All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:09
August 12, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
|

Time Text
Bezos Buys the Washington Post 00:02:14
Your guiding life through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, deception, lies, deceit, tumult, and chaos.
And yes, even the good times.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity behind the golden EIB microphone.
That here at the Distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number is if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
Let me do that slower.
You don't even know what I'm saying anymore.
25 years.
I'm just uttering syllables.
800-282-2882.
You people probably have it memorized.
I don't even probably have to ever give out that number anymore.
But we nevertheless do because there are new people arriving here each and every day, each and every busy broadcast day.
Great to have you as well.
If you want to send an email, the address lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
You know, one of the things I'm going to start doing, the Washington Post was sold for $250 million to Jeff Bezos of Amazon.
And I just, folks, it is fascinating to listen to Washington establishment types describe Bezos as apolitical.
I mean, even Republicans have joined this course.
Oh, yeah, the post is going to have some really good days in it.
But this Bezos guy, he's not a political guy at all.
No, he just donates to every Democrat under the sun in the state of Washington, and he's a leader in funding and support for gay marriage, but he's not partisan.
And then the Boston Globe sold for $70 million.
That's not even as much as they pay their second baseman, the Red Sox.
So I'm going to start paying attention to news stories from these papers.
Now, the new owners haven't taken over yet.
Checklight: Lighting the Path to Safety 00:03:19
So the journalists there are still in various states of shock.
But it's still fascinating to look at what they put out.
Now, here's one from the Boston Globe, and it's an editorial.
This is not on the sports page.
It's about football and lighting the path to a safer game.
Here's the editorial from the Boston Globe on this.
The macho nature of football makes it difficult for fogged and staggering players to take themselves off the field after concussive blows to the head.
And even the most vigilant coaches and parents find it difficult to judge the severity of an impact to the helmet.
But the Cambridge Body Monitor Company, MC10 and Reebok, have invented a skull cap with sensors and LED lights that can be worn underneath helmets.
It's called checklight, and the device flashes yellow for a moderate blow and red for a severe blow.
And it also keeps a running count of the less severe blows, flashing a warning when the number crosses 100.
So these are the skull caps.
They look just like the skull caps that are now worn by players underneath their helmets.
Do you know the real reason they wear those skull caps now?
To protect the hairdo, it's to keep the helmet from putting the weird helmet shapes there in the, it's to avoid getting helmet hair.
So they wear those skull caps that mashes it all.
It's also their absorptive.
What?
Had a what called helmet hair?
Oh, yeah, Byron Dorgan, Byron Dorgan helmet head.
But that was been hit.
His hair looked like a helmet, not because of what the helmet did.
Byron Dorgan, that's good memory.
Anyway, so the skull cap is going to have electric sensors in it and lights.
And it's going to light up yellow or red depending on the severity of the blow.
And that will tell coaches and parents whether they need to get the player out of there.
And then the cap will tally up severe blows and lesser blows.
And when the number passes 100, then you got to sit out.
I mean, it doesn't say specifically what has to happen.
But I don't know what I don't know what the magic of this is at all.
We're now turning it over to a couple of companies that claim this skull cap can measure the severity.
I'm telling you, this game is, I can't, I have to, I don't know how to properly express this.
The preseason started, actually last week, the Hall of Fame game.
Obamacare's Impact on Health Care 00:14:32
But Saturday night, this past weekend was the first weekend of the NFL preseason.
And Saturday night, the Giants were in Pittsburgh to play the Steelers, and I didn't even know.
I'm ashamed to admit, I'm not only just ashamed to, I'm a little afraid that all of this politics that has permeated football, it just for some reason, it doesn't have the same, I'm not nearly as anticipatory.
I do know the Steelers lost.
I mean, I saw some of the game.
I got emails, what do you think of the Steelers?
What are the Steelers on?
They said, yeah, NFL networks.
Oh, I was watching Oprah reruns.
I said, all right, well, anyway, anyway, I probably get into it once the season starts, but I'm telling you it's being chickified.
The whole thing, everything in our culture is being chickified.
And some things are fine, but not everything.
We'll just have to see.
Now, the Washington Post story is about Hillary and her presidential campaign in 2016.
Now, this is not an editorial, it's a news story.
Headline: Hillary Clinton's theme pre-2016: Women Who Break Barriers.
Hillary Robin Clinton took a Toronto stage in June before 5,000 supporters, many of them women, and many looking for a hint that she might run for president in 2016, and she gave them one.
