Rush Limbaugh Program - June 10, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 10, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

28:37

June 10, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, how are you?
	We're back, El Rushbo, here behind the Golden EIB microphone, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	It's a thrill and a delight to have you here.
	Television number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
	You know, yesterday, the beginning of the program, I was well, we had a bunch of stories about the jobs report that came out on Friday, and I was in Europe all last week,
	and the European media reported over the weekend, must have been Friday afternoon, yeah, because it was a Friday afternoon, Saturday over there, that all of the jobs that had been lost have been recovered in the American economy is back to where it was, and it all happened under Obama.
	And I knew that couldn't be true because I went to the American media, a bunch of websites I look at, there was no such news.
	And I knew if that were true, that would be the only news there was.
	So yesterday there were all these other stories.
	Don't get excited about the jobs report.
	It's just the pre-recession levels that have been replenished.
	But there were still 7 million jobs.
	Shortness, I kind of surprised that the drive-bys were underselling it.
	And AP did again today.
	The number of working-age people with jobs is barely 6 in 10, reminiscent of the late 70s.
	5% of the employment may no longer be the norm.
	AP is not going along with all these other jobs.
	All the jobs are back.
	Narrative, if you will, which I have to admit, I'm a little surprised.
	If you've got the opportunity to run a story, American job recovery all the way back, why wouldn't you do it to help your buds in the Democrat Party and the Democrats, because it's not even close to being true, may not even be a factor.
	It's just a little observation.
	We've also had a couple of people call here with ideas what to do with all these immigrant refugee children.
	I have a better one.
	There was an idea offered by a caller a half hour ago to put them on a C-5, which is a giant military transport jet, and just fly them back to their home countries and let them get off the plane and let those governments find their parents and reunite the families.
	Since that isn't going to happen, I, El Rushbo, have a better idea.
	Why don't we take every one of these kids?
	We just opened a third military base to house these refugee immigrant children.
	Military bases, occupied military bases.
	We're putting them, we've now opened a third one.
	Why not take all of these kids and drop them in all of these wealthy counties in Washington and the suburbs of D.C.?
	Because that's where the new wealth in this country is.
	What is it?
	Seven of the top 10 wealthiest counties are Washington and the suburbs.
	Well, let's put them there.
	Let's drop them there.
	Let's have the policymakers actually have to live with the results of their policy.
	Why not?
	They get to stash them on military bases as far from public view, certainly their own view as they can.
	Put them in their backyards.
	Put them on buses, drive them through these counties, and open the doors every other block.
	Just to make a point.
	It was, ladies and gentlemen, it was this woman's name is Marie Harf, or Harf.
	And it was Saturday, State Department spokesper.
	I was right about this.
	No, I was wrong.
	I said she was Defense Department, but to the State Department.
	And what she had said was she's very snarky.
	She was arguing with whoever.
	Had to be the media.
	And one of them, by the way, was Andrea Mitchell.
	NBC News in Washington.
	She got into a heated argument with Andrea Mitchell over something different.
	But what I heard her say that just frosted me, the State Department knows far more what happened in Bergdon than his platoon members.
	They don't know what have we, we in the State Department, we are far better equipped to know what happened to Bergdong than his platoon.
	And so she's sitting there running them down, ripping his own platoon to shreds.
	So here you have the United States government.
	This woman is a spokeswoman for the State Department actively, eagerly ripping into American soldiers, what the left is perfectly comfortable doing.
	Remember, during the Iraq War, some lunatic alleges that the Marines in Haditha are raping and terrorizing women and children in their homes.
	And John Kerry believes it, starts talking about it.
	John Murthy believes it, starts talking about it.
	Britt Hume said the New York Times, he always knew, would never openly rip into the United States soldier.
	He might attack a commander, might attack a commander-in-chief, might attack a general, might go after the joint chiefs, but never in his memory have they gone after individual troops.
	Those days are long gone.
	Fascinating story.
	It really is.
	This is from the Sydney Morning Herald.
	Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is seeking a conservative alliance among like-minded countries aiming to dismantle global moves to introduce carbon pricing and undermine a push by Barack Obama to push the case for action through forums such as the G220.
	Let me translate.
	Obama is not just attempting to establish a carbon tax here, and he's not just using the EPA to this is something also that happened right at the beginning of my vacation.
	The EPA, it's been long coming, it was not out of the blue.
	The EPA was just going to institute regulations that would require power plants to reduce emissions by 30%.
	It was aimed at coal-fired power plants, and it's not possible.
	He was going to put a bunch of power plants out of business and in the process raise electricity rates through the roof.
	It's bad.
	And by the way, speaking of the Clintons, the first person who wanted to do this was Bill Clinton.
	He was the first guy to propose a carbon tax way back in the campaign for 1992 after he's elected and inaugurated 1993.
