All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
November 25, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
It's great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
And we are going to get to your phone calls in this hour.
Promise.
800-282-2882.
And I checked the email during the break, and I knew that this was going to happen.
There were some people who were expecting some more in-depth explanation of the Iranian deal and asking me why I didn't do it.
There's two reasons.
A, I'm not going to be distracted by it from Obamacare.
That's number one.
Number two, folks, look, I this is really, in a sense, this is hard for me.
Because it is very simple.
If Obama did it, and John Kerry's involved, it is inept.
But there's I had there, of course, more reason than just that, but that's the guiding principle.
What has happened here?
Iran has just been legitimized as a nuclear state.
Folks, this is the world's state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism.
I'd no different.
Let me ask you this.
If instead of uh Iran, the deal had been announced with North Korea, what would your reaction be?
You'd kind of be fit to be tied, right?
And I assume many of you are fit to be tied over the Iranian deal.
Some people aren't, though.
But if if if Obama and John Kerry late at night on a Saturday announced, hey, guess what we've been doing the last six months?
We just made a deal with Kim Jong-il's kid, King Yimu, whatever his name is.
The junior fat potbellied dictator, and they told you that we can trust this guy.
What would your reaction be?
To me, it's no different.
In fact, it may be a little worse because these guys actually are going to have a nuclear weapon.
And they are going to have the ability to use it, and they're going to have the will to use it.
But all you gotta do, folks, is peruse the news and you find out that people from across the spectrum don't like this.
The people who are in favor of it are the Obama acolytes, who are they exist as a PR agency to prop the guy up and make him look good no matter what, and to make his critics look small and racist and bigoted and what have you.
But from the spectrum from Professor Dershowitz at Harvard over here to John Bolton over here, with Republicans and Democrats in between.
I happen, by the way, to know the Prime Minister of Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu.
I have known him since 1993.
I've known him before he was prime minister.
I've known him as Prime Minister.
I have smoked cigars with him at a at a hotel on Central Park South as while he was prime minister.
I came back early from a rush to excellence tour weekend.
I came back early on a Sunday to accept an invitation to have a sit-down for a couple hours.
Um in a ballroom with uh Netanyahu, who was meeting a lot of people in and out.
I think there was somebody from the New York Times in with him right before I went in.
And I was in with a couple hours.
I spent time and I I trust this man.
I I think Netanyahu is a fine man.
And I trust him and I believe him, and I I think he is a fantastic ally.
And if Benjamin Netanyahu says that this thing is bad for Israel, I'm gonna believe him before I'm gonna believe John Kerry over and just sorry, folks, that this is experience guided by intelligence talking.
This is not this is not partisanship.
This is not anti-bias.
This is our anti-liberal bias, although you can't leave some of that out.
I mean, you look at look at how Obama supposedly punishes bad behavior.
If you smoke, take a look at your premiums in Obama.
Obamacare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs.
This is a story from William Logines at the Fox News Channel.
Obamacare may have backfired in its goal of making smoking so expensive that users quit.
Public health experts say as sky high insurance premiums force smokers to drop coverage altogether and lose smoking cessation programs along with it.
Well, hey, there's another thing that people don't remember, and that is that the tax on tobacco products up to now has almost totally funded children's health care plans.
It has long been my contention that the smokers in this country deserve a medal.
What are the people on the other side of the glass are shaking their heads?
There he goes again.
I'm sorry if that sounds controversial.
These people have been paying higher taxes than anybody else because they're being punished.
They're being punished because of political correctness and a government which disapproves of what they do.
And they have ginned up this whole anti-smoking hysteria among people to the point it's so bad now that you actually have busybodies living 300 feet a football field away, claiming with closed windows all around that they can smell somebody smoking a cigarette a hundred yards away.
They can't.
They're lying through their teeth.
The punish these people at the same time raise their taxes and use that money to fund children's health care programs.
You can look it up.
I ain't lying, as they say.
If anything, these people deserve our thanks.
So now Obama has just jacked up their premiums sky high because he doesn't want them insured, because the cost, the theory is that smokers are going to get cancer, and the treatment is going to be so expensive that we ought not make other people pay for it.
They should pay for it themselves if they're going to engage risky behavior, blah blah.
But notice that other risky behaviors are not punished.
You know, Obama's very selective in his punishment of behavior he doesn't like.
Smoking or getting fat.
You get fat, you smoke, you're going to have all kinds of punishment meted out on you.
But Obama's foreign policy rewards bad behavior, like developing nuclear weapons with Iran.
He's rewarding bad behavior here.
