All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
March 25, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, okay, okay.
So it wasn't the AP.
Okay, I'll fix it.
Jeez.
Man, oh man, I just can't, you know, I am not allowed even the slightest error.
I have the slightest error.
Hey, you said, you did.
Most people are allowed to learn from their mistakes and grow.
When I make one, it's like there goes everything I've ever worked for.
Greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushbo, the EIB network.
It turns out it was not the AP for chiding me for saying Obama wouldn't do what he did.
It was theblaze.com.
Okay, so big whoop.
There, I fixed it.
It's written here kind of crazy.
It says theblaze.com update via the AP.
Then I come down and read this thing.
It says, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh last week said, turns out the Blaze wrote this, not the AP.
What?
All right, fine.
All right.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh last week said that President Obama should push for harsher punishments for Russia over its aggression in Ukraine.
He argued Obama and his allies should kick Russia out of G8 and the IMF, but predicted the president wouldn't push for such action.
But on Monday, the Washington Post reported Obama plans to urge world leaders to indefinitely suspend Russia from the G8.
It is this what the Blaze wrote.
It's unlikely that the White House is taking foreign policy advice from the king of talk radio in quotes.
That's why I thought it was the AP writing this and not the Blaze.
But it appears that Limbaugh may have spoken too soon.
Well, let me just tell you something.
As far as Obama doing something that I said he would never do, some people might say that that's one of the benefits of living rent-free inside his head.
How about the possibility I use reverse psychology to get him to do what I want done?
I mean, I would never suggest such a thing.
I'm just putting out the idea.
Suppose I'm using a verse like, you know what we ought to do?
We ought to suspend Russia, kick him out of G8, but Obama will never do it.
Obama here is, oh, yeah, watch me.
In addition, let me tell you something.
Let me play this second sound bite and then give you a little news that's not going to be too comforting from the Washington Examiner.
So at this joint presser with the Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Ruta of The Hague, the chief White House correspondent, Jonathan Carl, with a pre-approved question, said, are you concerned that America's influence in the world, your influence in the world is on the decline, Mr. President?
And in the light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America's biggest geopolitical foe?
If not Russia, then who?
With respect to Mr. Romney's assertion that Russia's our number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that America's got a whole lot of challenges.
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness.
They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States.
I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Oh, man, is the fuck, this is so loaded.
This is this, a few minutes here to dissect this.
In the first place, the truth of the matter is America's got a whole lot of challenges.
And Russia, just like a gnat, you know, a chihuahua chewing at our ankles.
Russia is a regional power threatening some of its immediate neighbors, but not out of strength, out of weakness.
How does it work that you conquer a new country and put them under your rule out of weakness?
How does that happen?
And if they're just regional, what the hell are they doing in Venezuela?
If they're just regional, what are they doing in Nicaragua?
If they're just regional, what are they doing in Cuba?
If they're just regional, what are they doing with eyes on Estonia?
If they're just regional.
But how is all this happening out of weakness?
How does that work?
Well, yeah, it's a cry for help because this situation in Russia proper is so bad that Putin has to reach out to other countries to take what he doesn't have in his own country because he's in such bad.
Is that how it works?
They don't pose the number one national security threat to the U.S.
Okay, well, who does?
The THICOMs?
The Iranians?
This next line, he says, I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Has he been reading spy novels?
I just finished reading three spy novels where that was the plot line.
And in every one of these spy, I know he's got to have heard this from somebody.
But where if a nuke going off in Manhattan, now presumably that would mean that somebody like Al-Qaeda got the nuke and set it off, not the Russians in Obama's scenario.
So where would Al-Qaeda get a nuke?
Or where would they get the material?
You would need highly enriched uranium.
You would need some plutonium.
And if you didn't have enough of that, you'd need some beryllium.
And you would need some sort of a missile-type structure to house all of this.
And you would need all kinds of technical expertise to be able to put all of this together.