So here we have, it's automatic.
Now she's going to run, and it's automatic.
Donna Brazil's out there saying, oh, if she does run, it's a coronation.
We don't even need to have the campaign.
And remind you, I don't think she's going to be the Democrat nominee.
I've been wrong on one of these predictions before, but only once.
I didn't think she'd run for the New York Senate, but she did.
But if she does run, this story is right.
She's going to run as the first woman ever.
And if she does get the nomination, and if she does win, that will be why.
The Democrats have learned something here profound.
You've got the first black president.
He's immune from criticism.
You cannot criticize the guy.
Any criticism is racism.
We have a president of the United States who cannot be criticized.
His policies cannot be criticized, not credibly.
Anybody who tries is diminished and dismissed as a racist or a bigot.
And so Obama can get away with anything he wants.
And I get Democrats have seen this.
So imagine if we had the first female president, same thing.
Any criticism, sexist.
Any criticism, unjust.
Any criticism, unwarranted.
Any criticism, not real.
Any criticism, not substantive.
It's all based in anti-woman.
It's all based on the Republican war on women.
It's not based on anything substantive.
The Democrats modus operandi is to eliminate opposition, and this is one of the ways they do it.
And then after Hillary, they'll move for the first Hispanic president.
And the same thing will repeat.
No criticism of the first.
After that, they'll need to get the first gay president, and no criticism allowed there.
Then after that, the first transgendered president.
After that, the first, I don't know, from Mars, whatever.
But it's going to be a protracted policy, I think, that they're going to keep trying to implement.
And it's being heralded here in the Washington Post: her theme: women who break barriers.
What barrier is there left for Hillary to break?
She's already broken the barrier, other than first female president, but she's going to run, and she'll run on the basis that it's a biased, unjust, unfair country because of Republicans.
Here, grab Sun by the 11th, show you how this works.
This is Obama, and this is from his press conference on Friday, which, you know, interestingly started after this program.
Normally, Obama does these things at 1 o'clock Eastern Time while this program is going on.
And the objective there is to get some of our stations to bump out of this program and carry the presser.
But this time, he did it after this program.
So there would be no possible commentary about the press conference from me.
So he's talking about the Republicans and Obamacare.
And listen to this.
This is, it cuts to the quick.
My friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, their number one priority.
The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care.
That's hard to understand as an agenda that is going to strengthen our middle class.
At least they used to say, well, we're going to replace it with something better.
There's not even a pretense now that they're going to replace it with something better.
Now, this is his characterization to low-information voters of the Republican effort to repeal this because it is an abject failure.
Do you realize after Obamacare is fully implemented, and for any of you out there in the low-information crowd, well, normally you know who you are, but people in the low-information do not know that they're low-information.
I mean, the poor know they're poor.
The fat know they're fat.
The ugly know they're ugly.
Low-information people do not know that they're low-information.
They don't think of themselves that way.
Nobody does.
That's why when Romney starts talking about the 47% that will never support him, I mean, it wasn't the best thing to say, but most people in that group would not admit that they're in that group.
So they could act righteously indignant that Romney would treat other people that way.
But even after Obamacare is fully implemented, 30 million Americans are still not going to have health insurance.
In fact, a lot more than that are not going to have it because it's going to be so expensive.
But my friends in the other party have made the idea preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail.
So in a press conference, there's Obama saying the Republican Party doesn't want you to have health care.
Not health insurance.
The Republican Party doesn't want you to get treated.
It is patently absurd.
There's nothing to back that up that is an absolutely irresponsible allegation.
But he makes it with impunity.
Nobody in the press corps challenges him on it.
And the low information voters pick up on it.
Yeah, yeah, the Republicans hate people.
They don't want anybody to get well.
You get sick, die.
That's what the Republicans want.
And this is what people end up thinking.
When the entire anti-healthcare effort is based in saving the best health care system the world has ever had, Obamacare destroys it.
Obamacare makes it unaffordable.
Obamacare, I just, I got an email from a female doctor who's treated me in the past for an ailment.
Doesn't matter which one.
And she's a liberal, by the way.
Sends me this note talking about how impossible it already is to comply with this, and she's thinking of leaving the profession.
Just it's unworkable.
And she was talking about all the mess that electronic health records are and have become, and the place where she works is just more suited for a reality TV show than a genuine health care center.
And this is happening all over the place.
I mean, Obamacare is what is destroying the American health care system.