We are paying them back for the money they've lost during our sanctions policy, or some of it anyway.
So what's worse, drinking Big Gulps and eating trans fats or the Iranians having nuclear weapons?
You see where Obama's paid volunteers...
This group called organizing for action.
It's a spinoff of organizing for America, is calling on people to bring up Obamacare during Thanksgiving dinner with their families.
The directives gone out on websites.
When you get together with your family, talk up Obamacare.
So I think, look, folks, it's uh this is just it's a bad deal all the way around.
There's no good that can come of it.
And anyway, I mean the Saudis.
The Saudis are talking about all right, if we can't count on Obama or America anymore, we're we're maybe just gonna have to take action on our own.
I know.
I could uh I could mention other behaviors that people engage in that are risky that are not punished, in fact, rewarded.
I'm not gonna go there, Don, don't sweat it.
And it's just it's selective.
Now, I've I happen to, you know, I've I am always interested In explaining why I believe what I believe.
I don't just come here and say, well, no, I think the Iranian deal is bad because Obama did it.
I mean there's lots of reason behind that.
I just like to cut to the chase.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
If if Obama doing the deal is enough for me to not like the deal, I'm gonna tell you that.
Name for me anything else he's done that you want to stand up and cheer for or support or re-elect.
In fact, name for me one thing that had you known it was going to turn out this way, you would voted for him.
If you would have known that five years in the unemployment rate was, if you had known five years in that 91 and a half million Americans were going to be out of work, if you had known five years in that 50 million people are going to be on food stamps, if you had known five years in you're gonna lose your doctor, your health care costs are gonna triple, would you have voted to re-elect the guy?
No.
This deal with Iran is it is an absolute potential disaster.
But Obama doesn't see enemies where I see enemies.
He sees potential friends.
Obama doesn't see enemies, he sees people who have been wronged by America.
Obama sees victims.
Obama sees people who have been taken advantage of or discriminated against by America.
I don't have the same worldview he does.
What else do you need?
The Associated Press said that the Iran deal could end up being Obama's crowning achievement in foreign policy.
What else do you need to know that it's a disaster?
If the associated press is praising this as Obama's crowning achievement in foreign policy, if that doesn't raise your red flags, then you simply don't see the world the way I do.
And that means that you are wrong.
Said with humor.
Now, in my show prep over the weekend, I encountered something at Newsbusters, which is Brent Bozell's uh website.
And I ran into a piece there by Tim Graham, and it's entitled George Will on Obama's Enormous Brain.
And let me cut to the chase here.
George Will likes to quote people in his column.
He's known as a quote machine, and then Doonsbury and the boys have made fun of George Will for having staffers that just find quotes that George Will could insert.
And George Will's responded, I don't have staffers looking up the quotes, I know the quotes.
So that's the basis for the for the story.
And a partial quote from Valerie Jarrett that George Will included in a recent column, Sunday's column.
But the entire Valerie Jarrett quote is here.
And this will help you to understand not only who Obama is, but how and why I, and a lot of people, not just me, see Obama the way we do.
Here's Valerie Jarrett, and this quote comes from a book written by David Remnick.
He's the editor of The New Yorker.
He wrote a book called The Bridge, The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.
And in this book, uh on page 274 is a quote from Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama's closest and longest serving advisor on how amazing Obama is.
Oh, by the way, page six in the New York Post today says that Valerie Jarrett is now dating Ahmad Rashad.
Or that Ahmad Rashad is dating Valerie Jarrett, but they're not going out in public.
They're doing it on the down low.
Now I know Ahmad Rashad.
He's best budge with Michael Jordan.
That news kind of surprised me.
But it's just an aside.
It has nothing to do with this story.
Here's the Valerie Jarrett quote, David Remnick's book, The Bridge, The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.
I think I think Barack knew that he had God given talents that were extraordinary.
He knows exactly how smart he is.
He knows how perceptive he is.
He knows what a good reader of people he is.
And he knows that he has the ability, the extraordinary uncanny ability to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them, and make sense out of them.
And I think he has never been really challenged intellectually.
I mean, Obama is the kind of guy you would hate in law school.
He'd pick up the book the night before the final, he would read it and ace the test.
So what I sensed in Obama was not just a restless spirit, but someone with extraordinary talents that they had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy.
And then came the bored to death line that he's just bored because he's never intellectually challenged.
He is so far above everybody in the room.
He is light years ahead of everybody.
There's not a soul who can challenge the guy.
And so he just gets bored.
And nothing, not Obamacare, nothing.
Iranian nukes, nothing really challenges him.
He has yet to be put to the test intellectually in his life.
