All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
February 11, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we're back here, folks.
Great to have you here, and it's the Rush Limbaugh program, where we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
And we do all that with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
Because the left is obsessed with fairness.
And so we try to be fair.
Happy to have you.
Telephone number 800-282-288-2, the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
You know, I don't care how Obama tries to spend this.
He's up there now with the French president O'Lombe.
And I don't know if they're asking the French president about his wife and his mistress and his girlfriend.
I don't know if they're asking him that.
But somebody just asked Obama about the three-year delay of the employer mandate.
And he said, and there's really there's no there's no answer that can get him off the hook on this.
But this one he said, well, it we've just learned that uh this will give the uh employers uh more time to be in compliance with the uh with the law.
Um I don't I don't care how he spins this.
The fact of the matter is this was sold to everybody as a panacea.
I mean, it was sold to the true believers as the big fix.
And it was so good and so wonderful and so helpful.
It was going to ensure the uninsured, it was going to keep the insured insured, it was going to lower premiums, it was going to widen the availability of health care itself.
Of course, none of that has happened, just the exact opposite.
And of course, for political reasons only, in order to avoid being destroyed at every election since 2010.
They have delayed or waived the implementation of the very punitive aspects of this law.
And it's purely political, and the entire Washington, D.C. political spectrum understands now.
They're not delaying the implementation because it isn't ready.
They're not delaying it to help anybody except themselves.
They're not delaying the implementation because they're having trouble getting it right because they're never going to get it right.
It's never going to do what it was advertised to do.
It is a punitive piece of legislation.
It puts people who have no idea what they're doing in charge of health care.
We're seeing the result.
It was sold as great.
It was sold as helpful.
It was sold as a solution.
And yet the only way to keep from doing even more damage to the country, to the healthcare system, to the small business sector.
The only way to avoid damaging all that is to not implement this thing.
In the process, Obama's trying to ensure his himself and his party from being damaged politically.
So yesterday they announced another delay in the requirement on businesses to provide health coverage, giving some employers a reprieve next year while phasing in the mandate for others.
The uh the regime, get this now.
This is not even constitutional what he's doing.
He does not have the constitutional authority by the by virtue of the law itself.
I'll get to that in a minute.
The administration will let employers with 50 to 99 employees off the hook in 2015.
I mean, that right there.
The regime will let all in their magnificent munificence.
They will let employers off the hook.
And so to be in compliance with this law is damaging and harmful.
And so we're going to let them off the hook.
They'll be required to report on how many workers are covered, but they will have until 2016 after the next two elections before they face a penalty for failing to cover employees.
Employers with 100 or more workers will be required to provide health insurance to full-time staff, but the new rules will only require them to cover 70% of workers next year and 95% the following year.
It's an unmitigated disaster.
There's no other way to describe it.
It's harmful, it's punitive, it's never going to work.
And if it were, as Obama and the regime and the Democrats advertised, if it were the panacea they promised, it was if it were the fix that they promised, if it was the solution they all promised, it would have already been fully implemented by now, and the American people would demand access to it.
The American people would be wanting it.
Instead, they're running away from it.
They're hiding from it, they're trying to avoid it.
They don't want to be found by the health care system.
And the regime knows full well that if they don't delay the implementation of this thing, the party, the Democrat Party, is dead.
Terry Jeffrey, writing at uh uh Cybercast News, sir, I think it's Terry Jeffrey.
If this piece isn't by him, I know he wrote one.
Obama's new delay of employer mandate violates the plain language of the law.
And this is being sort of just glanced over by people that he doesn't even have the power to do this.
What he's doing is not legal.
He doesn't have the authority.
And while people gloss over that, they're focusing on what does it mean for Obama?
And they're believe me, they're all coming to the conclusion that this is purely political, and he's losing support on this from his side of the aisle.
Ron Fournier, National Journal, it's fascinating.
His first opinion of this was hey, hey, stop complaining, you right wingers.
All he's doing is manipulating taxes.
And that's perfectly legal.
The president can delay or speed up the implementation of the tax aspect of this law anytime he wants.
And then somebody said to him, no, no, no, no.
There's nothing to do with that, Ron.
He is manipulating this law to avoid political pain.
And Ford News, oh, is that what he's doing?
Well, then I totally agree he can't do that.
Honest to God, that's the way it, that's the way it came out.
The argument is, okay, if you've got, if you got an albatross piece of legislation, this is conventional Washington thinking, by the way.
