All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
August 15, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back.
You are tuned to the nation's most listened to radio talk show.
This one.
It is the Rush Limbaugh program and it's the EIB network.
Great to have you here, my friends.
We come to you also from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
There are no graduates and there are no degrees, and that's why the learning never stops.
The telephone number, you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
The uh media's handling of the story in Egypt, in addition to protecting Obama with this, is you know, Obama's he's sided here with the Brotherhood, which isn't new.
But there's another, you know, Obama's not running again.
And if he decides to relinquish the office, that means there'll be an election in 2016.
And if Obama decides to relinquish the office, one of the Democrats seeking it next time be Hillary, and they're also trying to protect her in this story.
Because she was an absolute disaster as a Secretary of State, as as she's pretty much been a disaster, but she's one of these people, you've known them, never really accomplished a whole lot, but the PR surrounding her is just over the top.
And there's a lot of investment, a lot of investment in Hillary, and the Democrats want to keep this going.
And I wouldn't mind her being the next nominee because you'll have the first woman and more criticism insulated.
Any criticism be sexism, and be a great way to keep the Republicans frightened and not criticizing anything, particularly during campaigns.
So the news coverage, in addition to protecting Obama, is also about insulating Hillary of Secretary of State from any of this disaster.
Now let's get to the health care stack.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reprimanded his fellow Republicans in harsh terms yesterday.
He blamed Republican members of Congress for developing zero alternatives to Obama's health care reform law.
Gingrich was speaking at the opening session of the Republican National Committee's summer meeting.
Got a question about Obamacare.
And he recalled that the Republicans were able to block Clinton's health care reform effort in 1994 because he says they had a positive alternative approach to health care.
But Republicans today have nothing comparable to offer, Newt said.
He said, I'll bet you, for most of you, you go home in the next two weeks, when your members of Congress are home, you look them in the eye, and you say, what is your positive replacement for Obamacare?
And they will have zero answer.
Now this gets to the root of a problem that I think has the Republicans essentially in a prison.
And it's a problem the way they deal with it that's certain forever surrenders the agenda and the initiative to the Democrats.
And it basically is this.
Democrats come up with an idea, Republicans have to have an alternative.
If the Democrats want Amnesty, the Republicans, according to the thinking, have to have their own version of it.
They just can't say no.
If the Democrats want to nationalize health care, the Republicans have to have an alternative that is based on the premise set by the Democrats.
So the Republicans are always in prison.
They're always accepting the Democrat premise.
It's as Tom Lantos once said, suicide.
It is utter political suicide.
So the Democrats get to set the premise on every issue, saying they set the agenda, set the premise.
The premise here, we need national health care.
We need amnesty.
We need 11 million new Democrat voters.
We need whatever.
And the thinking is the Republicans, Marco Rubio has said this too, and I've I've in a in a very respectful mild way, I've argued with him about it.
Why do we need an alternative?
Especially, why do we need an alternative that bounces off their idea?
Why do we have to accept their claim that the health care system's broken?
They say it.
That then opens the door for them to come up with this massive proposal.
They set the premise.
We agree with it.
In fact, the opening premise is the health care system's broken.
I would submit to you it's being broken.
I would much rather take the American health care system before Obama was elected than what we've got now.
What it's not it's a no-brainer.
But beyond that, there is an alternative.
And you know what it's called?
Free market.
It's called free market entrepreneurial capitalism.
It's called as little interference from the government as possible.
It's called the Constitution.
We don't need an alternative.
I don't know where this thinking got started, but I know what drives it.
The idea that Washington controls everything.
Even conservative Republicans.
The does what?
No, our side doesn't believe in the free market.
So I was just going to get ready to say they all are of Washington.
With Washington as the center of the universe.
Washington must always be doing something.
The people can't be trusted to do things.
The market cannot be allowed to determine outcomes because the outcomes in the market are not fair.
The outcomes in the market are unjust.
Somebody loses.
Somebody gets hurt.
Somebody suffers.
And it's not fair who wins.