And if anything makes him unhappy and bored, it is that.
Well now I'm telling you, if if that's how she sees the guy, then we have, folks, as the number one primary advisor, a genuine fatal attraction groupie.
Number one, who will never tell the guy he's off the rails or going in the wrong direction, or will do nothing but pump up and and and cement this own.
If if she sees him that way, I guarantee you he does.
This is not healthy, folks.
The bored to death line, he knows exactly how smart he is.
He's never really been challenged intellectually.
He's been bored to death his whole life, is part of the quote.
He's just too talented to do what ordinary people do.
He'd never be satisfied with what ordinary people to do.
Why does somebody like Obama even need an advisor then?
Why does I mean what advisor can possibly advise him?
Why does he you realize you realize?
So this is what this Iranian deal, I guarantee you.
That's right, if he's so smart, why didn't he know his health care plan wasn't going to be so smart?
Why didn't he know his website wasn't working?
He was so smart.
Why didn't he know his stimulus wasn't going to work if he's so smart?
We got to redefine smart because there's nothing he's done that's working, at least from our perspective.
You know, Obama's not the first Democrat that we've heard is so smart and so high above everybody else in the room that he can't be challenged.
Who else they say that about Clinton at one point?
I mean, it is a fairly common thing to be said of Democrat leaders.
I can't, I think it was Clinton.
Oh, he's so smart.
He's so much so far ahead of a I know they've said it about Obama since day one, but um there have been others.
Let me grab a call quickly, I promised.
We'll go to Mount Vernon.
Uh uh.
Rob, are you you in the state of Washington?
Rush, megadettos from your inception to the great leftern state of Washington.
We used to be a republic.
And unless you want to live on Eastern Washington, we are super over here.
Right now I am in Bellingham.
I was born and raised in Seattle, Washington, 60 years ago next month.
And I never thought in all my years I would ever live through what we are living through right now.
Um one other thing before I get to my point and why I wanted to call.
In nineteen uh seventy-seven, I was living down in Southern California, and I had a friend who was 67 years old and I was 24.
And he'd lived through a lot back then, and he told me uh the uh he said you mark my words that you know you will see when you grow up can the United States will implode from the inside out.
And I didn't fully understand what he was talking about, but uh I've been realizing that for many years since then.
Um two breaks or so back, I was listening to KGMI out of Bellingham up here, and uh over the news, they said there was a new pass taken where the majority of libertarians, leftists, and conservatives are now for a pathway to citizenship.
I thought to myself, what?
Where is this information at?
Which prompted me to give you a call because I haven't heard anything about it.
I mean, I know the leftists are, but I don't know.
I have not seen that poll.
Did you did they identify who did the poll?
He dropped off.
I think you just wanted to get the call letters of the station on the air.
Um I have not seen such a poll that a majority of Americans are in favor of them.
Now, pathway to citizenship.
If they're using that instead of amnesty, you never know what you might get in a poll.
Okay, found that poll.
I got the poll.
I'm holding that poll right here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, and naturally it's from CNN.
As the president makes, let's see, what's the day from two hours ago?
As the president makes another pitch for immigration reform today, and he is, he's out there.
Anything they can do to distract from Obamacare.
But I should also say that the news from the Republican side in Washington is, oh yeah, we're gonna get this done by the end of the year.
Vahner's office, any number of Republicans.
Oh, yeah, well, amnesty, oh yeah.
Um comprehensive reform.
Oh, yeah, we'll get that done by the end of the year.
That's what I'm all over the news.
As the president makes another pitch for immigration reform today, recent polls show a majority of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in America and to apply for citizenship.
But one poll indicates Americans are divided over whether immigration reform should be considered an immediate priority.
A public religion research institute survey, released today, but conducted earlier this month, says 63% of adults nationwide favor allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens if they meet certain requirements.
Another 14% prefer they become legal residents only.
18% support the idea of deporting them if they are here illegally.
4% are unsure or didn't give an answer or don't know what the subject is.
4%.
On whether immigration reform should be a top priority, only 41% say it should be tackled right now.
Now, according to a Quinnipiact University survey from earlier in November, 57% of registered voters nationwide support a pathway to citizenship.
While 13% say, look at folks, you know what's going on here.
They're not using the word amnesty in these polls.
They're using pathway to citizenship.
Um should they be allowed to stay and apply for citizenship.
Blah blah blah.
I mean, that they're basically there it it's it's the wilder effect in in reverse here.
The people responding here do not want to be seen as bigots.
The people responding don't want to be seen as anti.
Remember, I I'll tell you, I didn't I didn't put enough stock in something that I should have.
