All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 28, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:07
October 28, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I don't believe it.
At least CNN's asking the right question.
If Obama didn't know the NSA was spying on Merkel, why not?
But it's such a crock anyway to believe.
Believe it, Obama didn't know that.
You know, have you ever thought about the way they cover for this guy?
He didn't know.
He's like he's a hen-pecked husband who doesn't do anything until his wife tells him to do it is zip her up behind her back.
It's the only thing he does behind her back.
He didn't know.
He didn't know.
And we're supposed to take great comfort in that.
And that's supposed to be an atta boy.
Well, you can't blame Obama.
NSA says he didn't know.
Why the hell not?
That's legitimate use of the NSA.
They're spying on us for crying out loud.
Unbelievable.
He didn't know.
But it's the limbaugh theorem.
He didn't know about Obamacare.
He didn't know about this.
He didn't know about that.
He doesn't know anything.
Yeah, he's a great guy.
He doesn't know.
We love Obama.
He doesn't know.
Do you people ever, you people on the left ever stop to think how you celebrate genuine buffoonery and ignorance?
You know, the big news today, really, folks, is the vast majority of Obamacare sign-ups are for Medicaid.
That really, if you want to get down to substance in the news today, there are people signing up for Obamacare.
Sorry, not Obamacare.
They're signing up for Medicaid.
You know why they're going to Medicaid?
It's cheaper, and it's not Obamacare.
You know, everybody's touting all these sign-ups in Kentucky.
I mentioned it earlier.
What is it?
31,000, big whoop, whatever the number is out of Kentucky.
Obama even called the governor to congratulate him.
Oh, man, you guys are doing great in Kentucky.
Yeah, well, 82% of people signing up in Kentucky have been for Medicaid.
And so today, Kentucky is being held up by the drive-bys as the success story of Obamacare.
I mean, these people are grasping at the flimsiest of straws.
Everything is just an abject, full-frontal insult to our intelligence today.
Everything is.
So Obama calls the governor of Kentucky to congratulate him for signing so many people up for Obamacare, but he didn't.
He signed him up for Medicaid.
Of course, Obama doesn't care, folks.
Signing up for Medicaid is even better, actually, because Medicaid makes you even more dependent on the government that Obamacare does right now.
After a while, there isn't going to be any difference.
Where we're all headed is single-payer Medicaid.
That's where we're headed.
We're on the tracks for single-payer Medicaid, and that's why Obama's congratulating Governor Kentucky, because by hook or by crook, he's way ahead of the game, whether he knows it or not.
And nobody knows what they're doing, and nobody knows what's happening, and nobody knows Jack.
And they happen to be the people leading us.
You know, the question is, what does Obama ever know, and when did he not know it?
What does Obama not know and when did he not know it?
That's the question.
If Watergate was, what does the president know and when did he know it?
In Obama's case, what does he not know and when did he not find out?
Okay.
Let's stay on this.
Let me get the audio soundbites.
Here's the montage of the drive-bys.
And this is the limbaugh theorem on parade.
This is the drive-bys pushing the idea that Obama didn't know what the NSA has been doing.
President Obama was unaware for years.
For almost five years, President Obama had no idea.
President Obama did not know about it.
The program stopped when the White House found out this summer.
President Obama knew nothing without President Obama's knowledge.
So the United States is spying on 35 world leaders and the president of the United States doesn't know anything about it.
The president was never briefed.
President Obama did not know for five years.
The president of the United States didn't know anything about this for five years.
Yeah, hard to believe they wouldn't tell him.
That's George Stephanopoulos.
These people are singing his praises.
These people in this montage are trying to excuse Obama.
This is a plus.
He didn't know.
He didn't know.
Don't blame him.
He didn't know.
Five years he didn't know.
The NSA is spying to hell on everybody else that he knows, but he doesn't know that we're spying on foreign leaders.
You know the stuff they're asking us to swallow today, folks.
Even with mustard or mayonnaise, it still tastes like garbage.
This is just...
Here I go again.
I'm going to rein it in.
Do these people have the slightest idea how they sound?
Hey, Obama didn't know.
