All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:46
August 19, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
It's the raw and real Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
Great to have you here, folks.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence.
The telephone number is 800-28288 to the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Mike grab audio soundbite number three.
This is Saturday.
The White House YouTube channel, President Obama, and the Saturday address.
This is the old Saturday radio address that now goes out on YouTube.
And in this address, Obama accuses Republicans of gumm up the works on Obamacare.
Never mind that it is Obama blocking implementation of this plan more than anybody else.
I mean, can we agree on that?
It's the regime that is blocking implementation.
It's the regime granting waivers.
It's the regime that is delaying all the mandates.
And yet, and this is this is right here, this is Limbaugh theorem.
This is limb, this is Obama not governing.
He's not the president.
He's on vacation.
He's campaigning.
He's hoping that the country gets fixed.
He's working very hard.
He wants everybody to have cheap affordable health care.
And the Republicans, damn it, the Republicans, they just don't want you to have health care.
Republicans don't want you to have anything.
They don't want you to be happy.
They don't want you to have anything to be able to buy anything.
They don't want you to have health care.
They just be happy if you just die.
And here's how it works.
There's also a group of Republicans in Congress working hard to confuse people and making empty promises that they'll either shut down the health care law or if they don't get their way, they'll shut down the government.
Think about that.
They're actually having a debate between hurting Americans who will no longer be denied affordable health care just because they've been sick and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process.
A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they'll somehow be sticking it to me.
But they just be sticking it to you.
Some even say that if you call their office with questions about the law, they'll refuse to help.
Call me old fashioned, but that's lousy constituent service, and it's not what you deserve.
See?
See the Republicans who can't do anything.
The Republicans do not have the power to do anything.
Can I I uh I'm gonna get back to this.
I just I want to share with you something that I said in this You can't know anything about it event Saturday.
Here's Obama is he's ripping into the Republicans as per usual, and he's blaming them for all that's going wrong, and blaming them for wanting to make things even worse when he's the architect of all of it.
You know, I come in for my own share of blame.
The media, Obama, and so forth, and within the last couple of weeks, there have been these breathless stories about how I'm finished.
It's just a matter of time.
Of course, there's nothing to the stories, and they've been written for 25 years.
But one of them, I forget where it ran, but the writer of the story actually said, Look, Obama's just winning everything and Limbaugh's losing, he's finished.
Now look at that juxtaposition.
Obama is winning everything, limbaugh's losing, he's finished.
Now what am I?
I'm a guy on the radio.
He is a politician.
But beside that, what are the differences?
And why am I being lumped into that group?
I'm I'm not campaigning for votes.
I I'm not in the same business as Obama, and yet they pit Obama against me in order to proclaim that I'm losing.
Okay, What can Obama do that I can't?
I cannot give you 99 weeks of unemployment.
I cannot give you a cell phone.
I cannot give you or make you think I'm going to give you health care.
I cannot give you food stamps.
I can't buy you.
I cannot purchase your support.
I cannot give away anything that would lock you into supporting me.
Barack Obama can and does give away whatever he has to in order to have supporters.
He has to give away citizenship.
He has to give away phones.
He has to give away food stamps, welfare, health care.
He is perceived to be giving everybody whatever they want.
But the comparison is even more stark.
Do you know how my success is judged?
When you boil it all down, folks, Obama could not compete in my league.
My success at the root level is based on how many people spend money who listen to me.
Not how much I'm giving away.
Do you think Obama could succeed?
Do you think Barack Obama could triumph if in his job he had to convince people to spend money, to part with money, to take care of themselves?
Be an abject failure.
Obama and the Democrats survive by giving everybody what they want, or at least the perception is that the Democrats and Obama have compassion and that they will take care of you.
I can't give anybody anything.
And yet my I'm deemed to be losing to Obama.
I can't even compete with what he can do.
Now you give me $3 trillion a year.
And I could beat him.
You give me $3 trillion to give away to spend however I wanted to spend to make myself popular.
