All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:11
May 12, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to lie on the Sunday shows.
It's in his new book.
Not surprising.
But I guarantee you, there are going to be a lot of people that are going to be shocked at this.
What do you mean would have him lie?
Ever heard of Susan Rice?
Greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, executing aside host duties flawlessly zero mistakes.
Great to have you here, folks.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Timothy Geithner, it'll Timmy.
By the way, the Treasury Secretary didn't pay his taxes for a while.
He was the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
He's Yale or Harvard, one of the Ivy League schools with all kinds of degrees and money things.
And he claimed that he didn't understand turbo tax.
He wanted to pay his taxes.
It just, you know, three years and it just, you know, it just didn't happen.
Oh, it's okay.
He can still be Secretary to Treasury because he wanted to pay his taxes.
He just made an honest mistake.
That Timothy Geithner.
He says the White House wanted him to lie in scheduled appearances on the Sunday TV talk shows.
Here's what he says in his new memoir that absolutely nobody will care about.
I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say that Social Security did not contribute to the deficit.
But I objected.
It did contribute and it does contribute to the deficit.
But the regime wanted me to say that it didn't.
It wasn't a main driver of future deficits, but it does contribute, Geithner writes.
Dan Pfeiffer said the line was a dog whistle to the left, a phrase I had never heard before.
He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democrat base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.
So what he's saying here, he had to go on the Sunday shows and lie and say that Social Security did not have anything to do with the deficit.
They had to send a dog whistle to the left.
They had to send a coded message.
Don't worry, we are not going to be touching your Social Security.
And that's how they wanted Geithner to send the message.
Because Dan Pfeiffer thought that the Democrat base knew enough to understand that it wouldn't be touched if it had no impact on the deficit.
Of course, Geithner would not be the only official from the regime to have misled the American people, Susan Rice, and practically everybody else in this regime has done the same thing.
It's studied.
It's exactly what Victor Davis Hansen's talking about in his piece today, National Review Online, which is that's what I'm asking.
How do you lie and say he just went out there and lied?
He writes about it.
It's no big deal because he knows there's not going to be any consequences.
There weren't any consequences then, and there aren't going to be any consequences now.
HR just shouted at me here in the IPA.
How do you do that?
How do you just go out there and lie?
Well, ask Obama.
How does he do it?
How does he get away with three years in a row?
How many different times?
You like your doctor?
You get to keep your doctor.
You like your health care plan?
You get to keep your plan.
You like your insurance?
Get to keep it.
You tell me how they get away with this.
That's not a mistake.
It's a flat-out lie.
We who do not lie are called on the carpet and attempted to be ruined and destroyed for simply saying what we believe.
These people get away with lying.
And the whole point of Victor Davis Hansen's piece is: how does this happen?
Look at it.
I'm really interested in this.
I'm fascinated.
I think the cure for what ails us resides here in everybody understanding this.
Because I think this covers every liberal politician.
We could talk here about Pelosi or Obama or Gore, any of them.
But talking about the system that permits them to get away with their lying or their hypocrisy or whatever it's the worst things.
To me, this is the fix for what ails us is found here and somehow conveying it to as many people as possible.
Let me, since you asked, let me go back.
I wasn't going to go back to it because I don't want to bore people with this, although I'll tell you, this fascinates me, folks.
This whole subject of fascistic political correctness.
Who are these nameless, faceless people that are wielding all of this power?
Who is it that is able to get Brendan Icke thrown out of the entire technology industry, not just canned as CEO at Mozilla?
Who is able and how?
All he did was give $1,000 to a proposition that won Prop 8, California, a proposition which affirmed that marriage is that between a man and a woman, a union between a man and a woman only.
That is now called hatred and bigotry, and it cost him his career.
Well, who makes this happen?
Who has the power to pull that off?
Yeah, they say it was this website, OkCupid.
Well, who are they?
Well, Barry Diller owns it, or owns a part of it.
Did Diller get behind it?
Or does he even know?
Who are these people that are able to make this happen?
Who are these people putting pressure on the spineless person that ran Mozilla who wrote that absolutely insane, incomprehensible explanation for why they got rid of the guy?
Who are these nameless, faceless people putting all of this pressure on?
Who are these people everybody's so afraid of?
Where does this mass inertia begin?
Here's Victor Davis Hansen on Al Gore.
As for Al Gore, he can't really believe in big green government, or he would not have tried to beat the capital gains tax increase when he peddled his failed cable network to a petrodollar-rich Al Jazeera whose money comes from the very sources of energy Gore claims he hates.