We can't let the market do it.
We can't let a free society make decisions and let the fallout happen as it does.
We have to manage it.
We have to control it.
Washington, ruling class versus country class.
There is an alternative.
There's an alternative to the runaway budget.
You know what it is?
Freeze it.
Freeze spending and even allow for inflationary levels for five to seven years.
Just do that.
And you would be amazed at the difference it would make in terms of the accumulation of deficits.
And of course the national debt.
There are alternatives.
They're called conservative alternatives, and they're rooted in the free market.
And they are rooted in trusting the free market and trusting capitalism and trusting the American people.
And there's evidence all over.
I mean, this is ridiculous to have to even ask.
Take, I don't care whatever your favorite consumer product is, and you ask yourself, who did it?
And under what circumstances?
And I'll guarantee the answer is never going to be the government did it.
The government didn't build your iPhone or your Samsung Galaxy S4 or whatever.
They didn't build your TV set.
They didn't build your high-def flat screen.
They didn't build your computer.
They didn't build your car.
When they get involved in this stuff, you have an absolute disaster.
You got products that nobody wants that they have to be forced to buy that are outrageously expensive.
You have people who have no expertise or experience in the industries they're trying to take over and run.
And they get away with it on the basis they've got big hearts and big compassion.
We don't need an alternative.
I would say it's this kind of thinking that accepts every Democrat liberal premise that has resulted in this country being where it is.
And it's in trouble because the people that run the government cannot run an economy.
You cannot pick winners and Losers.
You cannot make everything fair.
You cannot oversee and manage outcomes.
Liberalism doesn't work.
Statism doesn't work.
The Constitution does.
The free market does.
A free people will always come up with the best and the most practical and the cheapest alternatives.
Now, for those of you shouting at me, oh, wait a minute, Rush, how come a band-aid costs $600?
Because the government got involved back in 1960.
And really got involved in 1970.
If the government had never gotten involved in health care, we wouldn't have 90% of the problems we have in it.
This is not even arguable.
It's sad that it has to be argued.
Because it's not arguable.
It's flat out common sense.
But the idea that we have to have an alternative is what's dooming not just the Republican Party, but the country.
The alternative that's needed is the anything that defeats the Democrat Party.
The alternative that we come up with is anything that prevents the liberal wing of the Democrat Party from achieving its agenda items.
That's the alternative.
But nobody comes up with that anymore.
The only alternative is our version of what they want to do.
So Newt's saying, these Republicans, they don't have any ideas.
You don't have an alternative to Obamacare.
They damn well better not.
The American people do not want to hear a Republican version of Obamacare.
The American people don't want to hear a Republican version of state exchanges.
The Republican Party, the American people don't want to hear how the Republican Party is going to make the exchanges work.
The American people don't want the exchanges.
The American people do not want a 2200-page piece of legislation that gives the government all this power to ultimately decide who lives and dies by virtue of who gets treated because the costs are so outrageous that nobody can afford it.
Biggest problem in American health care is that it has no relationship to the cost of living of the average citizen, like every other business does.
There is simply no relationship, no market relationship between the costs in health care and the lives of the American people.
And as such, it can never work.
It can never succeed.
It cannot treat everybody.
It really is frustrating.
But we see in what Newt is saying here, the Republican mindset.
What he's saying is we need our own alternative, and it needs to be optimistic, and it needs to be of good cheer, and we need to be nice and we need to be kind and we need to show compassion and we need our own idea.
What we need to do is simply stop the Democrats in everything they want to do.
That's the alternative.
"The alternative is denying them their premise." Mr. Lumbo, that sounds so obstructive, that sounds so mean.
What do you think they do, Mr. New Castradi?
Lincoln Democrats do, they know the game.
They're playing the game.
We're in politics.
That's the business here.
We're in the arena of ideas.
The Democrats can't win the arena of ideas, and so they've chosen another route.
And that is the suppression of ideas and the discrediting of anybody who has alternative good ideas.
This is the Democrats are not open or tolerant to anything except their way.