Then we might be talking comparison, but not only do I not have three trillion, I don't have one dollar to give away.
And when I do give little items and prizes away, guess what?
I buy it.
With my money.
And by the same token, my success, ultimate success, the business aspects of this program.
You know, we...
Attract the largest audience possible.
We hold that audience as long as possible.
And then, as you've heard me say countless times, we charge confiscatory advertising rates.
How do we do that?
You patronizing the sponsors.
So not only can I not give anything away, I'm judged by how many people I end up persuading, convincing to patronize.
It's a whole different comparison.
Obama couldn't compete doing what I do.
But I could do what he does.
You just give me three trillion to give away, and I could own this country, and you give me a media that treated me like God, and I could wipe the floor with any Democrat.
But I don't have any of that.
And neither do you, and neither does any Republican.
So here's Obama back to this health care, but here's Obama.
He's out there, he's the sole architect.
He and his party are the sole architects of Obamacare.
He and his party are the sole destroyers of the American health care system.
He and his party are the ones who have devised a system that has literally wrested control of one-sixth of the U.S. economy under their control at government.
They have shrunken the U.S. private sector by one sixth.
They have commandeered the health care system.
They alone now will determine who gets coverage, who gets insurance.
They alone will determine how much it costs.
They alone will determine who pays what.
They alone will determine who qualifies and who doesn't.
They alone determine when or when it isn't implemented.
The Republican Party has nothing to say about this.
The Republican Party cannot stop anything and they can't propose and make anything happen.
They do not have the votes.
They do not have the support.
The Republican Party can't gum up the works.
God bless them if they would try.
But they're not gumming up the works.
They can't, and this current Republican Party doesn't even want to.
This current Republican Party wants to get in on the Amnesty gig.
This Party wants to get in on whatever the Democrats, various demographics, gay marriage, gay rights.
The Republican Party wants to be seen as the same as the Democrats on that.
Now there is a movement among four or five Republicans, and this is what Obama's talking about, to defund Obamacare.
And there has been talk about a government shutdown if they don't come to an agreement on it.
And Obama is casting this as something that will deny people this and deny them that and gum up the works and so forth.
The works are already gummed up.
What the Republican, what these five or six, whatever number they are, these five or six Republicans are bravely trying and not giving up.
They're fighting to the last breath to save the American health care system.
It's a valiant effort a few of them are making.
They couldn't gum it up if they wanted to.
It is Obama and the Democrats who've made a mess of it.
It's Obama and the Democrats who have forever changed the relationship of citizen to state.
It is Obama and the Democrats have turned the American people, particularly when it comes to health care, into servants of government.
So It is a pure unadulterated, undiluted outrage.
Five or six, and it may be more, Republicans are doing whatever they can to save the American health care system and keep it rooted in the private sector where people actually are experts and understand how it all works.
Heritage Foundation, their morning bill blog, there are two myths about defunding Obamacare.
And they ask here, is it is it even possible to defund it?
And does advocating this mean that you want to shut down the government?
Well, myth number one, Congress can't defund Obamacare.
Yes, it can.
Congress defunds mandatory spending on appropriations bills every year.
In fact, Congress has even defunded part of Obamacare already.
Billions of dollars in mandatory spending for the co-op program.
Myth number two, Obamacare opponents are trying to shut down the government.
That's not true either.
Chris Jacobs, a health expert at heritage, says conservatives want to keep the federal government open.
They just want to shut down Obamacare.
Funding the federal government, with the exception of Obamacare, would force the president and his supporters to explain why they would shut down the government to fund an unfair, unaffordable, and highly unpopular law.
Because the fact of the matter is the vast majority of American people oppose this plan.
They don't want Obamacare.
So if Obamacare is defunded, why would Obama shut down the government?
The Republicans cannot shut down the government.
And look, I know this is a loser anyway, but this whole notion of shutting down the government is said to be death for the Republicans, and they hearken back to 1995.
