All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
July 23, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, yes, revved up and ready to go, and a much better lineup today than we had yesterday.
And there's nothing wrong with yesterday.
Don't misunderstand, but today it's an even better lineup, folks.
They're throwing softballs at me every day.
Hanging curveballs.
I'm gonna knock them out of the park today.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
And the excellence in broadcasting network.
Telephone numbers 800 to a two-288 to the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Grab soundbite number 19.
I think this is I just love this.
As you know, we finally had the birth of the royal baby.
And the distinguished uh princess waited till after the program to give birth, kept it a secret from the media for a while so they could have some time with the new child.
But I want you to hear the level of analysis that people watching CNN yesterday afternoon got on this.
The anchorette, Brooke Baldwin was speaking with Royal Commentator Victoria Arbiter about the birth of Prince William and Duchess Kate's little boy.
And Brooke Baldwin said, You know the royal life very well, uh, Victoria.
Having lived in Kensington Palace.
Your father was the press secretary for the Queen for many, many years.
It's so exciting.
It's so exciting.
Ladies, we fought a war for independence, so we wouldn't have to care about the royal baby.
Did we not?
Anyway, so CNN's asking this uh this royal commentator, uh, what is your reaction?
What is your reaction to the birth?
What is your reaction?
It was on the way all day, and it finally came.
What is your reaction, Victory?
Now listen to this level of analysis that CNN viewers got.
My first thought I have to say was this is how brilliant a royal Kate is.
There are women throughout British royal family history that have panicked over not being able to deliver a boy, and here we are.
Kate did it first time.
She's a great royal because she delivered a boy the first time, a male heir.
And what about what's so bad about having a baby girl?
I thought the feminine the feminazes here ought to be outraged over that she's being praised as though she had anything to do with it.
She's a great royal.
She delivered a baby boy.
Now, yesterday on this program, grab audio soundbite number 20.
Yesterday on this program, I learned that uh former Republican Senator Bob Dole said that the GOP must broaden its outreach.
And I was perplexed, and I got a little uh excited, animated.
I said, Must broaden the outreach.
The Republicans must broaden the outreach.
Why don't the Democrats have to have to broaden their outreach?
How about the Democrat Party?
Why don't they ever have to expand?
Why don't they ever have to move into areas that uh that the traditionally not good for them?
Why must it always be the Republicans?
And as I went on and on and on, I said, you know, I've I'm reminding myself of Tommy Lassorda, a former manager of the Dodgers, who was asked to comment, as it turns out on Dave Kingman of the sh was Chicago Cubs at the time.
Kingman had just creamed the Dodgers with a with the three home run game.
And Lasorda was asked by reporter after the game what he thought of Kingman's performance.
And the Dodgers got creamed in the game, 11 to nothing.
It was the Mets.
Kingman played for the Mets at the time.
It was 1976, and I talked about it's a famous within baseball piece of audio of of of Tommy LaSorda, and we have it.
I just want you to hear it since I had mentioned it yesterday.
What the f you think is my opinion of it?
I think it was to put that in.
I don't opinion of his performance.
He beat us with three fing home runs.
How can you ask me that question like that?
What is my opinion of his of his performance?
He hit three home runs.
Pissed off to lose a f game.
And you asked me my opinion of his performance.
What is my opinion of his performance?
Tommy Lassorda, many of the bleeps there were the F Mom and Jesus Christ.
K time, everybody wants to know what the beeps are.
Jesus Christ.
I mean, that's a tough question.
What is my beep opinion of his performance?
It's uh there there's another.
There's another one of these things.
Earl Weaver goes on an absolute profane rant about some of it as a manager of the Baltimore Orioles.
Cookie, see if you can find that one.
It just came to my mind.
Um I once gave a copy of it to George Will.
He's a big baseball guy, big Orioles fan.
I think he's even on the board of directors there.
But it is a famous rant, but Lasordas is at the time.
And I felt like La Sorda yesterday.
What do you mean?