But you would need to get HEU, the highly enriched uranium.
You need 93.5%.
You can't do it with less than that.
Where would they get it?
Who lost control of some of their nuclear arsenal way back in the late 80s?
I think it was Russia that lost control of a lot of its nuclear army.
You remember Russian former Red Art Army generals were putting these things on the market and selling them to personally enrich themselves when the Berlin Wall went down.
Who knows what's out there nuclear weapon-wise?
Pakistan has a nuke.
The Israelis have a nuke.
India has a nuke.
We, of course, have a nuke.
THICOMS have a nuke.
The Israelis have not announced that they have a nuke, by the way.
It's just widely assumed and properly so.
But Obama just announced to the world that the greatest threat facing the U.S. is a nuclear bomb going off in Manhattan.
That that's what he is worried about the most.
Now, is it, would you be interested in knowing that Obama was also at this very meeting bragging about how he's downsizing the U.S. military?
Right here it is in the Washington Examiner.
Obama stresses U.S. military cuts in EU interview.
It's in a story about Obama highlighting his European ancestors during his trip.
But he made a point in this interview to brag about how he is reducing U.S. military force to World War II levels while claiming that Romney doesn't know what he's talking about.
Russia is just a regional power.
And Russia's horsing around in the 21st century.
Nobody does that.
Or in the 19th century, nobody does that.
This is the 21st century.
This is just, folks, this is amateur hour, is what this is.
I mean, that's the point here.
And Russia's not kicked out of the G8.
They're simply suspended.
AP, Russia faces more sanctions, G8 suspended.
And they've got this from the article.
Angela Merkel says that the European Union will impose more sanctions on Russia following its decision to annex Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and will suspend all G8 meetings until the political situation changes.
We're going to suspend the meetings?
You mean we're not going to do the meetings and suspend the Russians?
We're going to suspend the meetings?
How's that hurt Putin?
I would think if you're going to suspend him from the G8, the G8 goes ahead and meets as the G7 with Putin out there supposedly knocking on the door wanting in.
But Merkel said we're going to suspend the meetings until the political situation changes.
Again, I just want to remind everybody that this is the kind of thing that matters and it will not be said this way anywhere else.
But all of these, Germany, Germany has led the way in this move to energy production from the weather.
And that is really the best way to illustrate the folly of it.
Germany's got so much to prove, as you know.
Germany has this massive guilt complex that's going to be around for a while, massive chip on the shoulder.
Germany tries harder than anybody to show they're new and not anything like they used to be.
Don't even think about Germany the way you thought of us back in the 1940s.
No, no, no.
And just to show you how progressive we are, BAMO.
And they've got the fastest growing economy they're doing the most damage to.
So they're just now getting more and more of their energy production coming from the weather.
Solar panels and windmills.
While Putin controls 40% of the natural gas that gets into the EU.
And they can suspend him all they want, but it's not going to reduce their need for what Putin has and they don't.
And there's no way that the EU can replace 40% of their natural gas usage with the weather.
Just can't be done.
And then there's this, ladies and gentlemen.
Remember the name George Lakoff rhymes with?
Well, he's back.
George Lakoff is a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.
What that means for you low information people, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics means that he sits around and thinks about words all day and how to use words in order to be the most persuasive to advance the liberal cause.
And then he sends the results of his thinking to leaders of the Democrat Party who then take his data and poll test it and focus group it to see if he's right.
Because it's all about a mirage with these.
It's all about image.
Liberalism has to exist as far from reality as they can and still maintain credibility while trying to persuade people to join them.
Liberalism cannot be full-fledged, honest, and grow its ranks.
So a guy like Wackoff, who specializes in words that fool people, is one of their gurus.
And the latest results of George Lakoff rhymes with research is that the word homosexual is a bad word.
Gay people do not like homosexual.
It irritates them.
They don't like the word when it is used.