Why aren't we?
And we all know the answers because they've done such a good job of making the Republicans look like the architects of gridlock, they're mean-spirited, they're racist, they're sexist, they're bigot, they're homophobe, and a Republicans have got to act like Democrats to make sure people like companies say don't do that, they're never going to win another election, and is so wrong.
The American people.
It's out there in polling data.
The American people do not want Obamacare, nor do they want an alternative of Obamacare.
What they want is no Obamacare.
They want it yanked.
They want it defunded, repealed, whatever.
Sixty two percent of the American people oppose the economic policies of the regime.
What is the Republican Party doing?
There is on issue after issue, there is a giant majority waiting to be connected with.
Take a break and we'll come back and get to your phone calls.
That's that's just the first of many stories in the health care stack.
Don't sweat it.
But that's the biggie.
Because it's this notion that we got to have an alternative.
That's what's killing us.
That's that that's that's what's why we're all stagnating here.
There's nobody stopping the Democrats.
There's nobody stopping the Liberals.
There's nobody with a policy to just stop them.
Not even slow them down.
Policy is how do we do what they do and be liked while we do it.
That's not going to accomplish anything.
Look at that.
Right here on CNN.
They've got a health report.
Drinking too much coffee could be bad for you.
You see the cycle of this stuff.
That was ten years ago.
Too much coffee, heart attack, uh constipation, whatever the hell it caused.
Then it became a cure for Alzheimer's.
Then it became uh a preventative uh for Alzheimer's away.
Now it's backed.
Too much of it could be bad for you.
Too much anything could be bad for you.
These people irresponsibly just keep everybody fever pitch, constantly wound up tight, waiting for disaster, waiting for death.
Here's Jerry in Fredericksburg, Texas.
Jerry, you're up first.
It's great to have you on the EIB network today, Hans.
Well, thank you, sir.
Oh, you're second today.
Thank you for calling.
Well, thanks.
I tell you what, I I have to admit I'm I'm a discouraged, pessimistic American.
And I'm ashamed to say that because I was raised to be optimistic.
Yeah.
And um today it seems to me that we're just on the precipice of going over.
And um I I just I don't I don't know what can be done.
I mean, you say we need policies.
The Republican Party is obsolete, in my opinion.
I think the only policy we need is is as you say, the Constitution.
I'm just finishing up reading the Federalist Papers, and to see the arguments that took place back in the uh let me give you something else to read.
Have you have you heard of Mark Levin's new book, The Liberty Amendments?
Yes, I have.
I've ordered it from Amazon.
It hasn't arrived yet.
Okay, well, read it when it does.
It's uh it's fascinating.
Because I everybody still asks me, Rush, what can I do?
Besides vote.
Everybody wants to do something.
Well, look at the the standard ordinary give and take and back and forth of politics isn't gonna work anymore.
The Constitution's broken.
We're not living under it anymore.
It's already been bastardized.
The Constitution is going to have to be put back together.
It is going to have to be reaffirmed.
It's already being torn apart.
It's it's being shredded, it's being ignored by this president who just chooses which law and what part of a law he wants to obey or not.
Well, he's the nearest thing to a despot that we've ever elected.
Uh true.
Woodrow Wilson a close second, followed by his wife when Woodrow had the stroke or whatever.
But I but here's the the thing about the Liberty Amendments is that the premise is the founders understood that what we are going through today was very possible, and they had a prescription to fix it.
There are remedies for this.
The remedy is not the Republican Party.
You are so right about not as not as it's currently uh Constituted or operating.
The American people are going to have to fix this.
And that's what Levin's book is of.
It's a wonderful book.
And it's it's it's it's a it's not, I don't want to say it's simple, but it makes so much sense.
He proposes ten amendments that simply reaffirm the original intent of the Constitution, and then gives a thorough explanation for why each amendment is in fact justified and warranted and traces it back to the days of the founding.
And it is something that the more people read it, the more people become familiar with it and demand that something be done to reaffirm and strengthen the Constitution.