Well, let's relive that for a second.
So Al Gore tries to create this TV network, the owned TV network, which social network on cable TV.
It didn't work.
It bombed big time.
He sells it.
And he sold it, timed in a way to beat an Obama increase in the capital gains tax.
Now, if Gore really believed in Obama-ism, he would wait and sell the network and pay the taxes if he really believed.
And he supports the increase in capital gains, but just not for himself.
So after he does that, it then is revealed that he sells his network to people he supposedly despises.
A oil-rich, Middle Eastern petrodollar zillionaires.
Al Jazeera, which is Qatar.
Their money comes from oil.
Al Gore supposedly hates it.
What's he doing in bed with them?
Why is he not called on the carpet for?
Why does he not lose credibility with people?
Why do people who think that Al Gore is the guru on global warming not look at that hypocrisy?
And why do those of us who point it out, why are we all of a sudden the bad guys?
And Gore skates.
Do you make millions of dollars and then in 11th century fashion repent so that you can enjoy them all the more?
Gore certainly in the past has not lived modestly.
The carbon footprint of keeping Al Gore going, housing, travel, tastes, is quite stunning.
And the Steyers, again, this is Tom Steyer and Gores of our human comedy know that it is lucrative business to appear as though you care about the environment and that by doing so, by appearing to care, you can keep your personal life largely exempt.
It's the same thing as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates constantly talking about the need and their support for raising taxes on the rich.
Well, they're inoculated.
The hordes are not going to be coming for their money.
The two richest people in the country support raising taxes on themselves, but you don't see them making tracks to the Treasury Department to give up the money.
What do they do?
They shelter as much of it as they can.
Trusts, charities, what have you.
They're not making a mad dash to pay taxes.
They want everybody else's taxes to go up.
That's what they say.
That's the investment they make.
They just say that there needs to be an adjustment to tax code, that the gap between the rich and the poor is just way too wide, but they don't do a damn thing to narrow the gap.
Yet they get all the credit in the world for caring and being on the right side of the issue.
The 1% fetish is also not really ideological.
Victor Davis's, Hansen's point here, this is the same as our caller a couple weeks ago.
His point is they really don't believe it.
Elizabeth Warren, one of the greatest supporters of the radical left, is not just a 1% member.
She is in the 110th of 1%, the top 110th of 1%, her house habits, her household income, her house itself, her house habits, staff, that kind of thing, past corporate consulting, her net worth all reflect that she really likes profits.
And she really likes living a lifestyle that most Americans can't.
Her life is about as much a part of the 99% as she is Native American.
She is not worried about welders getting some work on the Keystone Pipeline or farm workers put out of their jobs in Mendota, California over a bait fish.
Again, plastic banana, good time rock and roller phonies through and through.
look at how they inoculate themselves.
Obama is the same way.
He's out talking about income inequality, but this guy is living the life of Riley on other people's dollars like there is no end to them.
None of these people actually live lives they say are necessary to save the planet, not just be good people.
Paul Krugman, New York Times, eloquent about inequality and about the sort of insider privileges that give so much to so few.
He's really upset about that.
But there is nothing about his own circumstances to suggest that he lives the life he professes, as opposed to professing abstractions that psychologically make the quite different life he lives more palatable.
Certainly, Krugman's liberalism means that few care that he once worked in the Reagan administration, that he was a paid advisor to Enron, or that he has just taken a part-time $225,000 post-retirement job at the City University of New York, one that at least initially requires no teaching.
They're just going to give him $225,000 to get his name on the list of the faculty.
He'd have to teach.
He'd have to show up.
It's like a Michelle Obama no-show job at the hospital in Chicago.
Given what the city of New York, University of New York has said to pay its exploited part-timers, university could have offered 75 courses with the salary it's going to be paying Krugman to do nothing.
Put another way, Krugman will make the same as do 75 part-timers who each teach one class, so thus one class more than Krugman will teach.
Bravo for Professor Krugman to have marketed himself so well and to have earned all that compensation that the market will bear.
Too bad for the part-timers at the university who don't understand market-based.
In other words, here's a guy, Paul Krugman, same thing with Elizabeth Warren.
They're out there chasing personal profits as fast as they can rake them in.
And they are living grandiose lifestyles based on those personal profits all the while writing and talking, condemning everybody else and getting grand credit for it.
Being thought to relate to average people.
I'm sure that most of these numbskulls think that Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren care about people like them.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
They're looked at with contempt, snobbery.
NAALCP, does the NAACP stand as our watchdog over racism?