He has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant, and he has concluded that people who disapprove of homosexuality, you'll use the word homosexual instead of the word gay.
Because he has determined that homosexuals don't like the word homosexual.
They think they're being criticized when that word is used, which goes to my point here.
Gay is a word stolen from the language.
Homosexual has a specific meaning, but we can't use it.
That's exactly what a guy like Lakoff does.
Okay, take away a word that has a specifically marriage.
Oh, no, no, no.
Marriage, man, and no, no, no, no, no.
Marriage, we've got to redefine that now.
So Lakoff says he's looked at the way the term homosexual is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant.
And what is most telling about substituting it for gay or lesbian are the images that homosexual, the word, tends to activate in the brain, he said.
Gay doesn't use the word sex.
Gay doesn't connote sex.
When you start talking about gay men or gay women, you're not talking about the kind of sex they have.
I mean, it's understood and known, but it doesn't connote it.
Lesbian doesn't use the word sex, but homosexual does.
It's right in there, S-E-X, part of homosexual.
And homosexual also contains homo, which is an old derogatory that used to be around.
And he's right about that.
Homo used to be an insulting, derogatory word.
So he said they want to have that idea there.
They want to say that this is not normal sex.
This is not normal family.
It's going against God.
And they use homosexual to convey that.
Lakoff says that those of you who describe homosexuals as homosexuals are actually saying they're not normal and their sex isn't normal and their family isn't normal and they're going against God.
So you have to use gay because gay doesn't connote any of that.
Now, if, here's what Lakoff means, I'm sure.
If there were an obvious gay public official that were being discussed, say on this program, and if I described this person as a man who likes to have sex with other men, I would be ripped to no end, right?
If I used, if I said, pick a net, it doesn't matter who it is, it's just a known figure who's gay.
Let's see.
I don't know.
It doesn't matter.
If instead of my saying such, such is gay, if I said, oh, yeah, look at that TV anchor.
He likes having sex with other men.
They would.
And Lakoff's point is that when sex, any notion of sex enters the thought process, when they homosexuality, homosexuals lose.
So they can't have any thought-created revolving around sex.
So the word gay is used, and homosexuals are not.
So where this is going to end up, what they're then going to do, they're going to go out and they're going to look at Republican candidates.
This is what this means.
They're going to look at Republican, probably running for state senate someplace, a state legislature who calls gays homosexuals, and they're going to harp on this guy as the next Todd Aiken.
This is what is being set up.
And this is a New York Times story, by the way.
For many gays and lesbians, the term homosexual is flinchworthy.
And it's just indicative here.
Liberalism cannot survive or liberalism, liberals very uncomfortable when they are accurately described their behaviors or their politics or what have you.
And so they have to hire guys like Lackoff to come up with less damaging ways to say things.
Just got a note from a friend.
It's a good point.
Hey, Obama says he worried about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
I thought the war on terror was over.
It's a good point.
Who's going to put a nuke in Manhattan if the war on terror is over?
Todd Aiken?
Some crazy wacko right-winger?
Who's going to do it?
Bob and Ava New York as we start on the phones halfway into the program.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Thank you.
Great to talk to you again.
Boy, you're harder to get in touch with than a man with his feelings.
You've just been waiting to use that line.
Oh, for two years.
Yeah, I bet.
I have two questions.
Number one, where does the Obamacare penalty money go?
And number two, can you start your own insurance company, if you have enough money to do it, to cover your own insurance and you would not have to pay the penalty?
You know, I thought of that.
That I'm sure that somewhere in Obamacare, and if it isn't, Obama would write an executive order to prevent it.
I'm sure that there is some provision Obamacare saying that you can't start your own insurance company to insure yourself because that's self-pay and that goes against the nature, the spirit of the law.
Now, it's still an interesting idea, just to tweak them.
Something to toy with, as far as where the money goes, it goes where all tax revenue goes.
It goes to the debt.
That's the wrong way to put it.
