All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:20
May 8, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
There never are any mistakes because I never do anything wrong because I assign everything that I do.
I cannot do what I'm not supposed to do.
I am what is.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program at the email address, Lrushmore at EIB net.com.
I'll quickly uh some election news out of North Carolina.
You know, I don't get involved in primaries.
I never have gotten involved in primaries.
It's uh it's a it's from a from my standpoint, it's always been a uh just it's I don't know, the losing proposition.
It's just policy-wise, basically driven by my instincts, stay away from primaries.
Uh so I didn't talk much about what was going on in in North Carolina, and there was a lot going on in North Carolina.
North Carolina thought to hold the key election determining who will control the Senate.
The Republicans or the Democrats, particularly the Kay Hagen race.
So there was a big election past Tuesday, and there was a Tea Party candidate that a lot of people supported who got handily defeated by what is considered to be an establishment uh toady.
And that may not be quite an accurate uh representation.
I just I know some Tea Party people.
The Tea Party, by the way, is not a party.
It's it's a name.
The Tea Party is it's it's it's a coalition of of grassroots activists that have just come together.
There is there's no official Tea Party.
They're what people want to think you make you think they.
Yeah, they just they're idea people, and and they're not totally unified on everything, but they are they're they're identifiable by people who are fed up with the establishment of both parties, including the Republican Party.
They're fed up with the spending, they're fed up of out-of-control Washington, they're fed up with growth of government, they're fed up with that.
Uh and this Senate race in North Carolina, I talked to a lot of people who would you would think call themselves Tea Party people or sympathizers, who were not particularly in favor of the supposed Tea Party candidate there.
But that's not the race in North Carolina that's really explanatory.
The media is is taking that Senate race in North Carolina, and predictably they're running with the news that the Tea Party's dead, that it doesn't exist, that all these powerful people came out and endorsed this candidate and went down in flames.
It's the end of Ted Cruz, it's the end of Mike Lee.
You Tea Party people may just give up and either join the Republican establishment or shut up and go home.
I mean, that's the tenor of the coverage, and it's actually quite different.
There happens to be, there happened to be another election in North Carolina on Tuesday that is far more representative than the Senate rate race was.
And that was North Carolina third district, where the incumbent is a Republican Walter Jones.
And the Democrats and the establishment types in the Republican Party went in there.
There was a combined one million dollars spent on a single district race to get rid of the 20-year incumbent Walter Jones, and they failed.
And that is the true indicator of the strength of the Tea Party and of I would say that the weakness of the establishment and the Republican establishment wanted to get rid of Walter Jones because he went against the leadership on the debt limit vote and a couple of other really defining things.
So the leadership quick naturally was out to get him.
And the Democrats piled on, and they wanted his seat, and it went up in flames.
Walter Jones held on.
Let me read you an account.
In a race that saw big outside money spent by independent groups.
The Washington establishment suffered a defeat.
Now I'm not talking about the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate race to face Kay Hagen, which in the end was not really competitive.
No, and this is by Francis DeLuca, by the way, has written a piece here in uh Civitas.
I'm talking about uh North Carolina III, where the incumbent Representative Walter Jones defeated the challenger Taylor Griffin in a race that saw Griffin's D.C. and New York allies independently spend more than a million dollars to defeat Walter Jones.
And that doesn't count the money Griffin was able to raise for his campaign from the same well-connected crowd of insiders, enabling him to outrage Walter Jones in the final reporting period.
A million dollars goes a long way in Eastern North Carolina media market.
A lot of money for one district.
And I'll guarantee you, Walter Jones was supported by Tea Party voters.
And he won.
Proportionally more money was spent in North Carolina III than was spent on the U.S. Senate primary when compared to candidate spending.
The disparity is even greater when you factor in the cost of North Carolina III media market versus the cost of statewide media buys.
It's not an indictment of independent expenditures in campaigns.
It's not the point.
Campaign spending of all types is good.
It drives turnout.
There's no no, but this is not an anti-spending comment.
But in North Carolina III, the turnout was up over 60% from the primary in 2010, which meant that voters learned more about both candidates and they preferred the incumbent to the Washington insider.
The incumbent again had fallen out with the Republican leadership.
Walter Jones.
Why did this race attract such big money when everybody was focused on the Senate race?
By the way, Kay Hagen didn't have a prayer.
I don't think.
But it's early.