The GOP must broaden its outreach.
I get so tired of the of the assumption that everything wrong with a Republican Party is because we're not liberal enough.
Because we're not like Democrats enough.
Because that's what broadening outreach means.
So anyway, there's that.
Let's also, we're now back to the top audio soundbite number one.
Yesterday on this program, I just want to recall for you that it was predicted.
So how long is it gonna be?
How long is it gonna be before the story gets out that the whole accident was scripted and planned and even rehearsed and then performed for real so that Zimmerman could come upon the scene, supposedly coincidentally, and be a hero.
I will guarantee if it's not already out there, Snerdly, you don't if it's not already out there, it's gonna be a running theme on Twitter.
I'm telling you, the left is insane, and they are not this just can't be Zimmerman a hero.
The Zimmerman haters are gonna say this whole thing was staged.
It was set up, probably rehearsed.
Look, nobody was hurt were they?
Why didn't Zimmerman just stay in his truck?
I wonder if the family was white or black and if Zimmerman knew their race beforehand.
You know, all these I guarantee you, I guarantee you folks, it's gonna happen.
It happened last week, by the way.
We're learning now it happened last week.
I wonder why the media didn't report this last week.
Because it happened last week.
What was going on last week that might have made the media want to shelve this and not re Oh, it was the verdict.
Oh, yeah, the verdict last week.
So anyway, it is it's it's now beyond Twitter.
It has it has reached liberal broadcast media.
I'm not gonna mention any names because they don't deserve it, but liberal broadcast media is now openly accusing the Zimmerman camp of staging the whole thing, particularly since no one was hurt.
Since no one was hurt, the whole thing had to be staged.
You know what the Democrats will always tell us?
They will always tell us what they fear, and they will always tell us what they do.
Their allegations against us, their accusations against us illustrate what they would do.
So when these people on Twitter or in the liberal broadcast media run around and say this whole thing was staged and made up, they're telling us how does the how does the thought even occur to him?
It occurs to him because it's something they would do.
Well, if you're asking how the thought occurred, Because I know them.
I know liberals as well as anybody knows them.
I know liberals better than they know themselves, because the one thing most liberals are is not honest with themselves.
Here's Mark O'Mary.
He is the uh Zimmerman defense attorney.
He was on Piers Morgan Live last night.
Chris Como sitting in because Piers Morgan was celebrating the birth of the baby boy.
And uh in Great Britain popping champagne corks, Cuomo said he was at the scene of the crash and he did assist, and this is the same area where everything else happened, right?
Yeah, very strange.
I mean, this is quintessential George.
This is the person who I knew him to be when I found out about his past before February 12th, just the guy who always involved in the community, always going to, you know, lend a helping hand, and here we go four days after the event, something that I could not have planned, but turned out to be just pure George.
And uh Cuomo, of course, naturally smells a rat.
Cuomo then said.
Now, is it true that you saw George soon after this incident, and he did not mention it to you?
Is that true?
We had conversations over the last few days, and yes, he came by um but did not mention this at all.
Again to him, this is who he is and who he's always been.
See, he didn't mention it because it hadn't happened.
He didn't mention it because it was staged.
He didn't mention it because it was all made up.
He didn't mention it because it was a planned technique.
Zimmerman didn't tell his lawyer because he didn't want even his lawyer to know the whole thing was staged.
That's what Chris Cuomo's thinking there.
But I'm telling you, folks, it's it's all over the place now.
That Zimmerman staged it, that his lawyers helped, that the family was paid off, that they were given a new car.
The whole thing was revery aspect of this.
And of course, the uh uh the Tea Party is behind it.
Uh the Republican Party uh is uh is behind it, and before it's all over, the royal family is gonna have had something to do with it.
Uh as part of a distraction to the birth of the baby boy.
Phil Mickelson, as you know, won the open championship with the official name of the British Open.
And it was a come from behind win, shot 66 on Sunday.
Forbes magazine has a story detailing how much of his winnings he will pay in taxes, and the rate is 61%.