We had a call last week from a woman who explained very elegantly how people like her, scattered all over America are just afraid to open their mouths in criticism of Obama because they are scared to death of being bullied or being called racists or what have you.
And her point was now it's becoming a little bit more socially acceptable to criticize Obama, and she thinks that's why the polls are turning.
But it was her opinion that people have always felt negatively toward Obama.
They just haven't had the courage to say so in a poll.
They've been scared to death.
And what primarily frightened them was being thought of or accused of being racist.
And I said, it's that big a deal.
Oh, Rush, that nobody wants to be called that.
Nobody wants to get in arguments with people at restaurants.
Nobody wants to be involved in any controversy.
This is not something most people want.
And so they just they just laid down and they don't say what they really think.
And I knew that that was going on.
I but I I again I didn't realize just how much it was.
So, given her call, and I think she's right, I think a poll that shows you 63% support a pathway to citizenship so they could apply for, or a uh a poll that says uh was a sixty-three percent favor allowing them to become citizens if they meet certain requirements.
You just I don't think you're gonna have people given this is a hot button issue, and it does involve what people think is race and ethnicity, and the pollsters know this, but they're not using the word amnesty.
If they go out and ask the question, should should undocumented aliens who are here illegally be automatically granted citizenship?
What do you think the poll would show?
And that's what the pollsters are attempting to say is happening.
The pollsters are trying to convey here that via the results of their survey, a majority of Americans are in favor of just making them citizens right now.
And that's not what the questions are.
Pathway to citizenship is um with you know and applying for citizenship is a far different thing than the waving of a magic wand and making them citizens tomorrow, which is what they're not being asked.
But it doesn't matter because the poll is out there that a majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform.
And comprehensive immigration reform is amnesty, although nobody's saying that, uh at least on the um on the side that uh that supports it.
Um I you know, my guess is that there are enough stupid people out there who probably don't think there is any way to become a citizen except by sneaking into the country.
My I I bet you'd be surprised at how many people think that's the only way you can do it is sneak in.
No, no, you're born here you're a citizen.
No, no, no, you gotta sneak in.
That's why so many people are doing it.
And it's unfair that we're making people sneak in.
I would I if I if I found that 5% or so thought that I wouldn't be surprised At all.
Here's Robert in St. Genevieve, Missouri.
It's it's just right up the road from my hometown.
How are you, Robert?
I'm fine, sir.
Glad to talk to you.
Thank you.
And I'm gonna get right to my point.
I uh my wife had Alzheimer's, and I had to get her on Medicaid to get some help.
And as soon as she passed away, the state come after me to take my property away because there's no such thing as free Medicaid.
So and I am concerned about the people who are signing up for this Medicaid, because to me it's nothing but the biggest land and the state grab in the country.
Fascinating.
Oh, I can tell you some stories here, and I'm speaking mainly for Missouri because that's a personal experience that was within two weeks of my wife's passing, I got a letter stating that they was taking going to court to take my property.
How long how long was she on Medicaid before she passed away?
I think about three years.
Now, when you put her on Medicaid when you signed up for it, did they tell you that this was going to happen?
No, they did not.
They they nobody has ever to said anything like that.
Well, what kind of hoops did you have to jump through, if any, to get her on Medicaid so she'd be treated during her Alzheimer's period?
Uh me and her had to go we're both on social security.
We we had to s divide our assets uh separately.
They had to go separately.
Uh so that each of us uh our incomes was not combined.
And that got her on the Medicaid.
That's where I could get the home health.
Okay, so they actually separated your assets so that she would qualify.
Yes.
Because combined you wouldn't.
Right.
So they got you on Medicaid by separating your assets, and then when she passed away, they're coming for both her and your assets combined?
Yes, for well, for mine, all of mine, you know.
But I had done one thing that they did not know.
I had transferred all my property, mine and her property, into our kids' names three years and three months prior to that.
Uh prior to her going on Medicaid.
Yeah.
And the fact that you have to uh get rid of your property three years prior in order to for them not to get you.
So by three months.
Are your kids nice?
Did they continue to let you use the property after you put it in their name?
Oh, yeah.
Well, that's good.
At least your family didn't try to take advantage of you either.
Yeah, I put it in all seven kids' names.
So that uh did that protect the property?
Yes, it did.
But they still came for it.
Yeah, yeah.
But when they found out that I had transferred it three years, over three years, which happened to be three years, three months, then they couldn't do it.
Now, I can tell you about another lady.
Her mother passed away and was on Medicaid.
She had her personal trailer on their property, on her property, mother's property.
