All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 31, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:39
October 31, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
He didn't even know it was Halloween.
So he didn't have to give away anything of his own.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Okay, okay, okay.
We got a lot of email on our last caller wanting to know about, look, if you guys demanded Sebelius resign, why didn't you demand Rumsfeld resign?
A couple things about this.
In the first place, and I think most importantly on this, every Democrat voted with Rumsfeld.
If you people will remember, and if you don't, I am more than happy to tell you.
When the first authorization for the use of force came up, and Bush sold this for a year and a half, Bush didn't unilaterally spring this on anybody.
He did not do this under cover of darkness.
Bush didn't take us into Iraq with nobody knowing it.
He ran around this country for a year and a half making speeches.
And the Democrats first opposed it.
The vast majority of the American people were all in favor of it.
The Democrats demanded to vote again so that they could be seen supporting the war in Iraq at its outset.
And Bush graciously put it up for a vote again.
He worked with the Republicans in Congress, and the Democrats got a do-over.
And the Democrats voted almost.
It wasn't quite, but the Democrats voted unanimously for the war in Iraq.
Everybody forgets this.
They voted unanimously.
At the outset, they were loaded for Bayer.
They were just as loaded for Bayer as Rumsfeld, as Colin Powell, as George W. Bush.
It was only after that that they decided to pretend they never supported it and turn it into a political issue.
And the Democrat Party then shamelessly began on a course to help guarantee defeat in Iraq as a means of advancing their own political agenda.
They were doing that at the same time their friends in the media were trying to convince everybody in the country that we were living in an economic recession when we had unemployment at 4.7 to 5%.
You know, I, as far as I'm concerned, I will never forget that.
And it's my memory is just glowing with the fact that the Bush White House would never respond to any of this.
They were impugned.
They were maligned.
They were mischaracterized, lied about countless times every day.
Not once did they defend themselves on it.
Not once did Bush even remind people the Democrats all voted for that authorization of force resolution.
The Democrats, it was a vast majority, they voted a second time to authorize the war in Iraq.
They became the hypocrites.
They then began on a course of action to try to make the American people forget they ever had voted for it.
And we were on this program, we went back, we're playing audio of Bill Clinton in 1998 saying the same thing that Bush and Rumsfeld were saying in 2002 and 2003 about the danger posed by Saddam Hussein.
And Hillary Clinton had echoed her husband.
The Democrats were all, when Clinton was president, all on the same page of going in and taking Saddam out.
2008, we played the audio soundbites.
2003, they were all on board, demanded a second vote.
And it was only when they saw weakness or a moment of opportunity to secure defeat, they were all for securing defeat if they could hang that around Bush's neck.
That is not at all what's going on here with us or the Republicans and Kathleen Sebelius.
And by the way, if I remember right, didn't McCain, wasn't he demanding that Rumsfeld resign to show how he could reach across the aisle and be bipartisan?
But I'm going to tell you, folks, as far as I'm concerned, there's no comparison.
It's statecraft, statesmanship, competence to Donald Rumsfeld and Kathleen Sebelius.
We're not even talking same league.
Kathleen Sebelius hasn't the slightest idea what she's doing.
Kathleen Sebelius is no more qualified to be in the position she's in than somebody else plucked from Kansas to be put in that job.
She just has no idea what she's doing.
Nor does anybody else in this regime.
And everybody's, a lot of people I'm hearing saying, in fact, grab audio soundbite.
Let me look at.
I got to find it here.
Grab number three.
This will make my point for him.
This is Juan Williams, our old buddy Juan Williams at Fox News last night on the panel at special report.
And they're talking about Sebelius' testimony before Congress yesterday.
This is what Juan Williams said.
I thought today it was pure theater.
I thought it was a big stage show with Republicans attacking Sebelius, meanwhile, Democrats trying to rescue their partner in the ring by giving her a recess and launching into speeches of their own in defense of Obamacare.
All this is in the weeds.
What do I care about how things are put into computers?
Who's to blame?
Who's not to blame?
It's just a website.
Juan Williams, he doesn't care.
What do I care about inputting data into a website?
That doesn't even matter.
Well, let me tell you how it does matter.