Phil Mickelson, as you'll recall, caught some heat this past January when he complained about his supposed 60% tax rate living in California.
And uh people even had a little fun as expense.
This is, by the way, it's a guest post from uh K. Sean Packard, CPA, director of tax at OFS.
He specializes in tax planning and the preparation of tax returns for pro-athletes, and he had a guest post at Forbes.
And he admits that he even had a little fun at Mickelson's expense.
Because when the rich start complaining about their tax rate, there's no sympathy for them.
And the rich normally don't do it.
The rich normally don't complain, they just fix it while the poor aren't looking.
And of course, according to the left, how do the rich fix it?
They just make it up by taking money from the poor.
That's how the rich get rich.
They steal it from the poor.
The mathematics on that is never made sense to me, but that's what the left claims.
So anyway, uh the fact that Mickelson was even speculating about it, that caused everybody just you don't do that, Phil, you're a rich guy.
You're a champion.
You don't complain about your tax rate.
You're supposed to act grateful and uh and eager and willing to pay that rate.
You certainly don't complain about it.
So people did dump on him, have a little fun at his expense, and one of them was this K Sean Packard's CPA who posted it Forbes.
Then he writes, but it appears that the sponsor KPMG, which is which is one of Nicholson's sponsors, may have taught Mickelson a little more about taxes than we professionals have given him credit for knowing.
Mickelson capped a dominant two weeks in Scotland by shooting a final round 66 to come from behind to win the open championship.
He also won the Scottish Open the previous week.
Now for those two weeks of play, Mickelson earned about $2,167,500, winning those two championships back to back.
United Kingdom, which has authority to set Scotland's tax rate until 2016, graduates to a 40% tax rate when income hits 32,000 pounds, then 45% when it reaches 150,000 pounds.
So Mickelson is going to pay $954,000 of the two million to Scotland.
That's not all.
The U.K. will tax a portion of his endorsement income for the two weeks that he was in Scotland.
This is the way New York gets me.
And why I don't go there.
What Scotland is going to do, the UK will tax whatever KPMG pays Mickelson a year in a sponsorship.
Let's say they, I'm just picking a number, I don't know what it is, but let's say they pay him 10 million bucks a year.
Scotland is going to figure out what that would be if it was paid out every two weeks and take that.
Since he was working in Scotland those two weeks, and because of the work he does, he generated that endorsement fee, and so they're going to take their take of it.
That's what happens when you, if, if, particularly if you once lived in New York and then leave, if you go back and work a day or 10 days and New York finds out about it, they tax you on the number of days that you work in New York at their rate based on your annual income.
And that determines what your tax rate there is, which is why I don't go there anymore.
But I still get audited every year.
Because every year I tell them I didn't show up, and every year they make me prove it 14 different ways.
I'm still in the middle of a nine-month audit for the last three years, and I haven't been to New York.
But they automatically assume you're lying and make you prove it.
And so this is what's getting Mickelson.
In addition to all this, the UK will tax any bonuses he gets for winning these tournaments, as well as a portion of the ranking bonuses he gets at the end of the year.
And that money will be taxed at 45%.
It is a significant amount for Mickelson, only Roger Federer and Tiger Woods earning more among athletes from endorsements and appearances.
Mickelson ranked number seven overall with 48.7 million in Forbes June list of the world's highest paid athletes.
UK is one of the few countries that collects taxes on endorsement income for non-resident athletes that compete in Brittany.
U.S. also does this.
And New York, whenever a visiting sports team goes into New York, uh, Dodgers in New York, they players pay taxes for the three days they're in town.
And then they get them exempted for those three days in California.
It's a mess.
It's why you need attorneys.
Anyway, all this added to his U.S. income, he is going to pay about sixty one percent of his two million dollars in earnings in taxes.
I gotta take a break.
We'll be back and continue.
Don't go away.
Okay.
So I want to wrap this Mickelson thing up.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
44% is the grand total of what the UK will take from Mickelson for his earnings because his earnings occurred on their soil.