	This is a wet dream for these people, but Obama has really pushed the envelope, and the EPA has been granted the right by the Supreme Court to do this willy-nilly without any act of Congress, just require a 30% reduction in emissions.
	It isn't possible.
	We've got nothing to replace it with.
	There is no substitute for coal.
	There's no substitute for oil.
	Natural gas is the closest thing we have, but it still is not a total substitute.
	So the Prime Minister of Australia is trying to form an alliance of like-minded countries to oppose Obama on this because Obama is not just trying to wreck the domestic energy industry, but the world.
	He wants everybody to go along with his emissions plan.
	And of course, the CHICOMs will not.
	Oh, that's another thing that happened.
	This happened again very early when I was gone.
	Come on, Brian.
	What was the news agent?
	Was it AP Reuters?
	I forget one of the two.
	Ran a story quoting, ostensibly, an official from the CHICOM government saying that the CHICOMs would go along and reduce their carbon emissions by 30% if the United States did.
	And I think a lot of news agencies ran with this long story, big deal, because it represented a 180-degree change.
	The ChiComs have never said anything like this.
	And it turns out they didn't.
	The Chinese official who was speaking was not a member of the ChiCom government.
	He was simply a ragtag source that somebody in the AP Reuters, I forget where, found who was willing to make it look like he was speaking for the ChiCom government.
	The CHICOMs are not going to reduce their economic growth.
	They're not going to cut their carbon emissions by 10%, 5%, much less 30%.
	But it didn't matter.
	The American and European media decided to run a false hoax of a story claiming that they were going to.
	When they're not, this guy wasn't even speaking for the Chikom.
	So this to me is a hopeful sign.
	I've not seen anything like this before.
	Tony Abbott is the Australian Prime Minister.
	Tony Abbott seeks alliance to thwart Obama on climate change policy.
	That's in the Sydney Morning Herald.
	I'm sorry, folks.
	This is big, and this is something that ought to inspire Republicans domestically.
	The Australian Prime Minister is pushing back and trying to find willing countries to go along with him to stop Obama on this madness.
	I got a better headline than Tony Abbott seeks alliance to thwart Obama on climate change policy.
	The better headline would be, World Leaders Think Obama needs to be stopped because that's what this story is all about.
	More patients are flocking to emergency rooms under Obamacare.
	And this is the exact opposite of what we were promised.
	You remember?
	I see you nodding your head in there.
	We were told under Obamacare that trips to the emergency room by people would reduce drastically as people found coverage.
	As the uninsured got coverage and as health care and health treatment expanded, trips to the emergency room would decline in great numbers.
	And in fact, in fact, the Lul Courier Journal even says it wasn't supposed to work this way.
	But since the Affordable Care Act took effect in January, Norton Hospital has seen its packed emergency room become even more crowded with about 100 more patients a month.
	That 12% increase in the number of patients, many of whom aren't actually facing real emergencies, is spurring the hospital to convert a waiting room into more exam rooms.
	Lewis Perkins, the hospital's vice president of patient care and chief nursing officer, said, we're seeing patients who probably should be seen at our immediate care centers, and we're seeing this across the system.
	And as the reporter here is Laura Unger, again for the Lul Courier Journal, said, that's just the opposite of what many people expected under Obamacare because one of the goals of health reform was to reduce pressure on emergency rooms by expanding Medicaid and giving poor people better access to primary care.
	Instead, many hospitals in Kentucky and across the fruited plain are seeing a surge of those newly insured Medicaid patients walking into emergency rooms.
	Imagine, I know it'd be too easy to sit here and say, told you, but everybody, I did, but so did a lot of other.
	This was easy.
	There was no way that Obamacare was going to reduce the trips to the emergency room.
	Illegal immigration alone will see to that.
	But even without that, there was no way that Obamacare, such a mess.
	And we've had other articles there in the stack here reporting this same phenomenon.
	Instead of cutting down the number of people going to ERs, as we were promised, Obamacare is increasing them in Kentucky.
	Well, yeah, the premiums have gone down $2,500 average per person, right?
	That's what we were told.
	And why if you get to keep your doctor and keep your plan are you going the emergency room anyway?
	Oh, it's because you don't get to keep your doctor.
	I forgot.
	Sorry.
	All right, just to clarify, it was a UK Guardian on June the 3rd CHICOMS to limit carbon emissions for first time climate advisor claims.
	China, the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, will limit its total emissions for the first time by the end of this decade, according to a top government advisor.
	He Jiankun, chairman of China's Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in...
	He was not a member of the ChaiCom government.
	They totally, I don't know if the Guardian knew it at the time or if they fell for this guy's lie, but he was totally making it up.
	He was not.
	He's a professor at the University of Tsinghua.
	He is not a government official.
	He passed himself off as one, speaking as a typical professor, what he wished his government would do.