If Kathleen Sebelius, and she's Health and Human Services Secretary, and the Obamacare law, if you read the text, has that phrase in it, as the Secretary shall determine many, many times.
I mean, it's clear that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has a lot of autonomy, just arbitrarily do whatever he or she wants to do in writing regulations and administering Obamacare.
And if Health and Human Services, Sebelius or whoever, if they, Juan, this is why the website matters.
If they can't even launch a website, how in the hell can they possibly be competent to oversee one-sixth of the economy?
You can sit there and you can try to diminish this.
And I say, well, it's just a website.
Hell, I think it's the website up.
No, no, no, no.
It's far more than that.
They have no competence in administering this law.
There is nobody in this regime that has the experience.
We're not even talking about intelligence or instinct.
They don't even have the experience to do this.
Run one-sixth.
What does Kathleen Sebelius know about healthcare except that she's pro-choice, pro-abortion?
That's the extent of her knowledge.
Nobody in this regime has the slightest idea.
And the fact that they can't even launch a website with $680 million, if they can't, I would launch a website, give me half a million, I'll get a website up and running.
I've done it twice.
We didn't spend $600 million on 2FBT or RushLimbaugh.com.
Nobody does.
These people had three years, $600-plus million dollars, and they can't even launch a website.
And so the reaction, well, it's just a website.
It doesn't mean anything.
It means everything.
If they can't even do that and they didn't have to do it, that just, you know what, they went out and they hired Valerie Jarrett cronies and they hired Michelle Obama cronies.
Had no idea.
This is typical of the way the left does things.
They just give these contracts to their buddies, spread the wealth.
It's a money laundering scheme, essentially.
And they're giving the money, just like the Cylindra guys are given the money to run a green energy solar firm.
Don't know what they're doing, goes bankrupt, doesn't matter.
They've got the money.
Some of it comes back in campaign contributions.
They've washed the money.
Obama's got more money than he had before the whole thing started.
Never mind that Obamacare doesn't work.
He doesn't care about the details of it not working.
The only thing he cares about is making sure it's not repealed or defunded.
That's all he cares about.
He doesn't care if Kathleen Sebelius knows what she's doing.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't know enough to know whether she knows what she's doing.
Nobody in that regime, Valerie Jarrett doesn't know enough to know whether Sebelius is qualified.
Nobody does.
And the fact they can't get a website up and running is illustration enough for me that they don't know how to do and shouldn't be allowed to do anything else.
It would be like if a contractor doesn't know how to build a door, why would you let him build the building?
These clowns can't even build the doorway to their system.
Why in the hell do we think they can build a system?
Well, because these people, the website's just the entry point, and it doesn't matter.
It's just that we can fix that.
Yeah, well, most contractors can build a door, too.
But how about a building that doesn't crumble and plode on people?
This is such a nightmare.
This is just, it's an embarrassment.
And all of this stuff, you know, what would it have taken any Republican to point this stuff out yesterday?
That's just another gloriously missed opportunity.
And so here's Sebelius in her proud incompetence going on and on and on about the good things of Obamacare, like not denying anybody previous conditions or kids being able to stay on their parents' policies till they're 26.
And every Republican should have stood up and said, yeah, and that's why nobody can afford it.
Yeah, that's why costs are skyrocketing is because you're putting stupid things like that in it, which can't be paid for, which are not affordable.
But the biggest thing, you know, I love basics in terms of persuading people, informing them, educating them.
Why did we do this?
Why are we redoing health care?
Well, because we had, depending on the day, 15 million, 30 million, 43 million uninsured.
And that was considered immoral in one of the wealthiest nations on earth, that there are that many uninsured people that don't have health care.
That's just unacceptable.
Okay, fine.
Then why write a 2,500-page mess with hundreds of thousands more pages of regulations just to provide insurance for 15, 30, 43 million people?
Do you realize how much less it would cost just to subsidize insurance for people that couldn't afford it without doing all of this other stuff?
And that then leads to the reason why all this other stuff is really being done.
And it doesn't have anything to do with health care.
It has to do with making government more powerful and giving government more reach into everybody's life.
It has to do with shrinking the economy by one-sixth of its size.
Republicans are worried they don't have an alternative.
Oh, well, Mr. Limbaugh, we just can't stand up there and start beating up on Obamacare.