He will pay $288,000 in taxes to the state of California because he is a resident there.
If he lived in Florida, he would not owe that 288,000.
Or if he lived in Texas, or if he lived, I think Kentucky, he would not owe those taxes.
And then there are credits that he can take, a foreign tax credit on his U.S. return, so he's not double taxed at the federal level on this income.
The bad news is that the credit does not cover self-employment taxes.
And when you're self-employed, you pay all of your FICA.
There's no employer paying half of it.
You pay it all.
That's 2.9% of everything he earns.
And then the Medicare tax, another 1% surtax.
So all toll, Mickelson is paying nearly a million dollars to the Brits, $300,000 to California, and the balance of it to the feds for a total of 61%.
He keeps going to keep 39% of what he earned in the last two weeks.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think they ought to name this new little prince in the UK, Phil.
Oh.
Or Philip.
And you kill two birds with one stone.
You got Prince Philip, who is the, of course, the lackey, the husband of the queen.
And then you have Mickelson, who's single-handedly propping up the royal family's living expenses for two weeks of time over there.
See a great thing to name this new baby.
Can somebody explain something to me, folks?
Why is it that American liberals are so fascinated?
Two things here.
A, the birth of a baby.
You know, that normally is something that's a problem for them.
Number two, this one's born into obscene wealth.
And the liberals in the U.S. media are going gaga over this.
They don't they don't care about birth.
At least not much.
And birth, a baby born into wealth.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff over here they claim to despise.
Well, I take it back.
This is the royal family.
That means they are elites.
This would be like a birth in the Kennedy family, I guess, which would be cool to them too.
Anyway, um, ladies and gentlemen, we're I've got this so much here today.
We're going to follow up on Detroit because remember Zeb Chaffetz, who wrote one of the definitive biographies of me and a definitive biography of Roger Ailes of the Fox News Channel.
Zev Chaffetz in 1990 published a book called Devil's Night and Other True Tales of Detroit.
And his book details a far different reason for Detroit's decline.
Yes, liberalism to an extent.
Yes, unionism to an extent.
And yes, the auto industry decline.
Those were factors, but they contributed.
But Zeb Chaffitt's point in his book Devil's Night and Other True Tales of Detroit makes the case that what really destroyed Detroit, what made Detroit different is race.
And it's uh it's a fascinating take.
And it centers around the mayor for life, Coleman Young, and his views on race and what his views on race turn Detroit into.
So we've got that coming up on the program today.
On the immigration front, polling data out there, Latino illegal immigrants favor Democrats by an eight to one margin.
This is a poll from the Pew Research Center.
It was released yesterday.
Latino illegal immigrants, given the opportunity to vote, would vote Democrat at an eight to one clip.
And there is more.
You could look at it 54 to 19 percent.
Illegal immigrants favor Democrats by 54 to 19 percent.
And in addition to that...
a Republican-led push to legalize young, unauthorized immigrants has been met with stony resistance from groups representing the very dreamers that such a bill would help you, the DREAM Act and so forth.
It turns out that dreamer groups reject Republicans' efforts to legalize them.
In a nutshell, the proponents of the so-called DREAM Act have rejected the Republicans' efforts to pass their own version of the bill.
They want the Democrats to do it.
They don't want to be made legal by virtue of Republican legislation, which is very telling.
So I need to explain to me again how pushing amnesty is going to help the Republican Party.
Now, this is from Yahoo News, and we have to factor the possibility here that this is a made-up news story that in fact it might help the Republicans.
I mean, I I don't know what to believe anymore in the drive-by media, and I'm my instinct is to disbelieve all of it.
Because I know that they're all liberals and they're not doing journalism.
They are involved in advancing an agenda.
And I know that that agenda does not include the Republicans doing anything to help themselves.
So when we have a story here by Liz Goodwin is her name at Yahoo News, suggesting that dreamer groups don't want the Republicans to legalize them.
They want the Democrats to do it.