It's something like this that is going to be necessary because the Constitution is broke.
We cannot rely on it now.
Look, folks, the founders of this country never intended that one judge determines the law of the land.
John Roberts and Obamacare, Anthony Kennedy on whatever the issue.
This was never intended.
So much of what is happening now is not intended.
Presidents don't have the right to pick and choose what parts of legislation they like and implement that and deny other parts.
The American people have the power to change this, but not at the ballot box.
At least that's one of the theories of the Liberty Amendments.
The ballot box is that the Constitution is going to have to be reaffirmed and a new reminder to elected officials of what the law is is going to have to be made.
And the one of the points of the book is that the states, the amendment process is right there in Article Vow to deal with out-of-control administrations, how to deal with leaders that are abrogating and denying the Constitution, shredding it.
It's right there.
The founders are brilliant.
They knew what they were doing.
They weren't just devising a formula for life during their era.
They were devising a structure for all time.
And as such, they were able, because they understood human nature.
They were able to understand exactly how despotism happens, dictatorship happens, usurpation of freedom by governments, how it happens, that's why the country came into existence.
And there is a recipe, there's a formula, there's a prescription in the Constitution for addressing the problems we have today and fixing them.
And it involves the states.
States have uh in our Constitution, the states, particularly banded together, have far more power than the federal government and the people.
And it's going to have to happen.
And it's going to be slow and coming.
This is going to be resisted by the current ruling class, and they're going to want any part of this.
So it's going to have to effervesce from the grassroots up.
And there are a lot of grassroots efforts taking place right now, simply because of the realization that there is not I don't think there's a single mechanism in Washington that's structured right now and oriented toward addressing the real problems that we have.
There's mounting debt.
I mean, this was never intended.
This was never thought to be acceptable.
Never.
This kind of thing is what was supposed to not happen.
In almost every venue, almost every area of government, the EPA, all these bureaucracies, able to write their own laws and regulations without going through the representatives of the people.
That was never intended.
That was never part of the plan.
Constitution's bastardized.
It's been bastardized for years.
It's been shredded for years.
It needs to be reaffirmed.
and And Levin's book is a is a series of ideas of how to do it that involves the American people.
The Liberty Amendments, there are ten of them.
And I'm not wanting to go through all of them for you here, but one of them actually term limits judges.
Twelve years, Supreme Court.
That's it.
There's no reason.
We need some babbling idiot that can't add two and two anymore on the court.
Some people that are afraid once you convene a meeting, a convention to start amending the Constitution that you're opening the door to the left.
This is dealt with in the book as well.
I don't want to give everything away, but that is dealt with.
Keep in mind, too, that the left wants to do this themselves.
They're not happy.
The reason the Constitution is being shredded and the reason it's being shredded and bastardized, it's by them, and they don't like it.
The Constitution doesn't give them enough power.
The Constitution has written grants all the power to the people and all the power to the states.
That's unacceptable.
They want their new Bill of Rights.
They want a bunch of they want ten brand new amendments that specifically spell out the power that government has over us.
The Bill of Rights as written, of course, limit the federal government's power, and that's why they exist.
So if you find yourself frustrated asking yourself, what can I do?
What is there to be done, take a look at this and see.
Here's uh here's Jeff in the Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, uh higher rush.
You know, when you said uh uh you would overshadow any candidate if you were going to moderate a Republican presidential debate, uh I could think of one.
Uh actually really only one possible candidate who you wouldn't overshadow, and that's Sarah Palin.
Well, now for people that are just tuning in and didn't hear the opening of the program and are hearing you, it might be getting a little bit of a distorted idea of what I meant.
So let me set the table again before we get further into your comment, okay?
Yeah.
There's a uh a news story out there that says the RNC is considering having uh uh people like me or Sean Hammond or Mark Levin nomin uh moderate Republican presidential primary debates for the 2016 election.
And I simply opined at the beginning of the program, I was telling Mr. Snerdley, I don't know that if this would work, I might be too famous uh to do this.