Well, in theory, yeah, but in fact, not so much.
The LA Branch is cited here by Victor Davis Hansen and all the awards they gave Sterling simply for money.
Al Sharpton, Person of the Year award from the same branch, is no less absurd than Sterling's Lifetime Achievement Award, given that Sharpton's on record as being an anti-Semite, a homophobe, an inciter of riot, a former FBI informant, a tax delinquent, convicted defamer of a district attorney, and yet he's beyond criticism.
None of these people is ever held accountable for anything they do or anything they say.
Nothing, folks.
Nothing.
And yet, they are allowed, Encouraged, supported, permitted, what have you, to go after people they don't like and try to literally destroy their lives and careers if they want to.
Nobody says anything about it.
Again, it is thought by some that this is going to collapse on itself because of its own immorality and just the fact that it's so devoid of truth that it's going to, it's so corrupt that it can't go on.
And that's where I part ways with them.
I see it expanding, becoming more powerful.
I don't see anybody willing to stand up against it.
They tell Condi Rice, you can't speak.
She says, okay, fine.
I don't want to make anybody miserable.
It's all very problematic for me.
And now it's become predictable.
And even that doesn't matter.
Even though you know what's going to happen, even though these people, you can predict their insanity and their lunacy.
It still happens.
Got to take another break, folks.
Be back.
Your calls are coming up.
Okay, to the phones we go.
We're going to start with Dave in Fort Oglethorpe.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you.
It's a wonderful opportunity to speak to you, Rush.
Greetings and mega dittos.
Thank you very much, sir.
Appreciate that.
One of the things I've been observing is the rush to bring the world consciousness into saving these girls when it seemed like we got the same thing before the attack in Iraq when the women in the United States were, well, the liberal women were complaining about the horrible things that were happening to women in Iraq.
And so therefore it was a wonderful thing that we should do and we should drop what we were doing and run and help these people.
Wait a minute.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what did I miss?
When did women in this country ever say that they cared about what was happening to women in Iraq?
Well, I can't tell you.
Did they praise George Bush for going in there?
No, Nancy Pelosi specifically endorsed going then there.
And then after a while, when she got pressure from her cohorts, she backed up and said, you know, before I voted for it, I voted against it, or that kind of thing.
And I think that it's a real tragedy to be scared, frightened, to actually try and find a consistent support for doing something that's morally great.
I don't remember this.
I know Saddam had rape rooms.
I don't remember women ever demanding that we go anywhere in the Middle East to fix what's going on with women there.
El Rushbow and have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, as always.
There's one, somebody George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush for a second.
You remember Mogadishu?
This is key.
This is, and it may not be key, but it's interesting to remember this.
We kept hearing, this is 1990, 91, somewhere around there.
Kept hearing about atrocities in Somalia.
And then one day, starving children and this kind of thing.
Then one day, the front page of the New York Times, now this is before Fox News Day, the only cable news network out there is CNN, 1990-91.
That's it.
There is no basically this program, maybe a couple other radio talk shows on the conservative side, but CNN was the only national cable.
There might have been something over at NBC that was just beginning to gurgle, but not much.
Newspapers still were the dominant shaping media of the day.
And the New York Times on the front page published a photo, black and white, above the fold, of a child in Somalia starving, wasting away with insects flying all around its head.
And the collective cry in the media was, we've got to do something.
We cannot sit by and let this happen.
Now, there was no Twitter, and there was no MySpace, and there was no Facebook.
So there was no hashtag.
There was an actual demand that Bush do something, and he did because of a picture on the front page of the New York Times.
We sent an invading force into Somalia.
CNN had reporters on the beach awaiting their arrival.
This deployment eventually became Black Hawk Down under Bill Clinton.
But that's another story.
My point is that a picture on the front page of the New York Times back in 19, whatever it was, 90 or 91, resulted in action to feed starving children.
And there was this dictator, this warlord over there by the name of Mohammed Zaheer Zahib Skyhook or something.
And he was the bad guy.
And it wasn't enough to condemn it.
There were the equivalents of hashtags back then.
There were people standing up and verbally saying they condemned it.
And how horrible is this?
And this is outrageous.
Why, this does not happen in a civil life.
That was not enough.
You couldn't get away in 1990 or 91 doing the equivalent of a hashtag.
That didn't buy you anything.
Now, admittedly, Bush was a Republican.
And Republicans don't ever get any credit for caring about anything.
It's always said that that's faked, that they don't really care.
Republicans are haters and bigots and all that.
So anytime they actually care about something, they're accused of faking it.