Too much of anything can happen.
But what a what?
As I say, this is this is going to be this November is going to be huge.
If if just half of the lies of Obamacare had been known, this wouldn't be a wave election.
We'd be talking, we'd be talking about the Democrat Party funeral.
It's one of the upsides there is in all of this.
Anyway, why so much money in this race?
Walter Jones, 20-year incumbent, got elected in 1994.
After having served multiple terms in the state legislature, Walter Jones' record best be described as independent, solidly conservative on social issues.
A social issues conservative one.
They tell you that can't be done either.
He has opposed increasing the debt limit.
He has opposed the bailouts that Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
So he's conservative on the financial side as well.
This last, by the way, is why the leadership is unhappy with him.
What appears to be his biggest flaw to his colleagues in D.C. was his falling out with House leadership.
That resulted in his being removed from his seat on the Financial Services Committee.
He was one of several GOP members removed from committee assignments immediately after the 2012 elections because he was considered to be, well, not traitorous, but he had he had strayed from the shackles of the leadership.
The 2014 campaign against Walter Jones looks like an attempt to send a message to other potential house.
This is what's key about it.
We're told that the Tea Party House Republicans don't have a prayer because of what happened in a Senate race.
We're told the media's got the Tea Party buried in these Tea Party House freshmen and other young Turks that are tea.
You bet you guys your days are gone.
The Tea Party's finished.
And the point here is that this campaign against Walter Jones looked like an attempt to send a message to other potential Republican renegades that the leadership and the D.C. establishment could come after you and beat you.
And they did, but they didn't.
They came after Walter Jones with big money and they failed.
And I think that race is a little bit more indicative, A, of the strength of the Tea Party, B, public moods and attitudes, and a predictor of future elections in North Carolina to what happened in that Senate primary.
Or yeah, the Senate primary.
Because even the establishment's guy in North Carolina, so so-called Tillis, I think was his name.
He didn't even get yet, he didn't even get 50% with all the backing that the D.C. establishment and the consultant class did.
He didn't even get 50%.
It was it was pretty pretty split.
The other interesting story in this election was the fascination of the media and lobbyists with the Walter Jones race, which is probably a direct result of Griffin's having operated in the bureaucratic media and communication circles in Washington.
So don't be don't allow yourself to be deflated by whatever the media coverage is out of North Carolina.
It's not all bad.
And in fact, there are a whole lot of positives to take from it.
If you are inclined to want to take positive.
Some people think that's missing reality and so forth.
But I'm telling you, they came after Walter Jones big time because he he disanged the leadership.
And they they threw a DC establishment inside the beltwater guy at him.
And the Republican establishment was aligned with the Democrats trying to get rid of Walter Jones, and they both failed with a million dollars in a single congressional race.
And look at Walter Jones, known for bucking the leadership on the debt limit, known to be a prominent social conservative, violated every tenant.
There's no way this guy should have won if America has become what they want you to believe it has.
There was no way Walter Jones wins, and he did.
Monica Lewinsky.
I made a prediction to you back on February 18th.
I want to replay that prediction because it is clear now that I was right about this.
Lewinsky scandal was going to be seen as cool.
What if they think it's cool?
What if they find out people that didn't know about what went on in the Oval Office and in the little study and the bathroom in the Oval Office with Clinton and Lewinsky?
And what if they find out what they think it's cool?
I mean, it's impossible to know.
But the odds are, given where pop culture is and where it's going, that maybe they would find it cool.
And not something that normal people would think is beneath the dignity of the occupant of the oval orifice.
Now, it is being seen as cool.
Now, in order to illustrate this, we need to set something up.
There's a couple things going on here.
Do you remember that Beyoncé song in which she uh the song had a video called Partition, and she sings about going to a club with her husband, but not getting there before things got steamy.
Remember that?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, here is a port.
This is only six seconds.
I'm sorry to do these quick soundbites, Anthony, but this is the nub of it.
This is the six-second excerpt from the song.
He popped on the buttons and he ripped blah blah car with Gidalama.
That was Beyoncé Carter.
Well-known pop Diva.
He popped on my buttons.
He ripped my Blayos.
He monica Lewinsky at all on my guy on.
And I remember saying at the time, wait, wait a minute.
He didn't Monica Lewinsky all over your gown, he built Clinton all over your gown.
What the hell is this lyric line?