	And the UK Guardian fell for it, and a bunch of other people picked it up, and it was all bogus, like most everything in the global warming story movement, whatever is.
	Jim in Price, Utah, great to have you on the program, sir.
	Hello.
	Yes, thank you, Rush.
	Appreciate you taking my call.
	I'm a longtime listener.
	I just had a question on the path to citizenship.
	Yeah.
	And the path to citizenship, I thought we had one.
	I know back in the 30s and that, I'm just a little probably older than you, but well, we do.
	But the path that everybody's talking about now is the one that comes out of the shadows.
	But what I'm saying is that, you know, we used to have to learn.
	I say we, I didn't have to, but I mean, you know, the immigrants did, no matter where they came from, had to learn, you know, like the Pledge of Allegiance and how to speak English and learn, you know, who the president was.
	And they had two to five years.
	Why should they have to know more than the average citizen?
	Well, they shouldn't have to know more than the average citizen.
	Well, they would if they knew all that now.
	They sadly would.
	Yes.
	But those were requirements.
	You know, why do we have to sign this whole news?
	Well, that was part and parcel of assimilation, which is no longer part of immigration at all.
	Okay, well, that answers my question.
	I was trying to figure it out.
	I thought up a lot on a bunch of this.
	I just kind of wondered why you were signing a registered.
	You know, you had to have pictures, IDs.
	Hello, testing one, two, three.
	Pathway to citizenship is a leftist political creation that is designed to create an image in people's minds of a bunch of terrified, frightened, God-fearing, really good, decent people scared to death, hiding, afraid they'll be sent back to horrible conditions in horrible countries.
	And they're afraid to surface and show themselves.
	And we therefore need amnesty.
	Amnesty, forgiveness of breaking the law is the pathway as it is talked about today.
	Your old pathway to citizenship, meaning these are the steps, this is the law, this is the process, this is what you have to do.
	That's out the window.
	Now all you have to do is show up and look like you are a future Democrat voter.
	Well, I definitely agree with that.
	That's what it's about.
	About replacing a permanent underclass or maintaining one for the Democrat Party.
	Here is Kurt in Pittsburgh.
	It's great to have you, sir.
	Hello.
	Kern, thanks for being a beacon of truth in a culture of deception.
	Hey, I have a quick solution for the children in Arizona.
	I was thinking, why don't we just use the 2000 Elian Gonzalez doctrine, where it was so critical for the federal government to repatriate a six-year-old boy with his family in Cuba that we used law enforcement and everything to make sure that he was extracted and returned to his home country where he belonged.
	That was such critical importance back then.
	I think we forgot about that.
	So why not just use that doctrine to return the kid in Arizona?
	You know, that is actually very brilliant on your part.
	Oh, thank you.
	It really is.
	Elian Gonzalez, that's exactly right.
	He was a, his mother died while he and a bunch of other people with her were en route to the United States over the ocean from Cuba.
	His mother died and he ended up living with some relatives.
	And his father, Juan Gonzalez, was still back in Cuba.
	And of course, guns were pointed at him by Fidel Castro and others.
	And so a plea was made to return Elian Gonzalez to his father, Juan Gonzalez, who Fidel Castro said was a good worker.
	And the local family in Miami wanted to keep young Elian.
	You're right.
	He was six years old.
	They wanted to keep him.
	It was a great home.
	He was here in America.
	It was where his mother wanted him to be.
	He and his father and mother were split up or divorced.
	The Clinton administration, Janet Reno, ended up sending an armed to the teeth federal agent into that little house in Miami, stormed it, took that kid out of there.
	Juan Gonzalez was flown up here from Cuba, put in a hotel, paid for by the Clinton regime.
	They reunited a kid, sent him back to Cuba to grow up a young little communist.
	You are exactly right.
	They moved heaven and earth to return one kid to a communist country.
	So just use that doctrine now to apply it since that seems to be the standing.
	Yeah, well, no, here's Kurt asked the question: why doesn't that doctrine apply here?
	Right.
	That's my question.
	Yeah.
	Why don't we just, you know, we're role of law.
	Let's utilize past precedent for, and they said it was so important.
	You're right.
	So important.
	Family reunification.
	Get the child back with his real father, not some pretend aunt and her father.
	Get him back to his real family.
	This thing, you people, I'm sure, remember, if you weren't old enough to remember, this went on for weeks.
	It was a huge cause to Lebra.
	And the root of it was that the local, the aunt and her father, loving home, kids seem very happy, six years old.
	Why send him back to a hellhole?
	And Janet Reno could not wait to do it.
	She was in charge of the Waco invasion.
	And Bill Clinton couldn't wait to send this kid back.
	And yeah, we jump forward now, and here we have tens of thousands of Elian Gonzalezes, and there's no even pretense of reuniting them with their, well, take it back.