It was not death for the Republicans back then, except in the media.
In the real world, shutting down the government did not harm the Republicans of the ballot box.
They what they won two seats in the Senate.
In the election after the 1995 shutdown, they won two seats in the Senate.
They ended up losing, I think, seven or eight house seats, but they set the stage for welfare reform and other policy improvements that came into Clinton's second term.
So this is it would be Obama and the Democrats shutting down the government.
The point is it could still happen.
And Obama, right out of the Limbaugh theorem, is now trying to portray these powerless Republicans.
Just the analogy of just I I'm powerless.
I can't compete with Obama.
I don't have three trillion dollars to give away.
I don't have a media portraying me as God every day.
I don't have an army of media people and PR people telling everybody how wonderful I am.
In fact, I just got the just the opposite.
I've got an army of media people who for 25 years have been trying to destroy me.
And yet they claim in the media that I'm in the same game as Obama and I'm losing.
Well, you give me what he's got.
You give me three chills, split it up, give me a trillion and a half, he can spend a trillion and a half.
Give me the same kind of supportive media he's got, and let's see who would actually win.
He's the architect of this debacle.
He is the architect of a policy that over 60% of American people don't want.
The Republican Party, I still maintain has got a golden opportunity here to make a solid connection with a majority of the American people that don't want this.
But everybody's frightened of the media and the alignment the media has with Obama and the destruction that they think would be forthcoming if they were to follow through on this.
And that's why there's only five or six Republicans, brave souls they are.
And by the way, they're new.
They're not yet fully entrenched into the uh DC establishment.
Let's take a break.
We'll come back and get back to your phone calls right after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, back to the phones we go, and this is uh the Leona Valley, California.
Hi, Carl.
I'm glad you waited.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Well, good morning, uh Rush.
You're at uh well, this is West Coast, so it is morning.
Uh, thank you so much for putting me on today.
You bet.
Uh the reason I called, I've been uh about a year and a half ago you talked to a border guard and you explained to him how he could listen to you when he's in and out of his truck by uh getting an IPOD.
And about two weeks ago you explained the same thing to a schoolboy that uh wasn't able to listen to you.
And I gotta tell you, those i that almost I don't know if it should be a daily routine, but I d I started doing this about two years ago, and it is just turned my world around because I work in a building which has no radio reception, and I've wanted to listen to you forever.
And um, don't you hate it when that happens?
I mean, you got the radio show and you want to listen to it in a building and you can't get it.
You know, there's more um benefits to this too that I've discovered because when you're in the middle of a story, I don't have to stop and get out, or if the phone rings, I don't have the interme interruptions.
I am one day behind, but with my podcast, I just put you on pause and I come right back and I can hear the whole story.
Like uh over the weekend I was listening to that uh great story about the uh taste test for your tea.
Oh, yeah.
It would have killed me to not be able to hear the second half of that story.
It was great.
Yeah, he's talking about that this was.
This was a guy from from Pennsylvania, the Fourth of July, their giant family gathering and a blind taste test and uh of two of my T 27 of 28 of his family chose and love two of my T and a lot of liberals, and they literally got mad.
They got it was the funniest thing in the world.
If you by the way, if you missed that, that story is recounted.
We've got it up at Rush Limbaugh.com, and we've also got the uh details of it at our T website, 2FYT.com.
But look, Carl, I uh I appreciate this.
You know, one of the one of the things that that I really am remiss in doing is talking about because every everybody thinks that all I do is talk about myself, but there is so much that I don't mention enough.
Um and I've you know I've told you why I have these metal blocks to it.
But one of them is the podcast, and another is the Rush in a Hurry, and all of the website services that we have.
The Rush Limbaugh.com membership side, 24-7, is one of the most, particularly if you're a fan of this program.
It is one of the most comprehensive websites out there.
Practically every segment of this program is transcribed.
You can listen to it again.