So we had a caller on this February 27th, Jonathan in San Clemente, California.
He called a complain about this song where Beyonce Carter claims that her husband Monica Lewinsky'd all over her gown.
Yeah, I thought the same thing when I heard the Beyoncé lyric the first time.
So, what is this Monica Lewinsky all over her?
I I mean Lewinsky didn't do anything.
Monica Lewinsky all over.
And the point is, what do you Monica Lewinsky?
Bill Clinton all over Mon.
Great role.
That's your point, right?
That's exactly right.
He built Clinton all over Monga.
All right, so we made that.
We made that point.
Uh and so yesterday on the syndicated entertainment show, Access Hollywood Live.
Co-host Kit Hoover and co-host Billy Bush talked about Lewinsky's article in Vanity Fair.
She's such a good writer, Monica Lewinsky.
In this article, by the way, she goes on to correct one of Beyoncé's lyrics to her song, uh Partition.
And the song Beyonce says, he Monica Lewinsky'd all over my gown.
To which Monica responds, quote, thanks, Beyoncé.
But if we're bourbon, I think you meant Bill Clinton all over my gown, not Monica Lewinsky.
That's clever.
That's funny, even the same way she talked about Hillary in there.
She has a great sense of humor.
I mean, that's great.
A small but important fact.
Do we agree on that?
All right.
Nice to clear up.
What a bunch of wizards we have there, don't we?
Over at Access Hollywood Live.
Man, where would we be?
Where would our culture be without them?
Shine the light of truth on all this.
So they.
But did you hear this?
Oh, Monica, wow, she's such a good writer.
You see what's going on here.
She's such a good writer.
I mean, if I want it, I'd say Monica stole it from me.
But I wouldn't, I don't, I don't want to even think that's.
But it did.
I mean, who was the first to point it out publicly?
It was it was I, your beloved host, El Rushwo.
Now move on to soundbite number six.
This is Anna Navarro.
She's on CNN's newsroom yesterday, fill in host of Brianna Kear, or Keeler, I'm sorry, Keeler.
And uh Anna Navarro's a Republican strategist that works at the CNN.
She goes to the cigar dinner every year.
I see her there with Marvin Shankin' Cigar Ficionado Night of the Century Dinner every year for the Prostate Cancer Foundation.
And so the CNN hostette uh Brianna Keeler said, Look, so three alleged Clinton conspiracies in the course of a mere month.
Let's talk about Monica Lewinsky.
Some say, hey, this is good for Hillary.
It gets the Monica issue well out of the way.
Others are saying it's designed to hurt Hillary.
But you're not buying either of those, right?
I don't think there is any political conspiracy in the works here.
Not everything has to be a political conspiracy.
I can tell you that I have talked to many Republicans.
I was on the hill today.
Nobody's talking about this.
Nobody wants to talk about this.
This is a no-winner.
There's no way to win with this topic in politics.
It does not hurt Hillary.
You know, they have survived in politics for all this time with this story out there for 15 years.
She became a senator after that.
And it really is a toxic issue.
For the Republicans, don't even go there.
History is what it is.
Don't you, Republicans know the history if you're crying out loud?
Lewinsky did what she did.
Came up with the blue-stained dress.
Clinton lied to the grand jury, suborned her perjury, and look, they're bigger than ever.
You Republicans, you had better get with it and not bring this up.
So you can see what what what's in the process of uh of taking place.
It's all it was cool.
It was hip.
And if you Republicans try to go, you're not gonna be cool and hip, and they're gonna come get you, you're gonna suffer from it.
All right, one more sound bite here.
This is um this from yesterday's uh Fox show Outnumbered.
And they were having a discussion about Lewinsky's article on Vanity Fair.
By the way, the whole point of praising Monica is to keep her on the reservation.
You praise her to the hilt, you keep her on your side.
You know, she first she said that she first brought up the idea according to the New York Times, she first brought up the idea of writing a piece about her affair with Bill back in 2007.
Hmm.
I wonder why she thought about doing it in 2007.
But that turned out not to work out.
Now she finally did it, just as Hillary is getting ready to run again.
I think Monica might be positioning herself here for payday, big time rewards of some kind.
But this is because they're this is oh, this is a wonderful piece.
This is a wonderful, wonderful piece.
Now, this is uh the uh co-host of the show, Harris Faulkner, who is embarrassed, apparently, to mention that she is quoting me.