He didn't know.
He didn't know.
Really?
President of the United States, you think that's a way to gain respect for the guy?
He didn't know?
Their objective is to keep him out of trouble.
That's all they care a whit about.
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, on the Today Show today.
She's in near tears from what I'm told.
Because, you know, Obama was a rock star.
Nobel Peace Prize.
He didn't know anything.
How do you get the Nobel Peace Prize and not know anything?
Anyway, let's listen to what she says.
When he was a candidate, Barack Obama was a rock star in Europe.
That was then.
This is now.
How did the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize just months into his presidency become the subject of Europe's scorn?
The White House can thank NSA leaker Edward Snowden.
Oh, that's how it happened.
That dreaded Snowden guy.
Why, if it weren't for him, Europe would love Obama.
But wait, Obama didn't know about Snowden.
So how can Europe blame Obama?
He didn't know.
But Andrea, she's really upset because Obama was a big rock star in Berlin, Cairo, all over Europe and Asia, and now they're laughing at him, and it's all because of Snowden?
What, a 25-year-old kid can bring about this kind of shame for the, but he didn't know, Andrea.
Edward Snowden knew more than Obama did.
And that's why we're supposed to continue to respect Obama, because Snowden knew and Obama didn't know.
And Major Garrett, formerly a Fox, now in CBS this morning, see doing a report here.
I don't think these guys know what hit him.
This is another little 15 seconds on Europe hating Obama.
For these European Union countries, there is outrage and disgust with the scope of U.S. surveillance.
For those European nations, it's a rude awakening because many of them thought President Obama, at least in the terms of surveillance, would be much different than President George W. Bush.
Jeez, I don't believe what I'm hearing.
Major Garrett is a former foxy.
For these European Union countries, there is outrage and disgust.
Bull!
They know we're spying on them.
They're just saying this garbage, too.
It's expected.
These European nations, it's a rude awakening because many of them thought Obama in terms of surveillance would be much different.
You know, one of these people complaining.
He's giving them everything.
He's letting them have whatever they want.
Whatever they want in Benghazi, they got it.
Whatever Basher Assad wants, he's got it, and we'll pay him.
Preeminently sick.
Well, let's go to the White House briefing, shall we?
Let's just keep piling on here, folks.
This is at the White House.
The spokeskid, Jay Carney, daily press briefing, Q ⁇ A with CNN senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
What did we have him in the news for last week?
Come on, Brain.
He was in the news for something.
He had an awakening and discovered something about Obama.
It'll come to me.
Anyway, so it's Jim Acosta asking spokeskid question.
It's an exchange here about the reports that Obama didn't know the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel until this summer, when, of course, they shut it down.
And also that he was not informed of problems with the Obamacare website until nearly a week.
He didn't even know about that.
Is this not amazing?
So here is Acosta and Carney talking about this.
Republican critics are making the case that the president appears to be in the dark about some pretty significant stories that are swirling around this White House.
Well, Republican critics say a lot of things.
Right.
You know, this is embarrassing on both sides.
These reporters know all this is absurd.
Either Obama doesn't know Jack or he's a liar.
And they have decided that the best course is that Obama doesn't know Jack.
There'd be the least political damage with Obama not knowing Jack, then Obama lied.
That's what they've calculated here.
One more.
Jay Carney, daily press briefing.
Here's the ABC White House mouthpiece, Jonathan Carl, talking with Carney about reports that Obama didn't know that the NSA was spying on Angela Merkel until this summer.
Is it conceivable, is it believable that the president would not know about surveillance of a head of state of a close American ally?
I mean, does that sound plausible to you?
I mean, Wall Street Journal probably doesn't appreciate the suggestion that their story is wrong, but I would say simply that we're not going to comment on specific activities reported in the press.
Because we don't know anything either here.
If Obama doesn't know, how could Kearney know?
If Obama doesn't know what went on, how could the spokesperson know what went on?
If Obama doesn't know, how can anybody there know what went on?
Jim Acosta, that's right.
I'm Jim Acosta.
This is, yes, my friend.