You can watch it on the Ditto Cam, and it's all collected in an in a never-ending, always expanding encyclopedia type website.
Every pretty much everything used to prep this show ends up in certain segments of the website.
And I just I don't spend nearly enough time hyping it because there's so little time here.
And stay focused on uh issues, things that are happening.
Um and I've always been it's been really tough for me to, you know, hawk my own stuff.
But the podcast is uh is uh is a free, you know, you have to be a member.
But the podcast, what he's talking about is literally a gold mine.
If you have if you it it it is the radio program, 30 minutes after each program is over, it's provided either on our website or via iTunes.
We strip the commercials out because we don't sell commercials in the podcast, those are only for air.
So it doesn't take three hours to listen to the whole thing, and you can start and stop it whenever you want.
It's up there every day, and it's a gold mine.
It is.
By the way, our caller mentioned that um he's because of the way he uses the podcast, he's he's one day um behind.
And even at that, he's still way ahead of the rest of the mainstream media.
The mainstream media doesn't figure out what happens on this program for two or three days because they refuse to listen to it.
And they go to off site sites.
You know the drill.
But really, it is the services that we provide at Rush Limbaugh.com.
We've got the the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which is one of the most amazing technological, graphical feats of accomplishment anywhere on the world wide web.
The daily the the volume of data, information that is on that website each and it rivals any.
Now it's all this show and whatever else out there we talk about on this program, but yeah, the the the amount of data, information that is posted and is available for absorption by people.
We uh uh the only sites that would rival us would be places that aggregate all the news sources or uh maybe a newspaper publication itself, but it's just astounding audio and video.
We've got the EIB store, which we're in the process of of uh upgrading.
We've got all of the parodies are collected there over the years.
It's it really is uh is a gold mine, and it uh whatever we charge for it, it's a steal.
But that's how you get the podcast.
But I don't spend much time talking about all this because uh I've just I've always been uh nervous hawking my own stuff.
When a caller wants to talk about it, that's cool, as as the uh as the guy did.
But uh that podcast gets so much uh so many positive reactions that it is worth mentioning and the the Rush in a Hurry free email every day after the program, which is uh a summary of what the full site's gonna look like when it's fully updated, but it already has some transcripts in it, some links, and it hits anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour after the program.
It's totally free, and there's no strings attached to it.
It just you go sign up at RushLimbaugh.com for Rush in a hurry.
And if you missed the Program, there's the first thing that tells you what you missed.
And then what you might have missed that you wish you hadn't missed and where to go find it.
So there's no excuse for never.
There's no excuse for ever missing anything that happens on this uh on this program.
Well, Snerdley has written me a note.
What is the most cost effective movie promo campaign of all time?
A $38,000 unpurchased handbag.
Oh, are you talking about the butler?
You know, this movie, The Butler, about the White House butler.
It did show up at number one.
And I I don't mean to take anything away from it, but they had it on 4,000 or 3,000 screens.
The per screen average of this movie was nowhere near.
Even anything phenomenal.
I can't take away it.
The number one stand, I can't take that away.
I'm not trying to.
But it's being measured in its movies on half that many screens.
So it didn't have to have a whole lot of action in every theater in order to get its ranking.
And why does it, why is it on so many screens?
Why do you think it's on so many screens?
Who's gonna say no to a movie with that subject matter?
And so, yeah, so Oprah going over to Switzerland at Tina Turner's wedding, looking at but not buying a $38,000 purse, ends up being the most effective movie promo tool ever devised.
It is true.
It's uh one way of looking at it.
Here's Sue in Toledo as we head back to the phones.
Sue, welcome to the program.
Great to have you here.
Thanks.
I'm so excited to talk to you.
And unlike the uh drive by media, I just wanted to tell you that I listen to you every day.
But the reason why I'm calling is because um I was talking with my father-in-law over the weekend, and I asked him about Hillary Clinton being uh the potential next president, and he says, Oh no.
He said he thought it was going to be Mrs. Obama as the next president.