This is inside the beltway thinking, both parties, both sides.
Your president say you've got a piece of legislation that's an albatross around your neck, you got an election coming up.
What you do is you change policies, you propose new laws or whatever to change people's attitudes and opinions of you.
And that's totally permissible.
But you do not go in, violate the Constitution, and simply decide, oh, not going to implement that, not going to implement that, not going to implement that.
If you're doing that to improve your political positions, then that is said to be unfair and as as sophomoric as that sounds, everybody in the beltway agrees with that.
President Obama's Treasury Department issued a new regulation yesterday that for the second time directly violates the plain and unambiguous text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by allowing some businesses to avoid the law's December 31st, 2013 deadline to provide health insurance coverage to their employees.
That's actually when the mandate, it was by December 31st last year.
So we're already way behind.
Now, initially on July 2nd of 2013, the regime unilaterally delayed the deadline for the employer mandate Until 2015.
Now, the regime is unilaterally delaying it for some businesses until 2016.
The text of the law itself describes an applicable large employer as follows.
The term applicable large employer means with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.
That's the text of the law itself.
In a summary of the Affordable Care Act, Congressional Research Service said Section 1513, as modified by Section 10106, imposes fines on large employers,
employees, employers with more than 50 full-time employees who failed offer their full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage or who have a waiting period for enrollment of more than six days.
That's the text of the law.
It goes on, and it's not.
Well, it's it's it's perfectly clear.
He is violating the text of the law.
The law says he cannot do what he is doing.
And he's doing it anyway.
Now let's go to the audio soundbites.
Up first, Dr. Kladema on Fox Special Report with Brett Baer, the all-star panel.
And they're discussing Obama's latest delay of the mandate.
This is stuff that you do in a banana republic.
It's as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants on any provision.
It's now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complaints.
I think if the complaints have started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are not adjustments or transitions, these are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election, and it's changing a law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
Now that is the conventional inside the beltway wisdom that, hey, you can't change a law in a way you're not allowed to if it's going to minimize negative impact on you leading up to an election.
And somehow everybody inside the beltway agrees.
That sounds so sophomoric to me, but everybody agrees with that.
But the the part of the soundbite that's interesting to me is it's now reached a point where it's so endemic that nobody even notices or complains.
I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, they did.
There were all kinds of people who've been complaining about this since before there were arbitrary changes.
There were people trying to call attention to the outrageousness and the impossibility of this law while it was being debated.
There were people trying to call people's attention to what Obama's true long-term intentions were with this law before it was even voted on.
But with the first series of waivers, there were all kinds of catcalls, people in the Tea Party, Tea Party Republicans in Congress, certain talk radio people.
There was a whole bunch of people raising hell about what Obama was doing.
There just didn't seem to be any interest in that inside the beltway.
There was a guy named Ted Cruz who was trying to get everybody to listen to him about this.
And you know what they did to Ted Cruz inside the Beltway and even within the Republican Party.
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee were saying, can we stop this?
Can we bring this to a halt?
Can we stop the implementation?
Can we delay this?
Can we defund this?
And you know what was said about them by people inside the beltway.
They were called extremists.
And worse, And they were portrayed as problems for the Republican Party.
Kathleen Sibelius, back in November of 2012, said there will not be any delays, and to talk about delays is silly.
It's unnecessary.
Well not do.
There have been people, and there have been a lot of them, and they have been loud, who have been dead right on from the get-go about this.
To lament that nobody said anything.
And so now when Obama does it, it just seems like no big deal.
There are a lot of us who are horse.
A lot of you who are horse.
I mean, how does it get to the point that it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains?
It gets to that point because when the first people noticing and complaining about it speak up, they're impugned.
They're criticized, they're marginalized, they're told to shut up.
And then it keeps on going and they keep speaking up and they are continually told shut up.
We can't do anything about it.
It's my whole point.
There hasn't been any pushback ever from the Republican Party on this.
And there isn't any now.
So What if it isn't going to happen?
I not even asked the question.
This is just a little thought process exercise.
What if somebody actually did begin impeachment proceedings?
Do you think that would slow Obama in this extra constitutional behavior or not?
Probably not.
It uh yeah, maybe if the polls showed it true, but it isn't going to happen anyway.
But I just the idea that that nobody's spoken up and nobody said anything about this until now it's too late once everybody finally starts noticing.