Theoretically, the money that people are paying in fines is going to go to the same place that the money people are spending on policy is going to go.
It's going to go to insure the elderly or to treat the elderly or to provide coverage for the uninsured.
I mean, this is the stated theory.
My point is, we're $17 trillion in debt.
What is it?
This is just where's the money going to go?
However, Obama wants to use it is where it's going to go for whatever political purpose he has in mind.
But as far as the way they would officially answer it, it would be to cover the elderly and the sick and the young and short.
And we'll be back.
Don't go away.
Look, folks, the reason why I hesitated on the answer to the question, where does the money go?
Now, by law, it goes to subsidize people.
People can't afford it.
I mean, that's.
But the fact of the matter is, the news is out today that the administrative costs of Obamacare are twice what they're taking in from everybody.
Be it people signing up and paying, be it people paying fines.
It's like everything else.
The money coming in is dwarfed by the amount of money going out, by the amount of money being spent.
I've got the story somewhere here in the stack.
And it's just, it's, it's, I don't know, folks.
It's just, it's, here it is.
I just happen to stumble at it.
Obama's, Obamacare's regulatory costs more than double the benefits.
Right here in the Daily Caller, the annual cost of Obamacare regulations.
This is just the regulations.
This is not even the, you know, $900 billion it supposedly is going to cost.
This is the regulations, the annual cost of Obamacare regulations came in at almost $7 billion a year so far.
That's two and a half times the total benefits of these regulations.
It's just insane.
It's absurd.
The federal government's estimates of Obamacare's regulatory benefits, what they project in increased efficiency or productivity due to streamlined processes and standards, clocks in at $2.6 billion annually as opposed to the cost of complying with all of the regulations, which is $7 billion.
I mean, I don't, this is beyond describing.
Let me see if I can translate this for you.
Clear the official broadcast.
We did every, no, we said we're going to do it to lower costs.
That's just, there isn't a person that voted for this that thought it was going to lower costs.
There's not one Democrat that voted for this that thought it was going to lower costs.
They said so.
They all said it would.
I mean, Obama lined through how many times your premium is going to come down $2,500.
Keep your doctor, keep your plan strict across the board, lies.
But this, folks, this is not even care.
We're not even talking about treatment here.
These are just the regulations, the thousands upon thousands of little sentences that have been added to Obamacare that allow whoever to do what as they shall determine.
The estimates of these these regulations are supposed to streamline the whole process and reduce costs and make it all more efficient than it was when the private sector was doing it.
The government, once again, even though it's never succeeded at this, the government was going to do it better.
They were going to do it more cheaply.
They were going to do it more efficiently.
They're going to do it costing less money.
Social Security, better than the private system.
Whatever.
Medicare, better than private system.
And it's never been the case, and they promise the same thing here.
So the regulatory benefits, what they project in increased efficiency or productivity due to streamlining $2.6 billion.
That's how much money they save.
The cost of complying means the people who are subjected to these.
A regulation is a law.
Let's put it this way.
They call it a regulation because Congress didn't vote on it.
Could be a regulation, the FDA, could be a regulation from the EPA, could be a regulation from Health and Human Services.
Kathleen Sebedius, right, a regulation, meaning something somebody has to comply with.
What these numbers say is they came up with these regulations that they, in their brilliance, thought would save money and streamline processes.
And the people subject to these regulations, the amount of money these regulations are costing, is two and a half times what we're saving.
If we're saving anything, I mean, that's probably a bogus assertion in itself.
Obamacare's regulatory costs more than double the supposed benefits from those regulations.
Another pull quote: a large portion of the costs come from the paperwork burden that Obamacare places upon states and private companies.
Implementing the law takes 159 million paperwork hours a year for state governments and the private sector.
Implementing it, following it, putting it into action.
That is an amount that would take close to 80,000 employees working 50 weeks per year full-time.
That's 40-hour weeks, by the way.