They let her move her personal belongings out of the treasure, but they would not let her move her personal trailer off of the farm.
Uh uh this is you know, I my memory, we've had a we've had another call like this.
It seems some months ago.
Um somebody had uh a similar experience.
Uh and if the feds don't do it, then the state could come collect.
Right.
Yeah.
So uh But not not every you're right, the point not every state does this.
Right.
I'm speaking basically for Missouri because that's first hand knowledge.
Well, no, I I'm not I'm not I'm not accusing you being Iran here and lying.
I just I I'm no I I realize that, but I I I just want you to understand that I'm speaking of first hand knowledge, I'm not sure.
So what you you well you're lucky you knew what to do to beat the system.
I didn't know.
I really didn't know how I did it.
Well then why did you transfer ownership to your kids?
Well, because I'm seventy nine years old now, and uh at the time I wasn't, of course, but uh uh I wanted to make sure that my kids had Oh, you just had a natural suspicion you were gonna lose it and you wanted to give it to them before that might happen.
Well, I didn't know, but uh I just something told me to do it.
Now, Robert, have you tried to log on to healthcare.gov, the website, and buy an Obamacare insurance policy.
I have no computer.
Uh I don't have anything except a cell phone.
So I I I'm not going on to and I get all of my uh personal medication and uh medical things to the VA.
I'm a disabled veteran.
Oh, okay.
Are you taken care of okay there?
Oh, I'm not very happy, and after St. Louis, uh John Calker.
No, I'm extremely happy with what I've received.
Okay.
Well, Robert, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I'm sure people I had never uh there's a vague memory that we've had a caller or two have talked about, but it was distant.
But uh even so the idea that Medicaid can come, claim your property after the beneficiary of passed has passed away.
Two weeks.
Two weeks.
It just, folks, look it.
For all for everybody who thinks it's gonna be free, it isn't.
And especially when this current crop of leaders tells you.
And people are learning this day in and day out, one way or the other.
Okay, found it, folks.
It was earlier this year, it was March uh the fourth.
We had a caller from Tucson, Arizona.
His name was Barney, and let me just let me just read to you uh what he said.
Rush, there's another hidden reason why the problem in nobody having any money is gonna get much worse under this Medicaid expansion.
There's an additional Trojan horse in this legislation where the government will seize as much of the estates of Medicaid recipients when they die as it takes to reimburse the government for the services it provided, and nothing is going to be off limits, including homes, which have been in families for generations.
It's not a brand new thing.
Goes back to the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993.
It's called a state recovery, and it mandates.
And then he went on to explain exactly what you just heard from our caller in St. Genevieve, Missouri.
It has been around since 1993, but they have not really selectively pursued it except now.
Part of the omnibus budget reconciliation act of nineteen ninety-three.
And this legislation equals Obamacare.
Barney's point, the guy from St. Genevieve, Missouri was that under Obamacare, the states are going to be mandated to even be more aggressive about seizing property to pay back for the Medicare treatment that they pay for.
They've got the provisions set up.
States haven't pursued it aggressively.
There is an accounting procedure.
Uh they they track what benefits have gone to what recipients, and a spouse, spouse living in the house.
There are provisions for them, but if it's the only asset, nobody's living there, they'll be able to seize it when they die.
It's exactly what Barney said.
We have this, this caller is named uh uh what what um uh the guy St. Genevieve said.
Barney here is in Tucson, and this is a call for March.
I knew I had a vague memory of this.
And I went to our fabulous search feature at rushlimbaug.com and I found this immediately.
Here's a study from the pew center for people in the press.
Two sociologists have found that parents who have daughters are more inclined to support the Republicans and turn a cold shoulder to Democrats.
In newly published findings that challenge earlier research, Dalton Connley of New York University and Emily Rosher of the University of Kansas found that having more daughters than sons and having a daughter first significantly reduces the likelihood of Democrat Party identification and significantly increases the strength of Republican Party identification.
Not only is the daughter effect statistically significant, it is substantively large.
The daughter's effect is considerably stronger among better educated and wealthier parents, they found.
But among those farther down the socioeconomic ladder, it weakens to statistical insignificance.
So when the low information crowd has daughters, it doesn't matter.
But when middle class and upper middle class people do, it means that the parents are more likely to be Republican.
Go figure.
Who would have ever thought that?
Have you noticed, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that the more Obama falls in the polls, the more power he seizes.
Seems to me that that is the case.
Okay, we've got details on the CNN poll.
Bad for Obama sliding underwater.
Personal qualities, uh, personal likability slipping away in a CNN poll, CNN distressed.
▲
Export Selection