Bob Beckle on Fox today was asked to comment on what Dr. Kurham has said, and he was not happy.
I think Charles uh has stepped way over the line by calling this a banana republic.
The fact is that this is an enormously complex law.
It is requiring uh you literally have to rewrite it as you move along because the situation has never been like this.
Do I think this was moved because of political reasons?
Yes.
I do.
And I'm glad it is.
So there you go.
Everybody knows these not moving this law to help anybody, but him.
He's not doing any of this to provide anybody any assistance.
Patients, doctors, hospitals, businesses.
He's only trying to help himself and his party.
And of course, Beckle says that's fine.
And Charles stepped over the line there, calling this a banana republic.
Hey, Bob, grab somebody number uh number three.
I want to take you back to me on this program July 3rd, 2009.
We have 232 years of evidence, and as Lanny Davis would say, of poof, that independence works far better than dependence does.
Better for the individual, and as our founders foresaw, better for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But now with the unemployment numbers, 9.5% and no end in sight to the plunge in the number of people working.
Our economic growth in negative numbers.
It is safe to say that the United States is or is on the verge of becoming a banana republic.
There you have it, folks.
Cutting edge of societal evolution yet again.
Characterizing the regime as a banana republic barely six months into it.
And let's start on the phones with uh Dwayne in Cedars Point, Wisconsin.
Hi, Dwayne, glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you.
You bet.
Uh the reason I called is uh the other side purposely made homosexuality political.
Um, when you were talking earlier, the left believes that men like me who hold to the traditional American value system, they think we're on the ropes, um, and they seek a knockout punch.
That's why I think uh all this uh talk about a gay football player is coming up.
I don't deny any of that, but I I um I mean it you know, busting up uh traditional American value.
Why would they want to do that?
What's wrong with traditional American values?
Why is the political agenda that is attached to homosexuality in opposition to traditional American values?
The the the traditional American values that I always think of is God family country.
Um I think the left, uh all the different groups that are attacking the uh the traditional quarterback, um, the referee is in the game and they they see it piling on, but I I they they see a victory with their world view by piling on any way they can.
So they all come together and they're just piling on.
Well, okay, but but again, why?
Why do they want what's wrong with traditional American values?
Why would why would they want to blow those up?
Why would they want to blow up traditional American values?
Yeah.
Uh you know, I wonder that all the time too, because if you if you examine what traditional American values do for people, um, you tend to come out on top at the end of uh your journey in life.
I don't know why they do that.
I it's puzzling to me.
Uh, I'm hoping you can guide me on that.
Well, I obviously I can.
I'm but I'm what I'm trying to do here is is is goad as many people as possible into thinking beneath the surface on this stuff.
As I've been uh that the hints are out there.
I've dropped them as recently as yesterday and last week as to what the real impetus and motivation here is.
But I appreciate the call.
We've got more, don't go over.
Let me ask the question in a different way, ladies and gentlemen.
Question about Michael Sam, University of Missouri, who has announced he's gay.
He announced to his teammates a year ago.
He played the entire 2013 season came out, team did well.
Uh cotton bowl, 12-2 season, uh, best season Mizzo's had in a while.
See, it doesn't hurt the team.
It may have brought team closer together.
Who's to say?
Why is the sports media well, the whole media, but let's just why is the sports media so excited that there will be a publicly out gay player in the NFL?
What does it matter?
What's the big deal?
Why are they so excited about it?
And if you go to the right places, why are they so mad about it?
And when I say mad about it, depending on where you go, you can read sports media types who are mad that this is a big deal, because they think there's all kinds of hypocrisy.
They think there's gay players all over the league.
Nobody's got the guts to come out.
The gay players don't have the guts, the uh straight players don't have the guts to openly admit that they're gay players in a locker room and peacefully coexist with them.
Nobody's got the guts that we shouldn't even be going through any of this, and so they're mad about it.
Other sports writers are mad in advance of the way the guy's gonna be treated, even before he's been treated badly by anybody, they're predicting it.
There are other sports writers who are already demanding that the guy act a certain way, be a leader on the issue.
He is to them has a social cultural responsibility to be the next Jackie Robinson or Rosa Parks or take your pick of whoever.
Why does it matter so much to them?
Is my question.
What's the big deal?
Why is there this in your face aspect of it?
Why is it that the sports media and the rest just can't wait to Shove this down everybody's throat or in everybody's face.
Why is that the case?
I asked the question.
Because it clearly is the biggest deal in football right now.