And old old Jeff here is assuming that what I meant was that I was going to overshadow and and domin.
I would never say that.
Well, I I I meant too famous as well in the sense of a a star base having their own star base or at least news attention base.
So I don't mean overshadowing that sense, because frankly, I think she could uh she has a facility, probably the only one that can match verbal jibes with you.
So I meant also the star base, the star attraction, you know, the everybody wants to see, that kind of thing.
I I can't think of anyone other than her that would be a counterbalance to you that people would want to see.
Otherwise, you're correct.
You would kind of be more newsworthy than any candidate.
Except her.
Well, see, the purpose of this would be to maybe change that.
Well, one of the I I think the thinking about this is that if you put these Republicans with uh I don't want to say like-minded, but put them with people who are not automatically adversarial, who are not trying to defeat them, who aren't treating them as suspects out of the out of the box, that they might blossom.
Yeah, but you're might get a little bit more out of who they really are, rather than the defensive, don't want to offend anybody, don't want to upset anybody the way they behave with Democrat moderators.
But your point was was eyes would want to see you, the great, you know, Rush Limbaugh is controversial.
My only point is that, yeah, you're true, it is true.
But if the can't one of the candidates at the debate was Sarah Palin, she's the only one that I would want to see what she was saying, too.
And that's my only point when you were saying that uh oh yeah, everybody would want to see you uh out of interest.
Well, I think she's the one that's not a good one.
No, I didn't mean it as far as interest.
Well, no, I didn't I I meant that I would be a distraction.
I didn't know.
I didn't I didn't mean it that that I would be overshadowing because I'm not running.
Now it may well be that after one of these debates, people would say, well, why don't you run?
Uh but I'm not I'm not running.
I was simply saying I might end up being a distraction.
Oh, well, any way you want to say it, if you call it a distraction as well, you wouldn't distract from the only one I would think would be Sarah Palin, that she would probably be the only one that would distract from you.
That's my only point.
What about Trump?
Yeah, he's not a real he's not a he's not a real candidate.
He doesn't really fire up people like she's a serious you know, she's a threat.
Let me put it this way.
She's a threat to the Democrats, not Trump.
She's the only one that uh the Democrats were fearful of day one, and not only that, when you were talking about that Hillary Clinton would be immune as a woman from criticism.
What do you think Sarah Palin?
I mean, they uh they attack her, but she's she remains, was, is, and will always be the one candidate the Democrats really fear is Sarah Palin.
They would want anybody but her running.
I I don't disagree with that.
I I I think look at that's just common sense.
This the the reaction, the irrational reaction the left has to Palin.
Seriously now, if if they really thought she was this just glittering jewel of sheer unbridled idiocy.
They would want her out front.
If they thought that Sarah Palin was so bad, so stupid, so ineffective that she would automatically lose.
They would want her front and center.
They'd be they'd be trying to help her get the nomination.
But it's the exact opposite.
They are try I I've always said that the left will all uh always tell us who they fear.
They will always tell us who they really are frightened of.
And I don't think there's I to me that's just slam dunk.
It's not even not even uh arguable.
Now, what when I say Democrats want Hillary because can't criticize a woman, you can't criticize a liberal woman.
Obviously, Sarah Palin, that war on women thing goes out the window, and all of a sudden then, if she were ever to be the nominee, the war on women would become justified.
The war on women, they'd start they they'd reinstitute the draft in order to get soldiers to go to battle in the war on women to take her out.
Bunch of punks.
Back after this, folks, don't go away.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, you would not believe the staff just jumping all over me here on what they think is my reluctance to uh accept the uh the role of uh uh moderator of a debate.
And I'm I'm just having more fun toying with everybody on this.
Anyway, I um I don't think that it would ever happen, which is one of the reasons why I'm toying, you know, having a little fun with it here.
I fully understand the value in it.
Uh and I don't look at there's a whole bunch of these people that I this does when I say I'd be a distraction.
I'm talking about the media reporting at the end of it more on me and trying to poke holes at me than what the candidates say.
That's all I mean.