That's how much it costs people to comply to enact all these brilliant cost-saving regulations.
Obamacare authorizes at least 11 regulations that will have a significant economic impact on small business, including mandatory labeling for restaurant menus and vending machines, caloric content, nutritional value labels, and payment systems policies, among others.
The total bill for complying with these cost-saving new menus and all that, $1.9 billion for small companies, according to the regime's own public numbers.
So, where does the money go?
It doesn't matter.
We don't have it.
We are spending twice as much as we are, quote-unquote, saving.
Two and a half times what we're taking in is one way to look at it.
I'm running out of ways to characterize what a disaster it is.
It's like some of my golf shots.
You know, folks, I hit sometimes golf shots that are so bad I couldn't do it if I tried.
And that's what we're talking about.
You couldn't screw something up like this as bad as they have if they were trying to.
Literally, I hit golf shots that people playing with me said, could you do that again on purpose?
No, I don't have any idea what I did in the first place.
I mean, the ball goes places that physics says it's not possible for it to go.
Like a shot that ends up behind you that never hits the ground.
Could you do that every shot, Russia?
I mean, it might be a good way to approach the green if you've got a trap.
I don't know how.
But I can do it when I'm not trying.
That's what these people are doing.
Screwing it up.
So bad that it's happening when they're not even trying to.
Jim in central Illinois, as we head back to the phones, really, all of you on the hold, I appreciate your patience.
You too, Jim.
Thank you.
Hello.
Thank you, sir.
I have a question.
Do you think the Republicans or the Democrats or either one of them are serious about what's going on in Crimea and the Ukraine because it resembles exactly what Hitler did when the Second World War started when he went into Sue Dayton land with Obama playing Chamberlain?
Well, if you're asking if I think the Washington establishment made up both Republicans and Democrats think this is serious, no, because they don't think it's an issue that you or anywhere near a lot of voters care about or would vote on.
A. Number two, they don't think this is anything like Hitler.
That's never going to happen again.
We've got systems in place.
That's never, Jim, anybody that says that, their reaction to what you just said is, come on, that's insane.
You're a kook, and there's no way Putin isn't Hitler.
Nobody's that stupid.
Nobody's going to ever try to do what Hitler did again.
And if you think that's what this is, you're just off the rails.
They don't in any way think there's any similarity.
And I don't think either party establishment really, I know Obama does.
Obama's doing what he's doing because he knows he has to.
There are certain elements of our population that expect the United States to at least say the words that represent our world power, superpower status.
Whether we do anything with those words is irrelevant to them, but no, I don't think.
I just cannot believe, I just cannot believe that these our politicians, our leaders of this country, could be that ignorant.
They're not leaders, is the question.
Well, I agree.
I agree, sir.
I totally agree.
I agree.
I just don't believe they could be that ignorant.
Although, everything that you just told me about people saying what you thought they might say about me, I've heard all of it.
Yeah.
I've heard all of it and worse.
And I just cannot believe that people could be that ignorant.
Apparently they are.
I'll tell you what it is.
It's a combination of ignorant.
People just don't want to believe it.
They don't want to deal with it as a real possibility.
I agree.
This is not the 1940s.
If you compare standard of living today to then, if you compare the relative peace in the world to then, remember, people you're talking about today weren't alive then.
All they can do is hear about that, but they didn't live it, so they have no real basis of comparison.
In their world, this kind of stuff doesn't happen.
That's what Kerry means, by the way, and Obama when they, hey, this is the 21st century, this 19th century crap doesn't happen anymore.
When's Putin going to wake up?
So in a lot of people's minds, Hitler, not possible.
The Russian czars, well, not possible.
All of the historical instances of Leaders, countries conquering and subjugating.
That doesn't happen anymore.
We're too globally connected with Twitter and the internet.
It just, it didn't happen.
So when you come along and posit that we've got an element of history repeating itself, people, no, no.