Why is that?
There are answers to this.
By the way, Kathleen Sibelius, it was it was November of 2013, just a couple three months ago.
She told a Senate oversight committee that delaying Obamacare is not an option.
Despite the troubled rollout of the federal website, healthcare.gov.
Delay is not an option.
We are still at the beginning of a six-month open enrollment that ends at the end of March, and there are plenty of time to sign up, and she went further.
People are sick, they are dying.
We cannot delay.
We cannot delay it any longer.
We there will not be a delay.
It is not an option.
Now here we're delaying it three years.
Why are we doing that?
To the phones we go, Scott Los Angeles, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
You know, just uh a couple weeks ago, Barack Obama had made mention that if he had a son, he wouldn't want him to play football.
It wouldn't let him.
He wouldn't let him.
And now you have the first lady talking about how courageous it is that this gay person is going to play football.
Right.
In the NFL.
Well, it's courageous not because he's going to play football.
Is it courageous?
Well, they never say what it is.
Is it courageous because he's gay?
Is it courageous because he came out and said he's gay?
Is it courageous because he's gay, said he's gay, and wants to play football?
Or what what is courageous about it?
What do you think?
I have no idea.
Yes, you do.
You're just like everybody else, you just don't want to say it.
Okay, ask again.
What do I think is courageous about it?
Why okay, Muchel my bell?
After her husband says he wouldn't let his son Trayvon Martin play.
Now here comes Muchell saying, This this Michael Sandy, this guy is courageous.
There's a courageous man.
Wait a minute.
Courageous to play something that your intelligence says shouldn't be played because it's too risky, because it's too dangerous?
It might lead to suicide, concussion, Parkinson's Alzheimer's, and yet it's courageous to play?
I thought last week it was stupid to play.
Now all of a sudden it's courageous.
Why is it courageous?
Well, because he's gay.
All right.
Well, what's the courage?
Where is the courage?
Why does being gay make him courageous in entering the NFL?
I'm j folks, I'm I'm steering you here.
I'm I'm I'm there are answers to all of this.
I'm I'm steering, I'm trying to get you all to come up with your own answer here or draw your own conclusion.
There are answers to these questions.
There's specific answers to these.
There are explanations for all this.
So he I just don't want to sit here and declare it because then it's over and done with and we move on.
And I just, I want you to think about this.
Because on the one hand, what's the big deal?
Let me ask you that.
Why is it so risky to come out?
I thought there's nothing wrong with being gay.
What's the big deal?
What really is the big deal here?
I mean, because half the sports media is already telling us, look, there's already gay guys playing in the NFL.
You know it and I know it.
They just won't say so.
Well, why not?
What what what's wrong with it?
What is the big deal?
So now it's courageous.
So just why is there a political agenda attached to homosexuality?
Why is that political agenda hard left-wing liberalism?
Why is there no political agenda attached to heterosexuality?
Whatever ideology, what at whatever political agenda there isn't one?
But why is there to all why is what this guy is doing political?
Is it courageous because he's breaking down a barrier?
Is it courageous because he knows he's entering a shower stall with fifty-two other guys who aren't gay?
Is it courageous because he's going to get the Jonathan Martin bully treatment from the rest of the from the Neanderthals in there?
Is it courageous because he's brave in announcing his homosexuality in a macho world man's world of the NFL?
Is it courageous because he's willing to stand alone and take the arrows of being a pioneer?
What is the courage here?
What is the courage here?
And on that note, we'll take another obscene profit timeout here, folks.
Just sit tight, we'll be back and continue after this.
Remember something that I said last week, to help you understand the left, particularly leftists in the media.
Liberals believe that it is an act of bigotry to be an objective reporter.
Why?
Why is being objective bigoted?
The simple answer is if you are objective, it means you are not championing the victims that you see left and right as you go about your job.
If you are objective, it means you're not standing up for, calling attention to, making the case for members of minorities.
If you are objective, you do not look at the disparities in society.
If you're objective, you are not permitted to champion the victims.
Therefore, to be objective is to ignore the plight of the downtrodden, the victims, the victimized, so forth and so on.
So objectivity is not permitted because it's not permitted in liberalism.
Because liberalism must always side with failure over success.
Bad over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the profane over the profound because the bad are only bad because the good make them bad.
The people who are wrong are only wrong because the people who are right make them wrong.
They're victims.
They must be defended.
They must be promoted.