We're going to have an alternative.
No, you don't.
But if you want an alternative, how about let's just do a plan that ensures 15 million people that don't have it and be done with it?
I guarantee you, it'd be a lot less expensive and it would be a lot less disruptive.
And then when you tell people they get to keep their plan, they'd be able to keep their plan.
And you tell people they get to keep their doctor if they like their doctor, they get to keep their doctor.
Why in hell are people's premiums and deductibles doubling and tripling when all we really set out to do ostensibly was insure 15 to 20, 30 million people that didn't have it?
Now, what does it take to present that as an alternative?
I'm getting worn out here, folks.
I mean, I'm sure you are too.
I've got to take an obscene profit break here.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Now, one more little piece of news here, folks.
The reason that we did Obamacare, whatever the number, 15, 30, 43 million uninsured.
That was one of the selling points from the regime.
It's a moral thing, don't you know?
Just immoral, unacceptable.
And in a country this wealthy, the mean-spirited rich should see to it that there's so many people without insurance.
Okay, fine.
So a couple of weeks ago, you may remember this, a couple of weeks ago, the Associated Press, random act of journalism, found a memo, Health and Human Services Department memo that predicted that at best only 3.3 million uninsured would sign up for Obamacare by the end of the enrollment period.
And that memo was written before the glitches on the website.
So even Sebelius and her staff, after doing all of this for 15, 20, whatever the number of uninsured was, they said in their own internal memo that AP found that only 3.3 million uninsured would sign up at the end of the enrollment period, by the end of it, before the glitches.
It wasn't even going to succeed in that so-called moral component.
Here's Julie in Morristown, Tennessee.
It's great to have you as we go back to the phones.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush.
Appreciate you taking my phone call.
I am the mother of three, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old, and an 18-year-old, which I'm glad I just ordered your hardcover in your audio book and look forward to it coming so we can enjoy it.
Wow, thank you.
We're excited about it.
My husband and I, along with four other couples, about seven years ago, founded in our community a K-12 Christian classical school.
And a core part of our curriculum is teaching history chronologically and accurately to our students.
They'll actually cycle through history chronologically three times by the time they graduate.
In light of that, my oldest son, who's 18, graduated in May, is now in college, is quite skeptical.
And so my question for you is: how do we, as parents, practically inspire our young people?
Now, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a second.
I need to understand what you just said.
Your 18-year-old is now in college after having undergone your curriculum.
Yes.
And you said he's now skeptical of what?
What you told him?
No, very skeptical of having any motivation to be involved in politics.
Can we make a difference?
You come out of this school and they've learned how to think critically, how to think logically, they have a love for learning, yet they look at the masses of these low-information people who vote and say, how in the world can we stand against that?
We don't stand a chance.
It doesn't matter how much we know or how accurately we think and understand history.
It feels to him like it's ideology and that it's just idealistic rhetoric.
It's not reality.
They've experienced Obama and Bill Clinton.
That's the reality that they've lived through through their childhood.
That's what they've seen.
And so there's no motivation to get involved because it feels like we can't make a difference.
There's no chance against the masses of people who are uninformed and continue to vote.
How do we inspire them?
Well, if it were my child, the first thing I do is spank them for thinking this way after all that time you've taken to teach them.
First thing I do is spank them and then ask them if that changed their mind.
And if that didn't, Snerdley is, he says, oh, no, you just, you know the headline, Limbo advocates corporal punishment.
No, seriously, what I would do is I'd sit them down and I would explain to them that this is the battle that has always gone on since the founding of the country, that liberty and freedom, even though it's the spirit with which we are all born, freedom and liberty have to be guaranteed each and every day.
And it has always been the case that, not always, but it's common that the masses are uninformed or misinformed.
And that should just redouble their efforts to get involved, stay involved, because it's their future, meaning your kids, it's their future and their country that they want to preserve as it is as they grow up and as they begin to do their life's work and have their own kids.
It's worth preserving.
It's worth fighting for.
It's worth trying to educate the low-information people.
It's exactly what it's, it's easy to be cynical and tune out, but if it really is important to them, if it really matters to them, and it should, then it needs to be something that they take on almost as a cause in addition to whatever else their life's work is.