Obamacare is what's pricing it out of reach by design.
And like Dingy Harry says, we are but one step away from single payer.
It's in the Las Vegas Sun.
Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry said he thinks the country has to work our way past insurance-based health care.
He was on a local PBS show in Vegas on a Friday night called Nevada Week in Review.
When asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing health care, Dingy Harry said, yes, absolutely.
We cannot have a decent health care system that requires people to have insurance.
Well, that's exactly what they're doing.
Every week, there's a new story of this company here, that company there, pulling out of that state exchange over there, that state exchange over there, because it's not profitable to stay in it.
And the objective of Obamacare from the get-go has to eliminate, has been to eliminate private sector insurance as an option for people so that they have nowhere to go but government-run enterprises, be they the state exchanges or whatever eventually replaces them.
The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the U.S. sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009 when Dingy Harry was negotiating the health care bill.
But what's happened here is that he has slipped up.
The mask has come off.
And in this instance, Harry Reid has told the country what the end game has always been when it comes to Obamacare.
If you take insurance out of the game, Then, what do you do for your health care?
Your employer no longer provides it.
You have to go to the federal government.
They're going to end up running it.
That's what he means.
And we're just one step away from it, one step away.
And that one step is getting rid of insurance.
In another story, the Las Vegas Sun story, I just read it, treated you to does not mention this.
But one of the things that Dingy Harry talked about on this TV show Friday night was blaming employer-sponsored health care as a benefit for the current morass.
And he was accurate.
He told people it started in World War II.
In World War II, General Motors and others needed, everybody needed qualified, really qualified employees.
And somebody came up with the idea of adding health insurance as a benefit to employment.
And that's where the whole notion of employer-provided health insurance began as a benefit.
And Harry Reid cited it.
The post-World War II auto-industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, so we've never been able to work our way out of that.
Now, what he's saying is that's been the obstacle to single-payer, which is something they've dreamed about for as long as you've been alive.
But as long as you were able to get health insurance from your boss, you were satisfied.
It's a great benefit.
And they're in the process of tearing that down.
And he just admitted it.
It's just out there now.
And that's why the repeal of this thing is so important.
At least, even if it can't happen, an issue where the Republicans can distinguish themselves.
I got to take a quick timeout.
Now, there were wage and price controls in World War II.
This is so silly.
This always has their wage and price controls.
So employers had to improvise and come up with new ways of paying people because there were controls on wages.
And that's where employer-provided health insurance was born as a benefit and a way around wage and price controls.
And what Harry Reid is saying here is that's where the whole thing broke down.
That's where the whole effort was derailed to go government-run health care.
The unions were big on this too, so it's a little bit of an anti-union statement as well.
Chris in Moultrie, Georgia.
You're next.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Megan's Rush.
How are you today?
Fine.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, my comment was referenced to the story earlier about Ryan's Priebus announcing that the Republican candidates were going to not participate in the debates with, I guess, CDS and NBC.
I think he's right on.
I think if you exhibit any of that, is John McCain and CrossS in 2008 how you call John McCain was the darling of the media.
And as soon as we elected him as our nominee, they turned on him.
Yeah, everybody saw that coming for years except McCain.
He was the last guy to see it.
It's actually CNN and NBC that are doing the Hillary show that Reince Priebus was talking about avoiding.
Challenge to God's Creation 00:04:38
You don't even have to go back to McCain.
You just have to go to January of 2012.
And that's when the whole war on women started with a question of Mitt Romney by George Stephanopoulos.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Very concerned with fairness here at the EIB network.
Other items in the news besides all this other boring stuff.
John Kerry, our esteemed Secretary of State, said that climate change is our challenge, a challenge to our responsibilities as the safeguarders of God's creation.
The safeguarders.
It would obviously be the safe guardians.
The safeguarders.
So John Kerry says that climate change is a challenge to our responsibility as the safeguarders of God's creation.
What about God's creation called a fetus?
Secretary Kerry, what is your responsibility as a safeguarder there?
See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in man-made global warming.
You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something he can't create.
It's always, in fact, been one of the reasons for my anti-man-made global warming stance.
The vanity, I mean, these people, on the one hand, we're no different than a mouse or a rat, being listening to animal rights activists.
We are the pollutants of this planet.
If it weren't for humanity, the militant environmentalist wackos, if it weren't for humanity, the earth would be pristine and wonderful and beautiful, and nobody would see it.
According to them, we are different.