So Bush, to show that he really cared, deployed the military to go in there.
And we eventually found out that the warlord was actually stealing all of the aid that was being sent in from world charitable organizations, much like we are the world.
All that food was stolen too in Ethiopia.
But my point here is that a hashtag didn't get you anything.
The equivalent of a hashtag didn't buy you one smidgen of good intentions.
It didn't buy you one 25th of a big heart.
Saying that you were outraged and demanding that something be done about it didn't get you anything.
You had the United States actually had to do something.
Now, here we are in 2014.
We've had 100 to 300 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped, and we don't have to do anything today with video of the schoolgirls, with video of the kidnappers.
All we need today is a hashtag, and that now suffices for taking action.
Some people even think it is the equivalent of taking action.
We've had some soundbites from people already today.
It is working, some woman said, one of our first soundbites today.
It is working.
That's just a small example of how the symbolic and how the image of something or the buzz of the PR has come, how far it has come to replacing actual action and substance and actual results.
The hashtag does it all now.
It says that you care.
It's the equivalent of taking action.
And if something happens, if a deal is made, you wait.
If a deal is made with these clowns to give them whoever they want back in exchange for the girls, if that all plays out somewhere down there, the hashtag is going to get the credit.
And Michelle Obama, you're right there at the top of the list of those who forced the bad guys because they were afraid of the hashtag.
John Corning, New York, welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
What an honor, Rush.
Thank you very much for being the purveyor of truth.
Well, we're trying.
And speaking about purveyors of propaganda, which is the left, and the only way they get their power is to create what's called disco sheep.
Dependent, ignorant, stupid, compliant, obedient sheep.
That's what they want.
And when Reagan went over the wall in Berlin, he didn't preach.
He lived what he believed.
He told them, and this came out of his speech a couple of times, but the last moment, he put it back in there.
And he told them, tear down this wall.
And he backed that up with his Star Wars program.
That wasn't just a threat.
And he preached anti-communism.
That was his life.
They believed him.
He led from the front.
Now, when you seek truth, which is what you seek, and which is what you disperse to your listening audience, truth, I have an acronym for that, Rafi.
Reliable, accurate, factual information.
And those who hate America and hate freedom and liberty, they hate Rafi, reliable, accurate, factual information.
And that's how the left gets their power through their disco sheep.
And I'm so tired of it, Rush, but I'm thankful and grateful that you are there.
Well, John, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Reagan, it's another good point.
Reagan went to the Berlin Wall.
Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall.
He was standing right there.
He actually went there.
And there was no, you didn't get away with the symbolism of a hashtag.
Whatever the, and there was the equivalent of it back then.
There was the equivalent of a hashtag.
I mean, you didn't have social media, internet-wide, but there were things that people did that were a symbolic expression.
You didn't get away.
That did not get anything done.
I mentioned moments ago that Ann Curry broke her ankle while out there hiking in the New Jersey woods.
And it's an interesting story about how she got out of there.
In her role, this is some Yahoo News.
So the low-information crowd's going to gobble this up.
They're going to see it.
Boy Scouts rescue Ann Curry after TV journalists hurt on hiking trail.
Ann Curry has reported from some of the world's hotspots, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Darfur.
Oh, there's another example.
Darfur, George Clooney.
We've got to do something.
We've got to.
So Clooney goes to the White House, has a meeting with Obama, come out.
Hey, we've done something.
We had a meeting.
Are not we great people?
We care.
Didn't do anything.
Darfur's still there, and whatever was going on then is going on now.
But Clooney is considered a great humanitarian with a big heart and somebody who really cares.
Lots of compassion.
Probably goes and talks to the U.N. about it now and then, too.
Like Sean Penn does, or like Angelina Jolie.
Hey, really, really care.
Big, big achievements are hard to find.
But it's the way it works.
But real achievement is mocked.
Real substantive achievement is suspected now of not being real.
Somebody really wildly successful or achieves great things.
They had to cheat.
Or they had to screw somebody.
Because it just can't happen.
Anyway, we're really so convoluted out of phase.
Anyway, writing in Scouting magazine, Brian Wendell says that scouts from Berkeley Heights in New Jersey encountered Ann Curry on a trail in the Harriman State Park in New York.
I'm sorry, I said New Jersey.
She was in New York.
She'd broken her ankle.
Yep, we were hiking along and we came to a trail intersection, said scouter Rick Juergens, and a lady was sitting on the ground with her one leg out and we didn't think anything of it.
But one of the guys asked if everything is okay.