And then after that, after she has her two terms, then she thought Obama, then he mentioned that he thought Obama would be back in line.
Um thoughts on that.
Nah, I you know, I hear I hear rumors all the time about about it made me sick to my stomach when I heard that.
But I didn't even give it a thought.
Yeah, but uh there's there's no there's no this is that's just fear, I think that is inspiring that theory.
Uh I don't I I don't think that uh I don't think that Mrs. Obama wants the job.
I don't I don't think that's in the cards.
I I could be wrong.
Are you kidding me?
A narcissistic family like that.
I think that they both look at it as beneath them.
They want they want the world.
You know, when when Barack finishes this, it's on to the uh United Nations or whatever new organization they can come up with.
But you know, your your your father, your grandfather, what it could be right.
I mean, the f it the you'd certainly would be immune to any criticism, the first black female president.
Look, anything can happen.
I just I haven't heard that being speculated about in any uh serious way.
And she might, if even if she wants it, she might have to wait her turn.
I think the pattern is first black president, then first woman president, then first Hispanic president, and then first black woman president.
I mean, if the Democrats have a blueprint, uh that's what it is.
And I think it's one of the worst things that could have happened to her, but right now the fix appears in for Hillary.
You know, we're right back where we were in 2005, uh in 2006-2007.
Everybody assuming Hillary is gonna be the Democrat nominee.
History is starting to repeat itself.
Everybody on my side thinks Hillary's gonna be the nominee, the news media on the Democrat side, everybody pumping Hillary up, fate a complive, foregone conclusion, finally it's her turn.
It's exactly what happened in 2006 and 2007.
And look at what happened.
Something came along, it totally upset the Apple cart.
So let's, in looking at history, let's go back to the 2012 Democrat Convention.
Was there anybody who spoke at the 2012 Democrat Convention about whom it was said that guy's going to be president someday?
Or that woman.
Because that's what launched Obama in 2004, his speech at Democrat Convention, and Michelle's introduction of him, that's what launched all the talk of Obama becoming president.
And he didn't seek it in 2008.
He waited until 2008.
And then something happened, and he announced and just moved right to the head of the list, just leapfrogged over Hillary.
And the same kind of thing could possibly happen here.
Is there some Hispanic Democrat lurking in the wings who could leapfrog over Hillary?
I actually think that, at least on our side, the belief that Hillary is going to be the Democrat nominee, is total fear.
It's based in nothing but fear and a little conventional wisdom.
You live inside the beltway.
There are certain things that you think and accept as reality, and one of them is the inevitability of Hillary Clinton as president.
I don't see it, and I didn't see it in 2008.
I wasn't surprised.
And now you've got the New York Times dumping all over the Clintons, not just one story.
We're up to three now.
But let's take a look at that when we come back.
Let me do that, and we'll continue in mere moments.
Don't go away.
Ha.
Now you.
Welcome back.
It's the Raw and a real Rush Limbaugh.
And a excellence in broadcasting network.
Okay.
New York Times, August the 18th, it'd be yesterday, the Sunday paper.
The headline here, questions on the dual role of a Clinton aid persist.
This is an all-out, well, would say all out.
This is called an assault.
This is this is uh just short of a hit piece on Huma Wiener.
When news surfaced in May that the State Department had approved an arrangement that allowed Huma Wiener, uh top advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to take on work for private clients.
Officials at the State Department said it was nothing unusual.
But three months later, questions about the arrangement persist, and the department has declined to provide some basic information about Ms. Weiner's situation and those of other State Department employees who may have been given similar status.
Now, I have to ask, is the New York Times on some sort of a jihad against the Clintons?
Just like the rest of the drive-by media.
They had ignored Huma's sweetheart three-way deal.
You know, this is this is something that nobody talked about.
Huma had it every which way.
She had a deal with the State Department, she had a deal with Hillary, she had a deal with the Clinton Foundation and library massage parlor, and Taneo.
