All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:25
May 27, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh.
The reason for that is, and I am doing what I was born to do.
Very blessed in that regard.
Happy to have you with us, my friends, our daily tour of the world.
And what's happening out there?
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address.com.
By the way, that Gallup poll on uh on morality and how the old morality is falling by the wayside.
And the new morality, which is an attack on the old morality, is just riding great great guns here.
From that same story, the Gallup poll, kind of this this little note.
The Gallup poll found that polygamy and cloning humans have also seen significant upshifts in moral acceptability.
Really?
Really?
Polygamy on the upswing now being defined as perfectly okay and moral by more and more people.
Try to tell that to the Feminazis.
And then cloning.
That's I don't know.
That's that's a toughie.
They're trying to imagine low information voters answering questions about cloning humans.
Yeah, that could probably see it.
Check out this very this this un PC definition of marriage.
This is from the 1989 version of the old Oxford uh dictionary, or the Oxford English dictionary.
Here's the definition of marriage in 1989.
Uh communal marriage, the system of prevailing, I'm sorry, the system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples by which within a small community, all the men are regarded as married to all the women, and vice versa.
Sometimes called group marriage, sometimes called polygamy.
Primitive people, primitive people believed in this kind of stuff.
In the old definition.
And now what primitive people used to believe is becoming mainstream acceptable.
And there's no end in sight once you once you blow up the definition of marriage.
Okay, back to the audio sound bites.
Uh I mentioned earlier that, you know, after NPR finished their attempted defamation of me, we then turn to WNYC in New York.
This is New York City NPR, and the Brian Lara show.
Speaking with the uh Albany Bureau Chief Ken Lovett, the New York Daily News, about New York City politics.
And here's the question.
Former city council member Peter Vallone Jr. is now running to be a judge in Queens, tweeting about foreign policy as if he's Rush Limbaugh or something.
Former city council member Peter Vallone Jr., now running to be a judge in Queens, tweeting about foreign policy as if he's Rush Limbaugh or something.
Eye-popping He certainly put out a lot of interesting tweets to say the least, including just a barrage bashing President Obama over everything from ISIS to, you know, his silence at first when the uh NYPD cops were assassinated.
He ripped him as the appeaser in chief.
Wow, this Democrat sounding like Rush Limbaugh.
Well, that's eye popping.
So if apparently, my name is always right on the tip of their tongues.
And and right at the front of their brains, no matter what the issue.
And when when they have a Democrat that they think goes off the reservation, they don't call him Coaches.
They call him Rush Limbaugh.
It's just amazing.
This morning on CNN's new day, Chief National Correspondent John King speaking with the senior political editor of the Daily Beast, Jackie Kucinich, and the Yahoo News Chief Washington correspondent, Olivier Knox, and they're talking about the latest court ruling against Obama's executive amnesty.
And that this this goes back to the the both the Washington Post and the Politico are just beside themselves because they think that this this this court, these two judges, well, the three judges in the Fifth Circuit and Judge Hannon in Texas are destroying Obama's legacy with only a year and a half left, they're destroying his legacy.
And here's how CNN's discussing it.
The Republicans are celebrating this because they want to get in the court, but do they win in the long run if you look at the demographics of presidential elections?
If this issue is still being debated and litigated in our politics, when we get to October 2016, you can make a case that if you look at Florida even, uh Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, a lot of states out there where the Latino vote could be the key decisive vote, and in the last two cycles, overwhelmingly to the Democrats.
Depends on the tone.
It really depends on how they talk about the issue.
Sure.
And you know, a court agrees with us is not a terrible message to take into a campaign, but I think this might be the last time, the last cycle uh where the Republicans can thread that needle.
This is I how do I say this?
In the last two midterm elections, the Democrats have been shellacked, and these people are in an utter state of denial.
In their world, the Republicans are constant, daily, always losers.
And they're always on the wrong side of everything.
And they always trip over their own feet and their own words, and they always mess it up.
While all that may be happening, the Democrats are losing major power all over this country.
And folks, let me tell you something else, the Democrat Party is quaking in its boots over.
It's something else that is soon to be handed down a decision from the Supreme Court.
I have here both the Los Angeles Times, well, Los Angeles Times story and a Los Angeles Times uh analysis on this.
Supreme Court could deal California a one-two punch on redistricting.
I'm telling you the left is really worried because if the short version of this is that if the court rules a certain way, the districting that has been done in LA to emphasize Latino and minority votes could be blown to smithereens.
In recent years, California voters have backed series of changes to the state's election system to reshape the political landscape.
Now potential upheaval is brewing again, this time from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Next month, June, the Supreme Court will decide on a case challenging the legality of independent commissions to draw congressional district lines.
On Tuesday, the court said it would consider whether state and local voting districts should be based on total population or eligible voters.
That's a big distinction.
Both cases could have enormous implications in California, where voters first approved citizen-led redistricting panels seven years ago, and where the state's burgeoning immigrant population has contoured the political map regardless of eligibility to vote.
What's happened here in California?
We were talking last week about what happened.
I mean, you go up 1988, