsibility for everything that is happening that's going wrong, and most is.
There isn't very much going right.
I submit to you that any other president who had authored policies resulting in these realities would be on the hot seat, be sitting there with a 20% approval rating, and there'd be nothing but public disgust and animosity aimed the president's way every day.
Not happening here.
So now the New York Times has finally figured this out.
While other presidents have put the bully in the bully pulpit, Obama uses his megaphone and the power that comes with it sparingly.
Speaking out when he decides his voice can shape the trajectory of an issue, and staying silent when he thinks it might be counterproductive.
In his first year, the president seemed to be everywhere talking about everything in his fifth year.
It appears he's not always in command of events.
But he always is.
So in a nutshell, the New York Times piece is an attempt to tell its readers that Obama really is on top of things, especially Egypt, even if it appears that he isn't.
So folks, I look at Pat myself here.
It is another red letter day for EIB because the New York Times is officially confirmed the Limbaugh theorem.
Just a couple of weeks ago, Gallup embraced the Limbaugh theorem as well.
The Times doesn't call it that.
They never will.
They never would.
They call it Obama's hidden hand approach.
They have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to find some precedence for Obama's flight from responsibility.
So let's now go to the audio soundmates, Norman Ornstein, a highly respected, well thought of political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute and a resident scholar there.
Now, for those of you in real line, it doesn't mean he lives there.
Just means, as a resident scholar, he uh practically lives there.
He doesn't work anyplace else.
He's really high up on the scholar ladder.
And he was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal today, and the host, Greta Bronner, said Peter Baker, New York Times, headline in second term, Obama's seen is using a hidden hand.
And here's what Ornstein said.
Peter Baker's a terrific reporter.
This is a very good point, particularly in this sense.
Our political dynamic is such that you've got a substantial number of Republicans who will reflexively vote against something if Barack Obama is for it.
We know that when Obama wanted to come out for the immigration bill, his allies in the Senate said, don't do that, because if it becomes the Barack Obama immigration bill, we aren't going to get the 60 votes that we need.
So he's had to adjust his style to step back from much of this legislation and play a passive aggressive role.
Let it go forward without his direct involvement.
There's a lot of administration involvement behind the scenes.
And so Ornstein acknowledging Limbaugh theorem without acknowledging limbaugh.
And instead acknowledging the greatness of Peter Baker, which fine and dandy.
But these guys still don't quite get it.
They still have to tell themselves, their readers and viewers, hey, hey, Obama is in charge.
Don't sweat it.
It might look like Obama doesn't know what he does, but he does.
He does.
He's got his hands on everything.
He's running Egypt.
Don't sweat it, don't sweat it, readers.
What they're missing is that this country is a disaster.
This economy is a disaster.
That the people of this country are as disunified as any time except the civil war, that they're that this country's royal, that there's it's it's an absolute mess.
And Obama has made it that way.
But he has avoided any responsibility for it.
That's what they're missing.
They are only taking it to the point, well, Obama knows that if he's going to get immigration passed, it can't be the Obama amnesty Bill.
That's not what it's about.
It's a way to advance his agenda despite public opposition to it.
And then escape any accountability or responsibility for it.
It really is an amazing sleight of hand.
Okay.
Gotta take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
Lots of people lined up on the phones.
You might be one of those people.
Sit tight.
As promised, we go back to the phones.
Rush Limbaugh talent on lawn from God.
This is Alan in Seymour, Indiana.
Welcome, sir.
It's a delight to have you with us.
Oh, love you, Rush.
Been listening to you forever.
But I watched Genteel, and she explained that as a white man, I can use the word nigga.
And I didn't know that.
But then I got to thinking about it.
When they asked Paula Dean, they didn't ask her which word she used.
They asked her if she used the N-word.
So all these people may owe Paula an apology because she might not have said anything that was bad after all.
Let me uh let me help out here.
No matter what you heard Rachel Gentel say, and no matter how you translated it, I would strongly advise you not to try it on the street.
I I I wouldn't put this to the test anywhere.
I I wouldn't go out there and and utter the word NIGGA to see what happens, and then say, hey, it just means a guy.
I w I uh and then they can say who told you that Rachel Gentel.
I wouldn't I wouldn't try this.
Well that that sounds like good advice.
But I can see where you would interpret it if it's what she did say.
I mean she did say that was the because she was asked point blank by Piers Morgan.
Is that is that racial?
No, man, no, it means a guy.
It means a male.
It means it means police.
And by the way, this is 2013, and I don't know how many know the definition has changed the way Rachel Gentel said so.
Uh and it's still a word that uh I think actually can only be used by certain people.
I just I wouldn't I wouldn't try to I know that it would appear that you could say whatever you wanted to say now, but you can't.
Uh not about that.
Just trying to be helpful here, Alan.
Been there, done that.
Jimmy, Spring, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Um, listening to your first segment, I had an epiphany.
Is this the two Americas that John Edwards and the Democrats always reference?
No.
The two Americas they were talking about were the haves like themselves.
And the have nots.
This to America's is an entirely different cultural thing.
This doesn't have anything to do with economics.
But can we make a comparison in the terms of in one America you can use certain words.
The other America, you can't.
Well, yeah, but that's always been the case.
In the NBA, you can use certain words, and in the stands you can't.
And in one America, thousands of innocent, unarmed black children are indiscriminately killed on the streets of Philly.
See, I pointed that out yesterday, and I've already had a guy criticize me as a racist for saying so.
And I've had a TV network go after me today for pointing that out.
Russ, those are facts.
I know.
That's where we live in an America today where facts, if inconvenient to the left, cannot be uttered.
So again, I know you said it was an economic difference between the two Americas, but I would put it right back in the Democrats' face that maybe this is the two Americas that John Edwards and his cohorts often reference.
Well, yeah, I mean, I see I see your point.
When Edwards was, you know, again, you asked me that I answer you as the mayor of Realville.
Edwards was campaigning for the presidency, and he was using the standard common democrat technique of rich versus poor.
And the Republicans are the rich, and the Democrats and people like Edwards are the poor, understand the poor and care about the poor, the Republicans strictly economics.
The fact of the matter is, we're we're not just two Americas now.
It could be said that we are three or four, depending on how many distinct cultures you want to take the time to try to identify out there.
It's not just two, but but and plus there's the generational thing to uh throw in the mix uh as well.
That's why I asked at the top of the program is it is it okay to speak English now without being called racist?
You know, I hate to mention this, folks.
All this talk of the uh the Zimmerman trial, the Pugh Research Center for people in the press says that public interest in the Zimmerman trial, at least in the end of the Zimmerman trial, was very, very low.
The uh the Pew Center for the people in the press says that only 26% of the public followed the George Zimmerman trial closely.
I wonder if you'd asked them how many of you followed the Trayvon Martin trial, what the answer would have been.
No, no, no, no, I'm being serious.
How many people thought it was the Trayvon Martin trial?
We're talking about low information people here.
It's like the uh Reverend Jack said yesterday that Trayvon did not have a jury of his peers.
And that would be right.
Trayvon wasn't on trial.
George Zimmerman was.
But anyway, the Pew Research Center says only 26% of the public followed the Zimmerman trial closely, which is down 10% from when the story first broke in March.
It was 35% cared about it then.
And that's sort of the opposite of the way these uh stories usually trend the news media and the uh professional race baiters really screwed this up.
And this is a this is a big drop-off in the interest compared to Rodney King and the O.J. trials, but the pew center doesn't mention that fact that there are a lot more viewing choices today than there were back in 1992, 1994.
But the gap between black and white interest has grown since then.
The article says about as many blacks reported watching at least some live coverage of the Zimmerman trial as watched the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.
However, whites are far less likely to say they tuned into the Zimmerman trial than the Simpson trial.
Moreover, fully 67% of blacks say they watched at least some live coverage of the Zimmerman trial compared with 38% of whites.
The bottom line is that despite the way it appeared in the drive-by media, there wasn't a lot of national interest in this.
I actually think, folks, that it is reprehensible, it is journalistic malpractice, uh irresponsible, whatever you want to say.
For the media continuing to cover this as though it's an ongoing thing and still trying to gin up the racial angle when folks we we learned last night from Rachel's in uh Gentel that race was not any part of this.
Yet it's gonna be real interesting to see, because I fully expect to be raked over the coals for my interpretation today.
Because I have offered a viewpoint of what Rachel Gentel said that the left does not want out there.
That this is racial, it is racism, it is the narrative.
This country is still a slave state for all intents and purposes.
Poor Trayvon was killed because he's a black guy, this is this uh evil white uh Hispanic Zimmerman, innate racist, because he's an American, went out there and just saw a poor black kid in the neighborhood, said, I'm gonna kill a guy because he's black.