What it says here.
Harris Faulkner uh.
Well, here, let's just play the bite.
This this is it.
I don't often quote Rush Limbaugh, but I'm going to now because he says, and he asked the question does this actually prove the theory that Democrats are hypocritical when they talk about a war on women when you look at how uh the 19-year-old at the time was the person attacked.
He hates to quote me, but you know, that that's how you you maintain approval with the with with the with your with your with your peeps.
Look, I know but why couldn't she just say the yourself then if she agreed.
Anyway, she sees the hypocrisy here.
What war on women are the Republicans conducting?
When you look at how this woman, 19, whatever 20 years or whatever she was at the time, was attacked, even though it was consensual.
So there's that.
All right, I've got to take a uh a brief time out.
I have been able to get some calls because our system's been screwed up, but we're on the way to having it repaired and fixed.
So hang in there and be tough.
We will be back in mere moments.
Joe in Memphis, uh really appreciate your patience.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush, I love you.
I was calling about your books.
My books?
Yeah.
I had a comment.
I think there's a certain edginess to the book that I don't know that I've heard anybody mention yet.
Um my 17-year-old son and I both read your first book, and we're just starting in the second, and we were talking about something.
You know, today a lot of the um popular young adult novels, they take place in like a dystopian society, you know, like the Hunger Games and things like that.
And in each of these stories, there's this uh part where the hero kind of pulls back the curtain and discovers there's something very wrong with their society.
And in a way, my son experienced that in reality when he was reading your book.
Um he was asking himself why he's not learning these things about the pilgrims in school, and uh it makes it nice too because you back it up with actual historical references, and it's it's made him be able to open up to uh his friends.
My son's very conservative, but you know, he has friends who are kind of buy into the whole Obama stuff and everything, but it makes it very easy to persuade because there's actual historical references.
It's not a matter of just, you know, taking Rush's word for it or whatever, just look what he looked like, and you can't.
That's wonderful.
What's the thank you for that?
Because it's it's a real powerful weapon, and I think there's something kind of cool about it, too.
So how old is your son?
He's 17.
Seventeen.
Seven seventeen.
All right.
And the book, you know, it's interesting that you mention that the the popular reading material in this day and age for for young people is dystopian stuff, which is the opposite of utopia, which is a perfection, ideal, idyllic, also impossible.
Um dystopian is end-of-the-world disaster type stuff.
And you're right.
Young people are hit with that day in and day out.
In the media, in the media, they in movies, in uh books and stuff that they're reading.
So the edginess, you're you're just you're calling edginess in in my books.
How would you what what is the edginess?
I think the edginess is that in real life you're experienced.
I mean, we're we're you could say, I don't know how far into you know the hunger games or something we are, but there is a certain downhill trend.
And in reality, you read a book and and you're like, well, why is why have I never learned this in school?
And the edginess, I think, is that you're uncovering something that um is a it almost seems like a secret, but it's a positive secret.
It is fascinating.
It isn't taught.
It happens to be the truth.
That's the point of these books is the truth of the founding of the country.
Various elements of American history.
Pilgrims was first, Bray Pitt, Bay Patriots is second, and that focal event there, focus events, the uh Boston Tea Party, but uh learn about four key figures as well.
I think teenagers have a natural impulse towards rebellion, and in this case, it leads into a very positive rebellion in the sense who knows maybe these this generation will be conservative.
I don't know, because it's if you're rebel if you're gonna rebel against our society, it's very you know if you're rebellious.
How to have you do a commercial for these books?
Because that is that is quite shrewd because there is rebellion in these books, but y if you'll note there is a word in these books, two words that are used a lot.
One of them is freedom, and another one is liberty.
And that is what everybody in these books is seeking.
They're seeking an escape from tyranny, and they are willing to give their lives for it.
And this is you you're right.
This stuff just isn't taught anymore.
The people in the books that I write are portrayed as mean, bad, horrible people.
In the school system today.
Right.
Yeah, it's it's very powerful, and I wonder if if everyone really realizes what a powerful message.
And I hope that it's gonna, you know, hope there'll be many more books, and I hope that there's that kind of uh consciousness when you're when you're putting them together.
Because I think you're really hitting people that maybe you don't even realize you're getting.
So it's that I did not think we'd be hitting 17-year-olds.
I'll be honest with you about that.