Why would they care?
So a story like this uh go one of either way, but combined with the pew poll, which, again, you have to take that one uh on suspicion.
Uh the pew poll, eight to one.
If the illegals could vote, they would vote Democrat.
That one I tend to believe.
I'll tell you why.
The Democrats are desperate for the Republicans to sign on to Amnesty.
And the reason the Democrats are eager is because they know that'll destroy the Republican Party.
So if they were in cahoots with Pew, the poll results would be much different.
The Pew poll would say that illegals would vote for Republicans, you know, 40%, 50%, what have you.
In other words, they would put out a poll that make it look very advantageous for the Republicans to push Amnesty, but they didn't.
The poll results are a testament to what will happen to the Republican Party if they push Amnesty.
They'll they'll destroy themselves.
And that poll indicates that.
So those two stories together on the surface make sense.
Oh, we will explore this as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
Uh Obamacare, story from the Washington Post, moderate Democrats are quitting on Obamacare.
Don't like it.
It is a problem for re-election.
We'll explore that.
Story Investors Business Daily, now called Investors.com.
2014 might be worse for the Democrats than 2010.
Uh conventional wisdom says that highly motivated opponents and unmotivated supporters cost the Democrats in the 2010 midterms.
And if that's true, Obama's current low polling numbers could auger a sequel in 2014.
Interesting details there.
We'll look into that.
I had the story yesterday, and I didn't bother getting to it.
There were other things, but it's the story that Obama voted when he was uh Senator in Illinois to strengthen the Illinois Stand Your Ground Law in 2004.
And of course, he's now opposed to that.
This is no different than Obama once being opposed to gay marriage, now all for it.
And of course, the Zev Chaffett's take on the status of Detroit.
But Before we get to all of that, grab audio soundbite number three.
The Limbaugh Theorem.
Obama has pretty much admitted it.
There is a story in the New York Times today.
Well, actually yesterday by Anne Lowry, President adopts catchphrase to describe proposed recipe for economic revival.
The story is, and there's a an accompanying story in the New York Times, and the headline on that one is Obama seeking to take credit and set course for the economy.
So what is happening here?
Obama is preparing to hit the campaign trail again, this time focusing on the economy.
And the the stories conflict a little because one of them illustrates that Obama is going to hit the campaign trail to once again run against Washington.
He's going to it is, folks, it's the Limbaugh theorem being played out right before your very eyes on the economy.
Obama is going to start campaigning on a two things.
The economy is starting to come back, but he's got to get in gear now and really cement this recovery and make it catch fire.
But he's going to distance himself from any of the negative aspects of it, as though he's had nothing to do with it, which is what the Limbaugh theorem states.
And he talked about this last night in Washington at an organizing for action summit.
This is his website.
The old website was organizing for America.
This is organizing for action.
Just the same website, different name, has the same purpose.
It keeps alive Obama's appearance of campaigning instead of governing.
And he was at this rally last night to get these people all worked up.
And here is what he said.
It's going to be the kickoff to what is essentially several months of us trying to get Washington and the press to refocus on the economy.
It'll be a pretty good speech.
But as we've learned, I've given some pretty good speeches before.
And then things still get stuck here in Washington, which is why I'm going to need your help.
How do we keep people involved?
And naturally it's not going to be as full of Rasmatas as a campaign.
So far, he's just admitting it now.
He's just admitting the Limbaugh theorem.
He's going to campaign against Washington.
But he's worried that he's not going to be able to recapture that old campaign magic.
The people may not faint.
It's going to be the kickoff to what is essentially several months of us trying to get Washington and the press to refocus on the economy.
He is Washington.
This is exactly if you have not been able to grasp the Limbaugh theorem.
This is it.
Here we have the president, been president for four and a half years.
Let's call it five.
He has implemented and authored countless policies that have affected the economy in an adverse way.
Destroyed it.
No real jobs are being created.
Most of the jobs that are created are part-time jobs.
But he's had nothing to do with it.