	Find the parents and bring them here is now the Elian Gonzalez doctrine.
	Anyway, that's a good point, Kurt.
	I'm glad you called.
	Way to go.
	Gene in Joliet, Illinois.
	You're next.
	Hello, sir.
	It's a privilege to speak with you.
	Thank you, sir.
	First of all, Rush, I'll get to my point, but I just wanted to thank you for the work you do on the radio.
	There's not that many sane voices out there anymore.
	And, you know, I remember back in 2008 when Obama first started running for president that there was only two people, and I searched the news diligently.
	There was only two people in all of broadcasting that was calling it like it was and saying, we better look at this man again.
	He's not what he seems to be.
	You were one of them, and Sean Hennity was the other.
	And, you know, I thought I was, you know, the crazy one because everybody is, even the people on, you know, the conservatives and all, oh, this is just great.
	And, you know, but you and Sean had a peg great.
	I thank you for that.
	More than welcome, sir.
	You realize that back in 2008, there were a number of dynamics, all of them dominated by race.
	In one example, Obama, and of course, you had, regardless of party affiliation, the historical possibilities of the first black presidents, you had a bunch of really decent, good people thinking electing him would be the end of racism.
	Then you had a bunch of Republicans who every day buy into the notion they are hated and despised, and so therefore they have to say and do things to try to prove to whoever that they're not mean and rascals.
	So they supported Obama for that reason alone.
	Just like when Holder was nominated to be Attorney General, a bunch of Republicans who knew he was a disaster couldn't wait to run to the microphones and praise the choice, hoping to get credit for bipartisanship, crossing the aisle, open-mindedness, all of that happy horse manure.
	And now we're where we are.
	And there was a lot of fear, Gene, in saying anything negative about Obama.
	But it wasn't hard to do if you kept it focused on policy.
	I always said, I don't, you know, the historical nature is over with after the election.
	After that, he's the president.
	It doesn't matter what color he is.
	His policies are all that matter.
	And that's what scared the heck out of me.
	Well, that's exactly right.
	And but you guys had him pegged exactly right.
	And your one quote that you made that you hope Obama fails.
	You know, a lot of people didn't get that.
	But I knew exactly what you were saying because I could see by his associates and by, you know, everything in his life, the Reverend Wright Church and all that kind of thing, that this man was not going to be good for the country.
	But boy, I mean, from day one, you had it pegged right.
	May I ask you a question?
	I'm sorry.
	I want to ask you a question, Gene.
	Sure.
	You just said that a lot of people didn't get what I meant when I said hope he fails.
	I assume you mean people you know, friends, acquaintances, people that you know in Joliet and elsewhere.
	But you're talking about average ordinary Americans who might not have understood us.
	Am I right about that?
	Yeah, well, plus, I mean, even in the media, I mean, I heard them.
	Now, they knew.
	The media.
	No, no.
	The media, this is my point.
	They knew what I meant.
	They took the occasion to misrepresent that on purpose.
	Oh, okay.
	What I'm seeing, I even went on Hannity's TV show to explain this in intimate detail.
	And I explained it frequently on my own program.
	And I explained it to Greta Van Sustran on Fox.
	And the people in the media, Democrat, they knew what I meant.
	But average people who were convinced that I actually wanted the country to fail, I never understood that.
	How in the world would anybody think that's what I wanted?
	It was the exact opposite.
	I wanted to prevent the country from failing.
	And what I meant was, I hope Obama fails at implementing his policies, his ideas, his transformation, because it wasn't any of it going to be good for this country.
	That's exactly right.
	I think a lot of the low information voters that you talk about, Rush, because they take the snippets and the soundbites of the Democrats and they run with it, and that's all they want to know.
	Well, there's a very great lack.
	That's not a good way of saying it.
	There's a huge inability on the part of a lot of people to critically think.
	There's just a heck of a lot of emotional knee-jerk reacting that takes place.
	But I don't care.
	I refuse to dumb myself down.
	Maybe I should try that.
	I just don't know how.
	I have been meaning to bring this up today, and I just saw a story that reminded me of it.
	During the Miss, was it Universe Pageant or Miss USA, whatever, one of the contestants, maybe the winner, said that women need to learn how to defend themselves In rape, and the feminazis had a cow, which is actually not hard for them to do.
	They blew up, they thought that was the most outrageous thing because that kept the blame or the responsibility on the woman and gave the rapists not an excuse or what have you, but they just thought it was very bad.
	And I just saw a story that there's a company making bulletproof blankets for kids to use in screws when a shooter erupts.
	And I thought, isn't that the same thing?
	I want to talk about this tomorrow.
	I don't have time to get into it now because I don't have any time, Drat, but there's always tomorrow.
	That's it, folks.
	Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence is in the can.
	Back, we will be in 21 Oras.
	Little Spanish lingo there.
	See you then.

▲