Say, Julie, I know you're still out there, and I want to say one more thing.
I think there's something key to explain your 18-year-old's wavering.
You said he went off to college.
Okay, so you have treated him to an education based on your Christian and traditionalist curriculum.
And then he gets to college and he finds out that it's laughed at, made fun of by his professors, by a lot of students.
And he hears about the low-information crowd and he thinks, what's the point?
And he probably sitting there thinking he's in a minority and he's not hip and not cool because of all that.
And so he's thinking, what's it worth?
You cannot let the good foundation that you've laid here go to waste.
He's just at an age now and a place, college, where everything you've taught him is under assault.
Everything he's learned, he's going to be forced to question.
You need to sit him down and tell him that he's under assault in this way.
And that the people doing this are really afraid of people.
like him for reasons that he may not understand.
They don't want limits on morality.
They don't want anybody being in charge of what's right or wrong.
They don't value American traditions, and he does.
He's got to understand that as such, they're not interested in getting along with him.
They're not interested in learning what he thinks.
They want to get rid of what he believes because it constitutes a threat to the little cocoon that they've built for them to live in.
And his education means something.
And at some point, he's going to find people who are like-minded.
A lot of these students that he's with now will grow out of this, which is not all of them, but a lot of them do as they get older.
But, you know, motivating people is a challenging thing.
It's an individual effort, really.
I mean, you can say there's some generic things you can do that would motivate and inspire people.
But you know your son better than anybody else does.
And I'm sure you know some of the things that have worked in motivating him.
But you've somehow got to explain to him that you've got to explain the value of what he's become and what he believes.
To him and the country and everything else, he's got to almost become stiff-spined and an evangel about it.
But it's all about the kind of country he's going to grow into and have and perhaps lead one way or another.
And then the best thing is, look, I wasn't wasting my time, son.
This stuff matters.
It's important.
It'll stand you well the rest of your life.
It's how you want to live.
And you've got to assure him he's going to encounter people just like that if he doesn't give up on this.
He's not going to be surrounded by people that are threatened by him his whole life.
Anyway, let me move on here.
We've got Willie in Cuba, Missouri.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Thank you, Sarah and Mega Truck Driving Ditto.
Is that a question on this $85 billion a month that the Obama administration is putting in our stock market?
Yeah.
There's got to be a brokerage house running that for him.
And how much money are they making?
Who are they?
And how much of it goes back to the Democrats during the political season?
Yes, those are all fascinating questions.
You know, off top, I can't tell you the route the money takes.
Because the money, do you know what I mean when I say they're digitizing it?
They're not actually printing it.
They're just changing the number in a spreadsheet at wherever.
They're just arbitrarily adding dollars.
Yes, I understand that.
Okay.
So I don't know the route that that actually takes if it's just one brokerage house or a number of them.
Yeah, because that's going to be at 1%.
A 1% fee would be $8.85 billion or now $85 million a month would be 1%.
So somebody's making a fortune on that because I know the fees are usually a little higher.
Well, there's no question.
There are a lot of people making a fortune on it, making a fortune on it after it's invested in certain securities and so forth.
Your suspicions are valid.
And the Fed announced just yesterday they're going to continue QE3 till the end of December at least, which means the economy can't survive on its own.
Oh, right.
Or at least they don't think it can.
They don't think it can, right?
Bottom line is you're not seeing any of that money, and neither is anybody else outside of the quote-unquote investment community.
Now, how far that extends, who knows?
Goldman Sachs, not Goldman Sachs, Jamie Diamond, what's the place that Jamie Diamond Chase, JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Diamond's the CEO, and he is under investigation for something.
And he requested a meeting with the Attorney General and got it.
And everybody said, what the hell is this?
Who under investigation gets a private meeting with the prosecutor?
And then when you add to it, what are the odds that when this regime is ended, where is Eric Holder going to go?
Where do you think Eric Holder's going to go?
Do you think Eric Holder's going to become a Wall Street lawyer?
I do.
And what happens to Wall Street lawyer?
He's going to make lots of money.
That's going to be one of his payoffs.
And there's some people saying, well, how in the world is Jamie Diamond finagle this?
A private meeting with essentially the prosecutor, the Attorney General, when he's, I think he's subject to fines right now of 12, what is it?