That's what they want you to think.
And Rachel Gentel last night, one of the witnesses for the prosecution of the case was on CNN, and she, folks, I'm just telling you, it based on what she said that if anything frightened Trayvon Martin, it was the possibility Zimmerman was a gay male predator.
And Rachel Gentel told a TV audience last night that she told Trayvon to run, run, run, that she might be, he might be dealing with a rapist.
See some creepy ass crackettes following you around, it could be a rapist.
And you've been taught from when you're very young to be creep out by that.
And you run, run, run.
And then she pointed out that Trayvon did not want this guy following him home because his little brother is at the house.
She didn't say one thing about race.
And neither did the jury.
Now, pointing this out, I just want to warn you, I know you and this audience, the finest audience in all of media.
Uh your uh loyalty to this program and to me and and your devotion to it sustain me, get me through all kinds of stuff.
And I'm just gonna tell you it has popped up in other places now.
There's a PJ Taddler, PJ Media has a interpretation like mine, and so does a guy posting at Mediaite, and it's starting to pop up in places, but my guess is that when the left finally hears about the tomorrow they'll blow gasket, if not tonight.
Because this is not at all what they have manufactured, and believe me, they have manufactured this whole racial theme.
When it never was not, it was not even a component.
When you get down to the bare essentials, they just, yeah.
I mean, this is uh well, I don't know that they'd even considered it until anybody had, until Rachel Zen Gentel spoke last night on CNN.
She did allude to it at trial under oath.
She did allude to the homosexual aspect of this.
But you know, if if if if you if really wanted to stir it up, if I really wanted to stir it up, I would make the case that it was Zimmerman's civil rights that got violated.
Here you got Zimmerman, a properly accredited neighborhood watch captain or whatever his title was, patrolling his neighborhood, and the guy sees him and starts beating up on him because he thinks he's gay.
That sounds like a civil rights violation to me.
That sounds like it almost might be a hate crime to me.
I mean, the way I've been conditioned by the Democrats and the left in this country, that sounds like a hate crime that Trayvon Martin starts pummeling Zimmerman because the gal on the phone, Rachel Gentel, say, hey, a guy could be a rapist, you better run.
But Trayvon's no coward.
He didn't run away from stuff.
He starts pummeling on Zimmerman.
He starts pummeling on his own.
What do you think the left will do with that when they hear it might have been Zimmerman's civil rights that got violated?
Uh Connor in Norwood, Massachusetts.
Connor, I'm glad that you waited.
Welcome to the uh EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks, Russell.
Thanks for having me on.
You bet, sir.
Excellent.
So there's press leave yesterday.
Uh La Raza is joining up at the NAACP saying they want the DOJ to take action on this case, which I presume is probably civil rights charges, so they don't say it.
I was wondering what you think of La Raza and why they're not standing up for Zimmerman.
Um, that's not all that hard to understand.
Uh La Raza is a liberal left wing Socialist group and the socialist left wing liberal group view on this is to support Trayvon Martin because America is racist and the Well in fact you're going to do, I got an email from a guy this morning.
I'm going to read portions of this to you because I think Connor, this will this will answer your question pretty well.
Dennis Bowman is a man who wrote a book on my grandfather, Rush Limbaugh Sr.
And he's traveled internationally, and he sent an email today that I'm going to paraphrase it, be the best thing to do.
One of the aspects of this that Obama has chosen to take is the gun control aspect.
That Zimmerman had a gun.
That the real problem here was not racism or profiling or any of that or even gay bashing.
The problem was a gun.
And the other day, Obama actually called for passing a new gun control law in response to this.
Now we all know that the left, if they could, would take everybody's guns away from us.
No matter what they say, that's what they would do if they could.
If they could, they'd eliminate the second amendment and the Constitution.
If they could, they'd send authorities door to door and they would collect every gun owned by every citizen.
We know that.
You know it, and I know it.
Why do they wish to deprive us of guns?
If they deprive us of guns, they have deprived us of one of the ways we can protect ourselves against a criminal element.
And that in turn would make us more dependent on government for protection, the police, law enforcement authorities.
What it is rooted in if you can't protect yourself, you have to have somebody else do it.
The left wants total control.
One of the reasons they hate guns is because guns offer independence.
And I am not exaggerating.