And I and I also am pleasantly surprised that a lot of adults are saying, parents are saying that there are things in these books that they weren't taught either.
Uh for me, this is simply the recounting of what I was taught with some further research.
There are some things in here that I wasn't taught to.
Uh I never was taught the real story of Thanksgiving.
I was never uh I got close, but I was I was never taught that the original Plymouth colony practically didn't make it because they tried socialism.
I was never taught that.
Um there are number most of the stuff is is things I know to be true and the things I was taught, and the greatness and the things about this country I love with further historical research to have even things, and then take the reader right to each event via the time travel vehicle and put the reader as it happened part of the event.
That's that's the uh the fun thing to do.
Well, you're look, uh Joe, do you have do you have the audio versions of these books?
Well, um actually, yeah, miss I have the well, I have the first one, I don't have the second one.
We picked up the first book.
I'll s I'll send you the audio version of the uh of the second book.
And is it's the least I can do is say, hang on, Mr. Snerdley get your mailing address, shipping address, uh what have you.
I really appreciate Joe, thank you very much.
That's uh that's great, great review, and we really appreciate it.
Brief timeout back after this.
A liberal study has found that entrepreneurs are dying under Obama.
The Brookings institution found that for the first time on record, U.S. businesses are being destroyed faster than they're being created.
And Obama, he's out here yesterday and last night, and he's telling these these uh these these assembled sycophants that that forked over sixty-four thousand, thirty-two thousand dollars to hang around with him, that he's worried that there's this dysfunction in America.
And there's no reason for it.
Everything's going great.
Reasonably optimistic.
America's best days are ahead of it.
It doesn't make any sense here.
Right.
Dysfunction.
Malays.
For the first time on record, U.S. businesses are being destroyed faster than they are being created.
In fact, the American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last 30 years.
Not an accident.
And it is not the fault of what Obama inherited.
Do you know there's still people that say that in the media?
Well, you know, Bush, he really wrecked it with the Iraq War and everything, and Obama, he's worked real hard.
He's just haven't been able to put it all back together.
I can't believe there are people that still think that, but they do.
Now, the Brookings Institute study famously doesn't answer why all of this is happening.
They just point out that it is.
Brookings data show that new firms entering the market spiked between 1983 and 1988.
I wonder what was going on then.
That's the biggest spike of entrepreneurialism in new firms, 1983, 1988.
What was going on then?
It was the Reagan years when he cut taxes and regulations and off to the races.
It happened again during the period of 2001-2006.
What was going on then?
That was the second big spike.
That was George W. Bush following 9-11, in fact.
And in both instances, personal marginal income tax rates were cut across the board.
In both instances.
We've had two in the last 30 years, two five, six-year periods of really big increases in business startups and entrepreneurism.
By the way, with all these high-tech startups, even with all of that, we're still losing business faster than we're creating them.
It is the worst recovery on record in modern times.
Daytona Beach.
Hello, Bob.
I've got about a minute and a half, but I wanted to get to you, sir.
Thanks, Russ.
It's a pleasure talking to you.
I'm 25 year old listener.
And uh my father's gonna envy me today.
Uh I want you brought up the issue about the insurance company from that Kaiser uh article.
Well, it already happened with my company.
We were pulled into our office in uh March of this year, and we're informed that we're being dropped and we had to go into the uh Obamacare system.
And uh basically it's a company of about 15 people, and all our insurance rates basically doubled.
Well, so your company didn't wait.
It just went ahead and did it.
Yes, we were told that we had to do it.
Uh the insurance company came in and gave us about five different uh different insurance companies that were in the authority.
Well, did you do okay?
Were you able to get what you got or had at the same price?
No, not not my my premium doubled.
About my insurance double.
Coverage didn't double.
Folks, are you hearing us?
So his company got a head start on this, even though they don't have to do this until 2014.
So they had five different companies come in pitching them on different plans, and the premium doubled.
Once his company had canceled health insurance as a benefit.
And we will be right back.
Richard Sherman, Seattle Seahawks with no leverage.
No he had nothing on him.
Signed an extension with something like 40 million dollars guaranteed.
Seattle Seahawks uh cornerback doesn't like the crab tree guy.
And immediately said the NFL would not get rid of an owner like Donald Sterling if they have an owner whose team name is Redskins.
So he's on the way to getting his reputation back with his guys.
▲
Export Selection