She said, no, not really.
I think I broke my ankle.
She told us to keep going.
This should be okay, but the guys refused.
Although Juergens said he recognized Ann Curry's voice instantly, his fellow scouts had no idea that it was the famous TV journalist.
Regardless, they went to work creating a splint for Curry.
Yeah, we work on these requirements.
Here's an opportunity when it was a true test of all those first-class, second-class first aid requirements, Juergens said.
We got to use it.
We had to use it for real.
These scouts did an outstanding job.
However, Curry still wasn't able to make it down the trail on her own after they'd put the splint together for her ankle.
So the Boy Scouts started running into the woods and they returned with wood, which they combined with tarp, to craft a makeshift stretcher to help carry Ann Curry to the trailhead where her husband and son had gone for help.
By that point, Forest Rangers had shown up after Curry's accident was reported.
They said, is there somebody up there who needs rescuing?
They said, nope, nope.
Scout said, nope, nope, taken care of.
And then after all that, the scouts drove Ann Curry and her family to a nearby hospital.
Ann Curry then hand wrote a thank you letter.
It was delivered to each of the nine scouts involved in the rescue operations.
She said, I feel enormously lucky you came along at just the right moment.
We're so willing to help a stranger in need.
You are a credit to the Boy Scouts and to your families, and I want you to know I am deeply grateful for your kindness and skill.
On Friday, Ann Curry also wrote a thank you tweet to the scout troop for her 1.43 million followers.
Now, you may know that the Boy Scouts of America is on a hate group list.
The Boy Scouts of America, the Southern Poverty Law Center, this Mark Potok clown, and others have put the Boy Scouts of America at the top of groups who hate and who are bigoted because of their refusal to have gay scout masters and so forth.
And yet, this happened.
I don't know how.
The group of there's a picture of this group of Boy Scouts here.
And there's not a one of them looks like a hater to me or a bigot.
Ellie Benghazi select committee in the House is going to proceed with no Democrats, at least as we stand now.
Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House, has rejected the terms of the Republican-created select committee on Benghazi.
Well, the Republicans are moving ahead without them.
I frankly think that would be better.
We don't need them.
If the Democrats want to abandon this thing or boycott it, that's just fine with me.
They can't turn it into a circus and distract it and basically destroy it.
That's why I think they eventually will show up so that they can do that.
And there's this, Pelosi says I'm going to show up, but there is some guy out there, what's his Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, I think he's from Illinois, but he's saying they still might show up.
Now, there are two articles.
Becera, Democrats will participate if the Benghazi panel is fair and open and balanced.
So you see, they're telling the media, well, we're not going to show up.
This is unfair.
It's unbalanced.
It's a bunch of right-wing extremists trying to get to the bottom.
We're not going to play any role in that.
But if they change their mind, if they make it fair, and if they make it equal, and if they are interested in equality, then we might show up.
That's from thehill.com.
The Washington Examiner says that Pelosi has rejected the Republican terms or the terms of the GOP-created select committee.
So the Republicans are moving ahead without them.
Now, according to this first article in the Washington Examiner, the Democrats say they want veto power on the subpoena of witnesses.
That is exactly how we got to the situation where we are today.
If they had veto power over the subpoenaing of witnesses, that means they could veto any witness that might have anything to contribute.
It's exactly why we're where we are now when most of the top people involved with Benghazi were not interviewed by the so-called accountability review board because they were not produced.
The Democrats vetoed their presence.
Now, Xavier Becerra says they've not demanded that veto power.
But my guess is that what the Democrats are doing is focus grouping.
They're testing this right now.
They're out-polling it with people, and they're asking for results in the poll.
What if we demand veto power?
What if we don't?
Just to get people's reaction before they make a demand on this.
But I can't believe that when push comes to shove, that they will sit this out.
This is just, this is too crucial.
And they know, with Trey Gowdy as the chairman of this select committee, that this isn't going to be something that's just for show.
This is not going to be something designed to turn out Republican voters.
Trey Gowdy is going to get to the bottom of this by hook or by crook.
And I don't mean he'll be unfair or unequal, but he's a prosecutor who's never lost a case, and he will get to the bottom of this because he cares deeply about what happened and how.
And the Democrats just can't allow that.
They can't permit that.
Just like they can't permit the truth of this IRS scandal, Lois Lerner and all that to be revealed in its entirety.
So eventually, I think they probably will be part of this once they get their polling back that tells them the most effective way they can behave and proceed.
Okay, folks, fastest three hours in media, two of them in the can.
▲
Export Selection