Jim Acosta of CNN, he is the guy that tweeted he was so glad to hear the leafblowers again in D.C. because it meant that the government was back in business after the shutdown.
He was so happy to hear the leaf blowers.
So the drive-bys are trying to help Obama out.
They are saying, for instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel since 2002.
So it's Bush's fault.
Obama didn't know.
It's just, see, Bush didn't tell him how bad the economy was.
He didn't tell him he was spying on Merkel.
He didn't tell him Obama just didn't know.
He just didn't know.
And that is a plus.
That is somehow supportive.
That is somehow exonerating.
Well, I know he doesn't like the intelligence briefings, but that's only because he already knows the stuff.
See, we're told Obama knows everything, that he's smarter than everybody.
He doesn't need to be told anything because he already knows it.
Remember?
That was part of the campaign.
The guy is smarter than anybody.
There's never been a politician like him.
He knows things that we can't possibly comprehend.
He's so far ahead of us, and today he doesn't know jack about anything.
Yeah, Cuba, they said Fidel didn't know.
China, they said Mao didn't know.
In Venezuela, they said Hugo didn't know.
In the old Soviet Union, they said Stalin didn't know.
You know, some things just write themselves.
Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?
Barack Obama, he didn't know.
By the way, there's an interesting story here, folks, from the Pointer website.
It's a media website.
And the headline: Bullying is not on the rise and it does not lead to suicide.
Here's a pull quote: Yet, when journalists and law enforcement talking heads and politicians imply that teenage suicides are directly caused by bullying, we reinforce a false narrative that has no scientific support.
And in doing so, we miss opportunities to educate the public about the things that we could be doing to reduce both bullying and suicide.
This is the Pointer website is sort of a highbrow media analysis.
It's like Howard Kurtz with a doctorate degree.
I don't mean to be insulting Howard Kurtz, but I mean, it's cable TV versus Harvard.
Okay, that's and these guys at the Pointer website say you know that journalists are spreading myth after myth after myth about bullying, that it's not on the rise and it does not lead to suicide.
Every other month or so, a story about a child bullied until he or she commits suicide rises to our national consciousness.
This month, it's Rebecca Sedwick from Lakeland, Florida.
Before that, it was Gabrielle Molina of Queens.
Before that, it was Asher Brown.
All suicides are tragic and they're complicated, and teen suicides particularly devastating because as adults, we recognize all that lost potential.
Yet, in perpetuating these stories, which are often little more than emotional linkbait, journalists are complicit in a gross oversimplification of a complicated phenomenon.
In short, we are just getting the facts wrong.
And by the way, this Pointer site is not a conservative by any sight, by any stretch of the imagination.
Here's another: there's a lot of things people don't know.
Try this: people commit suicide because of mental illness.
You might think it's because they played football.
You might think it's because they were bullied.
You might think that it was it, but it's because of mental illness.
It's a treatable problem and a preventable outcome.
Bullying is defined as an ongoing pattern of intimidation by a child or teenager over others who have less power.
Yet, when journalists and others imply that teenage suicides are directly caused by bullying, we reinforce a false narrative that has zero scientific support.
And in doing so, we miss opportunities to teach the public about things we could be doing to reduce both bullying and suicide.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence that bullying causes suicide.
And you know what else?
There is no scientific evidence that human beings cause global warming.
There's a scientific consensus, but there isn't any conclusive evidence.
But how many of you think that I'm a terrorist or a ransom taker, hostage taker, because I'm saying that to you?
Because that's how I'll be characterized.
Who is that?
Oh, never mind.
Those skirts are getting shorter and shorter on Fox.
That's all I'm saying.
It is journalistically irresponsible to claim that bullying leads to suicide.
And then they go on in the story and define what bullying is, and it's probably not what you think.
Bullying is a very specific definition.
Obama reportedly unaware of world leader phone tapping, but he knew about Trayvon Martin and he knows about the Redskins.
Okay, to the phones.
Carol in Pittsburgh, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello there, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
I'm glad you called, Carol.
I appreciate it.
I'm awful glad that you are doing this piece today because it's giving us a chance, those of us who are as frustrated as you are.