We are not as entitled to life on this planet as other creatures because we destroy it.
But how can we destroy it when we're no different than the lowest life forms?
And then on the other end, the vanity and the arrogance, we are so powerful and we are so impotent, omnipotent, that we can destroy.
We can't even stop a rain shower, but we can destroy the climate.
And how?
With barbecue pits and automobiles, particularly SUVs.
It's absurd.
But nevertheless, the esteemed secretary running around saying that climate change is a challenge to our responsibilities as the safeguarders of God's creation.
Just ask him, what about God's creation called a fetus?
Weiner, Huma's husband.
This is this poor guy, no matter what he does.
This is in the New York Post.
He was campaigning in Astoria, Queens, personally, running around pounding the pavement, and he put several flyers into mailboxes.
Did you hear about this?
He put flyers promoting his candidacy into mailboxes, people's houses.
And he was told, you know, you might be violating postal regulations.
You can't do that.
Those things have to be delivered by the postman, mailman, mailwomen.
And his spokeswoman said, and I kid you not, I think if it's not all the way in, it's okay.
Combative Newport Parents 00:11:24
If it's not all the way in, we can do it.
This is like Clinton.
There wasn't any sex in there.
Obal office.
There was just some Lewinsky's going on, but there wasn't asex in there.
Besides, it didn't affect the way I did my job.
I'm screwing people anyway.
What's the difference?
And then there was the client number nine excuse.
And Clinton again saying, well, I didn't inhale.
So now Wiener's press secret.
No, no, no.
We can put anything in there as long as it's not all the way in.
Just amazing.
A judge in Newport, Tennessee, Newport mother, wanted to name her child Messiah.
You hear about this.
Yeah.
Newport mother is appealing a judge's decision because the judge ordered her to change the name.
The judge said, you can't name your kid Messiah.
Jaleeesa Martin and the father of Messiah couldn't agree on a last name.
It's how they ended up at a child support hearing in Cook County on Thursday.
And that's when the first name came into question.
Child support magistrate Luann Ballou, which is a great name for a judge in Newport, Tennessee.
Lou Ann Ballou serves the 4th Judicial District of Tennessee.
And she ordered the name changed to, I think, Martin or McCullough or could not use the name Messiah.
She said, the word Messiah is a title, and it's a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ.
Until I read that, I thought the story was about Obama.
I thought the judge, no, we already have a Messiah, and it's Obama.
Now, you know, this is going to be reversed.
I mean, some judge is going to reverse this, because this is First Amendment all the way.
I mean, how many people in the world are named Jesus?
And they don't make those people change their names.
So, no, no, not Blue.
Baloo is her last name.
Baloo.
It's spelled B-A-L-L-E-U.
You probably thought it was something else.
But her Judge Ballou, I just think it's a great name for a judge in Tennessee.
Like, what was the Buford T. Justice was the name of a state trooper and a Burt Reynolds.
Jackie Gleason played the character.
Buford T. Justice.
It was just a perfect name.
CVS, the pharmacy.
CVS pharmacy customers are being asked for ID when they buy nail polish remover.
The policy has been rolled out across southern New England in the past few weeks.
It means that customers must show ID and will be limited on the number of bottles of nail polish remover they can buy.
The drugstore chain said that the rule is an attempt to curb the making of meth amphetamine.
It's got acetone in it, and acetone is one of the ingredients in crystal meth.
So now a valid ID must be presented to purchase any product containing acetone, and that includes nail polish remover.
So an ID to buy nail polish, but we can't require an ID to vote.
Well, I don't know.
Congressional Black Caucasians know about it.
I don't know.
Who?
Eric Holder?
No, Holder's too busy reducing the sentences for drug offenders.
You heard about that.
That'll make the Reverend Jackson happy.
All right, I got to take a quick timeout, but we'll be back.
More of your phone calls.
Await, don't go away.
And back to the phones to Indianapolis.
This is John.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB Network.
Hi.
Andrew Luck Dittos from Indianapolis Rush.
Wanted to just say that I hope that the Reince Priebus, Monica, not Monica, but the Crowley scrimmage is the first of many.
It's high time conservatives are combative against these media types on their shows.
It's time, and I voted for Newt Gingrich a year ago in the Indiana primary.
The race was over, but I voted for him in part because he was willing to stand up to those people.
And you've got to be willing to say, that's a stupid question.
Next question, you need to say, I reject the premise of your question.
They need to be more combative.