Yeah, but what's the amount?
Billions or millions that the fine is 12 or 13.
I just don't remember what the size of the fine is.
But what's actually happening is that he's being shaken down.
Like all these other big mortgage banks, they're going to have to billion, did you say?
With a B.
Okay, so J.P. Morgan Chase is being shaken down $13 billion.
And he has a meeting with Holder.
He asked for it and got it.
And that's just the latest one.
But this is the shakedown.
This is how these guys are all having to pay off or give something in order to stay liquid, viable, if you will.
And it's such cronyism.
It's just way above our pay scale, folks.
It's just way above that.
But Willie here is exactly right.
He wants to know, okay, they're pumping 85, is it 80?
Okay, they're pumping $85 billion a month essentially into securities.
Quantitative easing, spending.
That's why Wall Street continues to skyrocket where the rest of the economy is stagnant.
And it's a legitimate question, okay, who's getting that money and how do they get it?
And where's the commission on that money?
Who's getting the 1% fee for this?
It's all legitimate questions.
Well, you know, Willie, we will endeavor to find out.
But a lot of these banks, BOA, Citi, Wells Fargo, have all had to pay fines in the tens of billions of dollars.
I mean, going back to the subprime mortgage crisis, and this is they do it.
They pay off to get the government off their back.
It's almost exactly like the way the subprime thing started.
You will make these loans to people who cannot afford them, pay them back, or we will investigate you.
That's what Janet Reno told them back in the 90s.
And that's how it all got started.
And then they keep recycling these penalties.
It's a way of getting really rich without having to work is what it boils down to.
Something the left has perfected, folks.
Folks, this whole QE3, QE Infinity, this whole arrangement, it's almost, you could almost characterize it as blackmail, in a sense.
Let's look at Jamie Dimon, who runs J.P. Morgan Chase.
They, in the financial crisis, they took over, I think it was Countrywide and Bear Stearns to keep them from going belly up like Lehman Brothers did.
The government didn't want.
They were content with Lehman Brothers going south because apparently a lot of people didn't like Dick Fult.
After that, they wanted to save these things.
Jamie Dimon goes in there and he takes over Countrywide and Bear Stearns under the premise that they're saving the financial markets.
And now Diamond and JP Morgan Chase are facing penalties and fines of $13 billion for supposed violations of mortgage and banking regulations and so forth.
So once you take the money, they've got you.
And it's just the whole thing is a they couldn't refuse it.
Remember, it was what was it?
Paulson dragged everybody, all these bankers, even the Wells Fargo guy, said, I don't need a bailout.
I don't want any money.
It doesn't matter.
You're coming in that room.
And they were not allowed out of that room until they signed an agreement to take, forget what the amount of money was, but it was bailout money.
It was part of TARP, of which there's still some unspent money, by the way.
And remember what a crisis we were told it was.
And because of all of this, a lot of these financial houses, the hell with this, and they're trying to get out of the mortgage market.
And another thing, with all of this QE, whatever it is, that's one of the ways they're keeping interest rates at practically one half of 1% or 1%.
That's how they're artificially keeping interest rates low.
And lenders can't make any money at 1%.
Mortgage lenders are any other kind of lenders.
So in the midst of this, they're propping Wall Street up with this QE3 business.
And you watch.
The next time the Fed meets, and if they release the minutes of the Fed meeting, and if there's any talk that's reported about QE whatever ending, you watch what happens in the market that day or the next day.
The bottom will fall out.
We're now creating addicts.
Financial addicts.
And the moment the money is threatened to be taken away, it's going to be.
My friends, sadly, we are out of busy broadcast moments here at the EIB Network.
I want to thank you again for being with us each and every day.
It's a treat to have you here.
It's an honor and a privilege that I look forward to each and every day.
And tomorrow, of course, one of my all-time favorite days of the week, Open Line Friday.
And just to remind you, that's where you can call and talk about anything.
It doesn't have to be what I'm talking about or leading with.
And we try.
We don't always succeed.
We try to take more calls, many more calls than usual on Open Line Friday.
Give it our best shot.
That's our intention.
So thanks again for being with us today.
Happy Halloween tonight.
And if you celebrate it, if you have fun with it, hope you do.
▲
Export Selection