There must be an agenda attached to standing up for them because all injustice is the fault of the righteous.
All injustice is the fault of the powerful.
People who do bad things are not responsible for it.
Somebody made them do it.
Somebody else is responsible for them doing it.
Back to the phones.
Who's going to parcel this stuff out?
Little morsels here for you to chew on.
Now, oh, I got an email.
What do you mean?
A political agenda to homosexuality and there's no political agenda to heterosexuality.
I mean it exactly what I said.
Homosexuality has a political agenda attached to it.
What is homosexuality?
Same sex, same sex.
There is a political agenda to that.
There is no political agenda to opposite sex couples having sex.
There's nothing political about it.
What's political about same-sex?
By the way, if if I have a question from Mucho My Bell.
If Michael Sam, University of Missouri, announced homosexual, excuse me, Sniffles, is courageous for coming out and joining the NFL.
Would a bisexual player be half courageous?
Well, I'm just asking.
That's what I do here.
I mean, I observe and I react.
Would a bisexual player be half as courageous as a homosexual player coming out?
Oh no.
Here is Jordan in Tracy, California.
This is 11-year-old.
We have another child on the phone, 11 years old from Tracy, California.
Hi, Jordan, great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi.
Welcome to the program, sir.
I'm not a boy, I'm a girl.
Oh, you're a girl.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
I'm terribly sorry.
I I got that's my bad.
No, it's okay.
People I'm used to it.
At least somebody in your house finds it funny.
That's my fault for me when I'm in my bed.
Mom!
No, it's nobody's a beautiful name.
It's in fact one of my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Thank you.
Anyway, anyway, Jordan.
Uh uh, you're on the you're on the air, you're on the phone here.
Why did you call?
Can I call because I want to I want to ask you two things.
The first one is what's it like having a cochlear implant.
Well, it's a miracle in in one sense, because without it, I would be totally 100% deaf.
I mean, literally, I would hear nothing.
When I take it off, I hear absolutely nothing.
My grandma's deaf.
She's indefinite she is too, and she's teaching me language.
And I want to know what it's like.
Being deaf.
Well, let me, you know, the it is it's a great question, Jordan, actually, and you know why?
It's because you can you can close your eyes and feel what it's like to be blind.
But you you the a person who can hear, you can put earplugs in, headphones on, but you can still hear something.
A person who can hear really cannot understand what total deafness is.
It's impossible.
But if you want to find out what a blind person deals with, just keep your eyes closed.
And try to walk around and move around and do it.
Um the the thing that I tell people about about being deaf, other deaf people, and whether they should get a cochlear implant.
And one thing I've learned is that you know, being deaf is a disability.
Some people, you know, uh they call it a handicap or what have you.
But it is the only one, Jordan, and I I think eleven, you're old enough to understand this.
Being deaf is the only disability in life where other people get mad at you for not being able to hear.
People never get mad at a blind person for not being able to see.
People never get mad at somebody paralyzed from the waist down for not being able to walk, but a deaf person who has to say what or ask you to repeat something irritates people, makes them mad.
Many people think that deaf people really can hear, that they're just not paying attention, or if they would just listen better, that they would hear, they resent having to say things two or three times.
Uh, people that that are around deaf people a lot begin to think what an Arduous task they have.
Uh and if it's the only disability.
Your your grandmother, you could ask her about this.
I'm sure she would she would totally understand what I'm talking about.
Because even with the cochlear implant, um, you're able to hear noise.
And in a one-on-one situation like this, I'm able to understand most of what you say, but not all of it.
Because you're on the phone, the quality isn't that good.
But in crowded rooms, uh it's really, really difficult to make out what anybody's saying.
You hear everything, it just sounds like a racket.
Just sounds like incessant noise.
Just sounds like incessant noise.
Does that help?
Yeah.
And the other part is the other question is what's your favorite part and what's your favorite character in your story?
Oh, well, uh the book that's out right now.
I'll tell you more the I've got this.
The next book that we just announced on Friday that that is it it actually comes out on March 11th.
Um everybody loves Liberty.
It's fun riding the talking horse, but there are a couple of of incidents, and uh I'm running out of time here.
Jordan, I'm gonna have to answer this in the next segment.
We're gonna send Jordan in Tracy, California, a Ted T. Bear and uh audio version of um Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.
And this sadly ran out of time, right in the middle of the substantive answer she wanted.
Sit tight, folks.
We got another hour on the other side.
▲
Export Selection