Taneo is a financial consultant outfit that was founded by Clinton Lackey, and which is getting rich via the Clinton Foundation.
It might be pronounced Taneo, it's T-E-N-E-O.
Or Tenio could be pronounced that way.
So Huma has had a relationship with State Department via Hillary, a relationship with the Clinton Library, Massage Parlor and Foundation, now this Tenio Group, which is again a financial consultant outfit founded by a Clinton lackey, and it's getting rich via the Clinton Foundation.
And Tenneo, in turn, is paying Bill and Huma and other loyal Clinton cronies huge salaries for what seems like no real work.
Like the kind of job Michelle had at the Chicago hospital.
She got she earned over $300,000 essentially for uh what was a no-show community relations job.
And these are no show jobs that are being discussed here that are being exposed by the New York Times.
Fox News reported back in July that Huma got $355,000 from Tenio.
Now, to people like me who pay attention to all this every day, this is old news.
The fact that Huma was triple dipping was old news, and not a lot was made of it because she's working for Hillary, she protected.
She insulated.
But now the New York Times is going back in time and bringing it all up again.
And in the case of the New York Times, bringing it up for the first time.
Meanwhile, on their caucus blog, the New York Times presents uh Bill Clinton's defense of his charity.
But it doesn't amount to much of a defense.
Basically, Clinton says that the Foundation's tax forms are misleading.
Of course they are.
They're too convoluted for the average person to understand.
They don't show how much good work the Clinton Foundation has done over its 12 years.
That's why they're misleading.
Why wouldn't they?
I don't know, but you, my tax return lists every charitable dollar that I donate.
What would be so hard about the Clinton Foundation's tax return not being an indicator of what kind of work it's doing.
Well, one of the examples that Clinton gives in his own defense here is that his foundation provided five million people with access to low-cost AIDS medications and helped more than 21,000 farmers in Malawi obtain seeds and fertilizer.
Well, let me forgive me here, but how much could low-cost AIDS medicine cost?
How much could seeds and fertilizer for 21,000 African farmers cost?
I mean, what I mean is none of this is particularly convincing, if you ask me.
It's misleading.
We do all this work and we're spending all this money and we got all this money coming in, and this is why we're running deficits, because we're buying all this medicine, we're buying all this feed and so forth.
And the time here's the point of this, though.
The Times doesn't even try to help the Clintons out in this.
They're simply exposing all this.
So they're exposing the dual role of a Clinton aide.
The headline questions persist.
So Huma, I mean, Huma is getting treatment that she's not used to.
The Clintons are getting treatment from their own media that they're not used to getting.
Then there's Maureen Dowd and her column on Sunday, money, money, money, money, money.
Clinton nostalgia being replaced by Clinton neuralgia.
Why is it that America's Royal R-O-I-L, America's royal family, always seems better in abstract than in concrete?
The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you're reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around.
I wasn't aware that the Clintons bugged Maureen Dowd.
I thought the Bushes bugged her.
Anyway, the Clintons' neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they are entitled to everyone's money.
Are we about to put the forent sign back on the Lincoln bedroom?
Folks, this for the f Maureen Dowd, New York Times, that sentence is absolutely devastating.
The Clintons' neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms mean money for their public service.
She's accusing them of demanding to be paid for their good works.
And their assumption that they are entitled to everybody's money.
This you don't see this about the Clintons in the drive-by media.
So people are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is going on.
At first, when that first story came out, said that just to get it behind them so that two years from now Hillary can say, Oh, that's old news.
But now we're up to three, counting Dowd's column.
Now we're up to three stories.
Is it all still just a ruse to get the bad news out now so that they can say down the road, it's old news.
It's been reported, been covered.
I don't know, something that I can't quite explain is happening here.
Yeah, Maureen Dowd points out that Clinton got $700,000 for a speech in Lagos, $17 million in speaking fees.
And she compares it to other presidents who've not traded on the presidency at all.
▲
Export Selection