They'll tell you they hate guns because they kill people and it's vicious and is mean and it's all these horrible rotten things.
But the gun to the liberal, a gun to a leftist, is a huge threat.
Liberals want the government running as much of your life as possible.
If you have a gun, you can protect yourself.
You don't need at first, when something first said, you don't need the cops to show up.
So if by taking away everybody's guns, they can remove the ability to resist criminals, then the desire to stand up for one's constitutional rights and a limited government's not far behind.
If people say would willingly give up their guns and say, okay, I'll give up my own self-defense and self-protection, I'll turn it over to you.
The left figures, if they could pull that off, then you'll turn everything over to government at some point, just a matter of time, before you give up your whole life to them.
If they can remove your individual will to resist criminals on your own, and instead sit around and hope and pray that somebody from the government shows up, police force or whatever, then they think it isn't long before you'll give up everything.
In Europe, the thought of shooting someone, even in self-defense is unfathomable.
You'll routinely, if you go to Europe, you will run into people who will be shocked and perplexed, dumbfounded that in the United States, a homicide is justifiable self-defense.
In Europe, they've already given up the right to self-defense.
In Europe, they have given up the notion of protecting themselves, including from foreign attack.
They don't even have departments of defense, much less their own self-defense.
They've given up at all.
And they look at what they look at this Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman think.
They can't believe the average ordinary European who's given up all of his rights, can't believe that a homicide is permissible even in self-defense.
They can't understand it.
So Obama, he's just as the constant chipping away of constitutional rights.
So the answer to your question, where's La Raza?
La Raza's on the side of big government.
George Zimmerman practiced self-defense.
That's not healthy.
That that that's an obstacle to what the left wants.
Now they want you to believe they're upset because George Zimmerman killed a black guy.
That's when you get right to that that's not what bothers them.
It's the gun.
It's the ability to self-defend.
It's the ability to protect oneself and not need the police, the government, or what have you.
It's what really bothers them.
But La Raza, NAALCP, you name it, they're all leftist groups.
Big government.
They are not oriented towards celebrating the individual.
Illrush Ball, with half my brain tied behind my back, jubilee.
Just to make it fair.
This is Kevin in Naples, Florida.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, how are you?
Good.
Thank you.
I was calling because I heard uh we talked about earlier, uh, Rachel Gentiles saying the definition of cracker could be a cop or security person.
Where if they're on the scene and they're being paid to provide security for that area, then Trayvon Martin was willing to commit a felony by turning around and starting a physical assault against someone in a position of authority in a law enforcement fact of duty.
Uh what uh I'm sorry, what what is your if he was willing to turn around and start a physical altercation with a cracker, which could be a cop or a security person who was being paid to provide free for that area, then he was willing to turn around and actually commit a felony by attacking that person.
And you're saying that's okay?
No, that's not okay.
I mean, she she just dare admit.
You're saying that she's saying it's okay.
She's saying that he was willing to commit a felony on that night, which if it was a cr if he thought it was a cracker, he was willing to commit a felony to attack that person, which you know they're trying to make him look so innocent, but if you're willing to commit a felony, how innocent can you be?
Oh, you're saying that she has inadvertently claimed or or pointed out that Trayvon was committing a felony.
Yes, he could have been, yes.
Because he by your own definition of the word cracker.
Well, but is uh you're saying it's a felony to do what?
To attack a police officer.
But he's not.
He was a security guard.
He's just that he's not he doesn't have the same authority as a cop.
I understand that, but by the definition of cracker, it could be a cop or a security person.
Trayvon did not know that, but he said he has a crazy uh crazy ass cracker on him, which means he has a cop or screwing person, so he's willing to turn on the case.
Okay, so that what your point is that she didn't know it, but she was essentially saying that Trayvon committed a felony.
He was willing, yes.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I don't know that that's gonna fly.
Uh got Jesse Jackson on the horn.
Hey, but by the way, uh Trayvon's a guy that committed the felony.
See what the reaction to that you get is.
Anyway, Kevin, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Be right back.
It is the fastest three hours in media, and already two of them are finished.
And what do we have here?
Study Obamacare could cause one million low-income Americans to move from work to welfare.
This is from Jim Pathacoukas at AEI, and yes, that's by design.
Daily caller Unions protest EPA regulations causing coal plant.
Whoa, whoa.
Unions yesterday upset at Obamacare.
▲
Export Selection