Not talking about you know, it's a joke to say I'm too famous.
What I mean is that that that I'm I'm just I'm I'm a uh uh a root for these people to discredit everybody.
But all that aside, you it's not just Sarah Palin, but there's all kinds of potential.
We could have the first Hispanic president, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.
We can have the first female president.
Sarah Palin.
We're not we're not short of of potentially good candidates here.
We just we just haven't had who who's who made this point.
It was Conrad Black.
He was on that uh that uh Farid Zakaria show from the front seat of his car using the GPS on uh on CNN.
Conrad Black made the point that that the candidates, the people have sought the office since Reagan have been on balance disappointing.
And there's a reason why.
Who wants the media anal?
Who wants to be treated as a suspect, and who wants to have everything about their lives destroyed by a media.
I mean, a c it's a common sense thing.
You have to have, you know, to run for office, particularly to run for president, you've got to have an ego that most people can't possibly relate to.
You have to have a passionate desire.
You have to believe this country can't survive without you.
You have to have whatever it takes to put up with all that, and your family does too.
And I'm I'm convinced that it is it's it's it's it's a roadblock to a lot of people from seeking the office.
But I think all that aside, their the current roster has a lot of potential.
Republican candidate side.
Uh but but you know, the establishment side's trying to do everything they can to destroy the candidates you and I would look at as having great potential.
Washington is Washington, Republican or Democrat, Washington is Washington.
And they want people there who are going to maintain it and have it run as it is now.
They don't want people coming in and upsetting the Apple cart.
Anyway, Jeff in my not North Dakota, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Uh earlier in your show, you you mentioned uh the Rose story and Obama playing cards while the pen or the uh bin Laden attacks taking place.
I think you mentioned something about his his disrespect disrespect to the military.
And I think this goes way, way beyond disrespect.
The fact that he sent men and women in the heart will get bin Laden, which was really a meaningless uh event anyway.
Uh and then he could not stay in the situation room and manage the situation and be there should should some executive decisions be made.
Instead, he had to go hide.
He had to hide behind a security guy, told him he said he couldn't be in that room.
It's just cowardice.
It's just plain cowardice.
And every time, you know, I I've had this anger seething in me for months, years.
And that story just pushed me to the point of being absolutely enraged.
Let me play it.
Let me let me Jeff, let me play an audio sound of it for you because it'll further enrage you.
What what Jeff's talking about here, folks, is that uh, and by the way, Jeff, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Reggie Love, who's uh Obama's shadows, said he was playing cards during the bin Laden raid.
Other people have said he was playing golf.
Uh I don't want Reggie Love.
I want Cut Seven.
Uh and Reggie Love's out there saying that he's playing cards and then and I want you to listen to the way the media you think it's cowardice, but listen to the media cover for this is Charlie Rose and Nora O'Donnell on CBS this morning.
Fifteen games of spade.
It was a long raid that was carried out.
It took a long raid operation, and clearly the president, I think needed to take a break, but I think some people are going to take that headline out of context today.
I'd take out of that.
I want the president to do whatever he needs to do to clear his mind so he can make the most effective decision he can.
Right.
That was clearly a tension-filled day.
Oh, yeah.
Oh my God.
Oh my God, it was so filled with tension.
Obama had to go play spades.
He couldn't sit there in the situation room with the cheap joints.
He couldn't sit there with national security people.
He had to go play golf.
He had to go play cards.
And here you hear Charlie Rosenor and all whatever it takes to keep his mind sharp, whatever it takes to keep him in the game, he's too important.
Whatever it takes to keep him making the most effective decision, they're gonna cover for this guy no matter what he does.
You call it cowardice.
They call it staying focused.
I think, uh, ladies and gentlemen, Reggie Love blew it.
I I think he was sent out there to essentially build Obama up.
I think Reggie Love was sent out there to try to convey what a gutsy guy Obama is, and he he blew it.
Because they clearly didn't intend for the reaction they're getting.
And Obama's playing cards during this.
▲
Export Selection