The press is part of the enemy.
I know you know that.
What I'm arguing for is a strategy of direct, on-camera combativeness.
Because let me ask you a question.
Newt also, I think it was in South Carolina where he pulled that off.
Newt got standing O's a couple of times in the South Carolina debate because he did exactly what you just said.
He rejected the, he did two things.
He rejected the premise of the question and then with substance spelled out what our policies really are when it comes to the poor and owning businesses and becoming prosperous.
And the audience could not help themselves.
They stood up and applauded.
Two things happened.
He rejected the premise of a question, but he also articulated correctly what conservative policy is on something.
So let me ask you, what would you rather see in a debate?
Would you rather see Republican conservative policy honestly expressed in a non-combative way where people can see it on display?
Or do you just want the combat?
Do you just want these guys pounding on the media and giving them what for?
Well, when you're dealing with a left-wing media nut job like CNN, then the combat.
But if it's a reasonable forum, then no.
You don't have to be combative.
But only be combative when you need to.
The problem is on Beat the Press or Mason, on these regular news shows, like that little sissy on NBC, you have to be combative.
You have to reject the premise.
You have to say no.
They're not going to do that.
They have to.
What Priebus is essentially saying is they're not going to do that.
They're going to go someplace where they don't have to be combative.
Oh, well, but the problem with that, Rush, is you can't reach the left-wing nutjobs that are only watching those shows.
And you have to reach them to some extent, don't you think?
I'd say right now, the Republican problem is their base.
If the Republican Party does not solidify...
The Republican Party doesn't like its base right now.
The reason that everything that has you upset is happening is because the Republicans are trying to rid themselves of the conservative, the pro-life, anti-amnesty immigration crowd.
They're trying to rid the party of that base.
I think that's what's really, it's not the sole reason they're doing what they're doing, but it's one of the primary reasons.
But if they lose us, they become the Whigs and they disappear.
Of course.
And they're willing to do that for a couple of cycles until they get a new base.
It doesn't make any sense, but that is one of the only explanations I can come up with.
The reason why what you said is important, there was a town meeting in last week, and I think it was Maryland, I forget where, but a bunch of people showed up, Republican towns, a bunch of people showed up saying exactly what you said.
Whoever this congressman was, his audience said, when are you going to stand up and push back for us?
When are you going to disagree?
When are you going to fight back?
When are you going to stop accepting?
There's an entire element here, people like you, who are not being represented, no matter what the forum is.
And it's gotten to the point now where we have so many voters on our side that would just be happy for a little pushback, whether it results in victory or not.
They're just tired of seeing this polite, inside-the-belt way political speak that's not persuasive of anything to anybody.
So I understand where you're coming from.
I know exactly what you mean.
But is, I know you talk about you can't reach the left unless you go on left-wing places, and this is one of the reasons why they do it.
But they're not reaching the left the way it's happening.
And remember, the Democrats have told them, if you get mad and start criticizing Democrats, the Independents aren't going to like it.
So the Republicans try to be reasonable and polite and there's no way they're going to overcome the branding that's happened that way.
So the option, what Priebus is thinking here, is just go someplace where you don't have to be combative.
You can just articulate the policy, represent people as they are, and let them be seen espousing their beliefs and their ideology and policy and this kind of thing.
And he's got a point of it.
There is literally no reason why, particularly in Republican primaries, that you have 20 debates moderated by Democrats, disguised journalists.
It just doesn't make any sense because they're not candidates.
They're suspects.
And they don't get questions.
They're accused.
They get charged with things.
Do you hate women?
Do you hate blacks?
Do you hate almost?
That's all it is.
And so every one of these people ends up on defensive.
No, I love it.
It's a losing and being combative in that circumstance.
Newt did it once, and he still didn't get the nomination.
And after he did that, then the rules went out.
Audience cannot applaud.
Audience must stay seated and remain polite.
So forth.
Well, I don't think we do have to.
Well, I have to answer that tomorrow because I've got dwindling time here.
Snerdley says, why do debates at all?
He says, Priebus, let's not debate.
Let's sit around and get all these candidates just discussing with friendly people moderating a discussion.
I'm sure that's what he means.
Well, not a bad show today, considering there wasn't one thing interesting happening out there.
This was a pretty good show, considering there wasn't one thing worth talking about today.
Not one, but we made it work, folks, and that's the beauty of the EIB network.
And we'll do it again tomorrow, whether there's anything to talk about or not.
Export Selection