In addition to not caring, they don't want to believe anything like that happened.
So they just scrub it from their minds.
I agree.
May I say one thing, sir?
Yeah.
I lived and worked in England for nearly seven years and became very friendly with a lot of people that I worked with.
In fact, a lot of them are more like family than they are friends.
And I've worked over there, and I got to know a lot of people that were older than I am now.
And a lot of them went through the Second World War.
And if you could understand how those people suffered because of what Chamberlain and most world leaders said at the time about Hitler, you'd understand where I come from.
Well, no, I do.
My parents and grandparents did.
Well, my grandparents did.
My grandparents raised me, so I knew it anyway.
But then I got the opportunity to go over there and work, and I got it full force.
I mean, I visited the Ardennes from the First World War.
I visited most of the majority of the people.
Wait, wait, wait.
And you're right.
They don't lose it.
Just a minute.
You just lost the low information crowd when you said you visited the Ardennes.
You've got to tell them what that is.
I said it.
It's the ignorance of not knowing history.
Just tell them what it is.
Yeah, the Ardennes.
Well, that was a famous battleground, if you will, during the First World War.
And I said, what, they lose 60,000 in two days?
Well, it was also relevant in the Second World War.
Again, it was the same thing.
It was the Battle of the Bulge.
It was the Ardennes Force.
But I'm telling you, people don't know that.
You start throwing those terms around.
That's why they're going to think you're a kook.
When you're not, you know your history.
They've never heard Ardennes.
What's Ardennes?
Is that French?
Is it?
What's Ardennes?
Is it somebody's name?
They just don't know.
But you're right.
My parents and grandparents, I mean, the Soviet Union and its claims was what it's why they did what they did.
It's why they cared about what happened to their kids.
Because we had Khrushchev and others claiming that they were going to imprison their kids.
Bury, we will bury you and your children.
Khrushchev.
They took it seriously.
They had to.
Two world wars over people like this.
I got to take a break.
I'm way long.
I'll be back here in just a second.
When I said, I just want to clarify here.
When I said to our last caller, he asked me, do you think Republicans, Democrats care about Crimea, what Putin's doing?
I said, no.
He said, I don't think they're leaders.
What I meant by that was, I think they're followers in the sense they follow polls.
And if they look at a public opinion poll and they see that 10% of the American people care about it, then they're not going to care about it.
They're going to waste any time on it.
Because it's all about, for the Republicans, they're losing.
They're going to find new ways to rebrand and reach the peoples.
They're trying to figure out how to reach idiots.
That's who votes for Democrats, and that's who the Republicans think they need.
So they're working hard on reaching idiots, the low information segment.
And they think they've got to, well, maybe look for amnesty, maybe do something that blows up this whole war on women, BS and so forth.
The last thing that they are considering is showing leadership on things because they think that's going to be portrayed by the media and the Democrats as being out of touch and what have you and not concerned about what's happening to people like me.
See, that question in the 2012 exit poll has got the Republican, there's a lot of things have it paralyzed, but that question is one of the many things that has the Republican Party utterly paralyzed.
Cares about people like me, Obama, 81%, Romney, 19%.
So that is why that question and answer, that poll is one of a host of reasons why the Republican establishment believes that a majority of the American people want a big government.
That is why the establishment doesn't want to hear from conservatives about smaller government, lower taxes, because they think that a majority of people who vote want a big government.
So the Republicans are trying to figure out a way to reach those people by saying, hey, we're right in there with you.
We want to run the big government you want.
We'll do it smarter.
And we'll do it wiser.
And we'll do it better.
And that question, in doing so, in having that position and that attempted outreach, they think they can close the gap in the cares about people like me question.
So that's why I say that they are not leaders.
They're simply following the polling data right now.
And of course, so are their consultants who are then advising them on what they have to do to keep losing.
Okay, we have an hour left.
An hour remaining, ladies and gentlemen, to sit tight.
▲
Export Selection