And I checked the subscriber email, Rush24-7, the website email, and a lot of people saying what you said.
They're glad because they've been this mad for months.
That's right.
I can't tell you how many times I would watch Krauthammer or people like him and felt like throwing something through the television set because you know he has the same access that we have to all this information, and he insists on giving his opinion based upon the fact that Obama is some tempered in-the-middle ideologue when all he has to do is owe up to the truth.
We all know that he has a history of far, far leftism.
So why doesn't Krauthammer's opinion come from that viewpoint to begin with?
It's just so frustrating.
He's choosing to leave out half the information, the information that, you know, truly makes the opinion piece worth anything.
Well, and I could only, if I were to endeavor to answer your question, to try to answer your question, I could only guess.
I think I quoted two emails from a friend of mine who described the Inside the Beltway mindset.
And I think he may be right.
There are just a lot of assumptions made about politicians inside the Beltway, that they all want a growing economy, that they all want to reduce the debt, that they all want the U.S. to be a superpower.
And they just automatically assume that anybody that becomes president wants those things.
And then they go from there.
And of course, if you start, if that's your starting point with Obama, you're missing the story entirely.
I have another bit of a question.
I was wondering all of this about the health care bill they were talking about every night.
The lynchpin seems to be the young, the millennium generation paying into this.
But he hasn't created a job for any of these people in the past five years.
How are these people going to kick in if they don't?
There you go again.
See, now you, that, I think, that is a brilliant question.
And I'm going to endeavor, I'm going to dissect that question and answer it when we come back.
Carol, thank you.
You have just opened my mind even further.
Carol in Pittsburgh with a, turns out, brilliant question.
On the surface, doesn't seem like it's brilliant, but in the context of the answer and what the question means, it's pretty smart.
Okay, Obamacare does depend on young, healthy people signing up at these inflated costs, and then because they're healthy, not using it, i.e., no costs, and their premiums, what they're paying, funds Obamacare for the poor and the elderly.
And that is the design.
Young, healthy people, i.e. the millennials, their premiums are going up.
They're learning it, those who get through.
But they're not going to put much cost pressure on it because they're healthy and they, outside of an accident, are not going to require a lot of care.
So they're cheap in terms of expenses, so that money will be used to fund care and insurance for the poor and the elderly.
And her question was: well, how in the world is this going to work?
They don't have any jobs.
There are no jobs for them.
So where are they going to get the money?
Now, what I think is brilliant about the question is it fits in with everything we're talking about today.
Assumptions that are totally devoid of reality.
The reality is millennials can't find work.
Ergo, they've got no income.
Yet they are the primary funders.
And yet the wizards of SMART behind all this don't seem to put that together.
They just think that they open the website, announce it's available, and these eager millennials run in and sign up.
But they, even the wizards of SMART, are failing to realize that because of the economy they have all given us, there aren't any jobs for these people.
They're not even putting two and two together.
It can't work in this economy because the people, it turns out, who are responsible for funding it don't have the money.
Even if the website was working, they would log on, they'd find out, they'd get their sticker shock.
And I think, in fact, those who are logging on and getting through are seeing the sticker shock, and I think they're going to Medicaid.
And I think when the millennials go to Medicaid, instead of buying Obamacare, it's just going to make everybody else's costs go up because the millennials are not going to be contributing, so to speak.
So the whole thing is going to get even more expensive for everybody because the key group that's supposed to pay for this doesn't have any jobs.
But nobody talks about that.
They just assume that it's just like when Washington raises taxes.
They just, everybody's got the money to pay and that they're going to be fine after the tax increase and they'll continue to buy their flat screens and cell phones and what have you.
And slowly but surely they are destroying the economy.
90 million Americans not working.
It just, it's, it's, I don't know, folks, it's incomprehensible here.
Remember how the early signup success stories are all about these young college kids getting Medicaid?
In Kentucky, 82% of the new signups are Medicaid.
They're not Obamacare.
And Obama called a governor of Kentucky, said, way to go, way to go, dude, way to run that exchange.
It's not working.
And then they had their glitch.