He's upset by it.
And so now he's going to start a campaign to get Washington and the media to start paying attention to this.
Because they haven't been paying attention to it.
Nobody's cared enough.
It's as though he's not even been in Washington.
He hasn't been president.
He has had no policies.
And in this way, the low information voters are convinced that Obama cares about him, and Obama's working hard for him.
But there are these powerful forces made up of the media and others in Washington who just don't care.
And they're not paying attention.
And so by golly, by gosh, Obama has got to get back out there on the campaign trail to get people to care about it again.
Limbaugh theorem, he's admitting it now.
So that's going to be our focus here for the next few minutes.
But now another obscene profit break.
We'll be back and resume right after this.
Okay, what you have to remember here is that Obama.
Well, he's uh he's actually we're supposed to believe it, he's trying to get the economy going.
While he's driving energy prices through the roof.
He's not ending his war on oil.
He's not ending his war on coal, he's not ending his war on conventional energy, which would help this economy more than anything.
Liz Cheney said it yesterday on this program.
You go to South Dakota where they're they've got a boom.
Keystone pipeline.
So we are supposed to believe that Obama is trying to get the economy going.
Because there are powerful forces out there that have been standing in the way.
He just said it.
It's gonna be several months of trusts of us trying to get Washington and the press to refocus on the economy.
Well what an insult.
The guy has been implementing economic policies, good and bad.
Well, there haven't been any good.
He's been denying good ones, implementing bad ones.
For nearly five years, and he's out there campaigning and telling these doofuses at his organization that it's time to get focused on the economy.
It's time to make them focus.
It's the most amazing thing, and he gets away with it, and the only way he gets away with it is because he has a slavish sycophantic media.
First from the New York Times, Michael D. Scheer and Jonathan Wiseman, President Obama restarting a major effort this week to focus public attention on the American economy.
Attention, New York Times, the American public has been focused on this since this man took office.
This is all the American public cares about.
The American public doesn't care about the royal baby.
The American public doesn't care.
So much about this Zimmerman case.
The American public doesn't care about all these distractions.
The American public.
Moms and dads, families care about the economy.
The idea that the president is going to go on another endless campaign to focus public attention on the economy is absurd.
But listen to what's written next in this story.
President Obama restarting a major effort this week to focus public attention on the economy, a strategy aimed at giving him credit for the improving job market and lifting his ret his rhetoric beyond the beltway squabbles that have often consumed his presidency.
This, ladies and gentlemen, could be the most cynical wrinkle in Obama's use of the limbaugh theorem yet.
In effect, the president of the United States is going to pretend that the economy has rebounded tremendously since the Great Recession, and that his policies are responsible for everything that's quote unquote good.
Meanwhile, anything bad, such as high unemployment or the low growth rate of the economy is going to be blamed on Republicans who are blocking his policies through gridlock.
He's going to go out there and he's going to take credit for what he's going to claim is a major recovery.
And he's going to say it could be even better if the Republicans would just start working with him.
Same old saw.
Republicans partisan.
Republicans uncooperative.
Republicans unhelpful.
He's going to claim that his policies responsible for everything good.
Meanwhile, anything bad due to the Republicans.
This may rank as Obama's biggest big lie so far.
And that's really saying something.
And New York Times, if you read the whole story, admits it's a very dangerous approach for him to take.
But I don't understand that.
What's he got to worry about here?
I mean, who in the news media is going to call him out on this?
Nobody's going to call him out on this like I am right now.
What do you mean you have to be stupid to believe it?
You gotta be all he's gotta do is claim credit for it.
The press is gonna give him credit for it, and low information voters are gonna celebrate it.
What do you mean you gotta be stupid?
The country is stupid.
That's why he's getting away with what he's gonna.
Well, folks, that's good news today.
Our 16-year-old cat punking the cat on the way home at this moment from the cat hospital.
After three weeks of hospitalization, she needed a couple of injections twice a day.
For urinary tract, she's okay.
▲
Export Selection