It shut down in 14 or 15 states or 30 states, whatever.
And now the technicians say, you know what, we have to just broom the whole thing and rebuild it from scratch.
It is, I'm telling you, folks, it's an utter disaster.
Just an utter disaster.
You know what this would be like?
As it is now, smokers, before Obamacare, smokers and the tobacco taxes funded children's health care programs.
This would be like banning tobacco, making it illegal, and still requiring smokers to buy the product to fund children's health care programs.
That's about what's going on.
When you are implementing policies that destroy job creation for young college graduates and people 30, 35 years old who are the primary funders of Obamacare and they don't have jobs, they don't have the money.
I mean, just two and two here not working.
What an absolute disaster.
I mean, we literally are being governed by morons.
And I'll tell you this.
I'll tell you one other thing.
The opposite of I don't know is incompetence.
That's why I can't believe these drive-bys are out there today thinking they're actually helping Obama by saying, well, he didn't know.
He didn't know about Benghazi.
He didn't know about Merkel.
He didn't know about the NSA.
He didn't know about Fast and Furious.
He didn't know about the website till a week after it went live.
He didn't know.
And that's a plus.
He didn't know.
President of the United States, that's not an excuse.
He didn't know.
Maybe it's an excuse in the mail room, but it's not an excuse in the Oval Orifice.
He didn't know.
That equals incompetence.
And that's really what we're faced with.
We are faced with massive.
I can't tell you the number of people in leadership positions in this country who have been Peter-principled on us.
Remember the best and brightest, that book that David Halberstam wrote about the Vietnam War?
The best and brightest was not a complimentary thing.
It was about how could these wizards of smart have so goofed up the Vietnam War?
The McNamaras of the world and the LBJs and the Schlesingers and all of these brilliant people.
How in that?
The best and the brightest.
And look how they made a mess of it.
And it's just repeating itself.
The best and brightest are buffoons.
Incompetent morons.
Passed off as the wizards of SMART, smarter than you and I will ever be.
So smart we can't keep up with them.
We can't even understand what they do.
They're so far ahead of us.
Sorry, wrong button.
Don't hit anything.
I hit a button that told him to play the commercial.
It was a mistake.
You didn't know that until I told you, but I had it tell you in case he hit the commercial.
Here's John in Youngstown, Ohio, as we head back to the phones.
John, great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Just going with your whole thing of where people are just so stupid.
You know, the whole thing with Benghazi and how they, you know, were put out that they wanted help.
And that took me back to when Hillary Clinton said, you know, back during President Obama's re-election campaign, who do you want answering the phone at 3 o'clock in the morning when the country's in need?
Well, you know, the country was in need, and our, you know, fine servicemen, you know, they died in, you know, through that whole attack.
Well, guess what?
The time was there, the phone rang, but nobody was there.
And yet, there's people still supporting her to elect her as the next president.
I don't get that.
They're idiots.
Let me tell you something.
60 Minutes did a story on Benghazi last night, and they ripped nobody to shreds, but they did put, they got it right.
They said absolutely inexcusable, absolutely horrible.
But nowhere did they mention the name Hillary Clinton.
Nowhere did they mention the name Barack Obama.
But they did their expose, and they said it took us a year to do our investigation.
They fully exposed how Benghazi was an absolute disaster, but they never mentioned the name Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
From what I'm told, I didn't see it, but people I trust did, and their names weren't mentioned.
They made the point, they made the point that the administration blamed this poor little video guy for months that Benghazi was caused by some anti-Muslim video.
They point out that U.S. officials at the memorial service at the airport when the bodies came back perpetuated the lie, but they didn't mention any names.
And of course, Hillary says now, when the truth comes out, what difference does it make now?
Which is her entire campaign.
What difference does it make?
I think Fox has done an exposure, a bunch of them, but 60 Minutes did theirs last night, but nowhere was the president part of it.
Back in a sec.
Okay, folks, when next we appear, 21 hours, Rush Revere.
And the brave pilgrims will be in your hands or on its way because it is available tomorrow.
And I am so excited.
I can't, I can't wait.
We will see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection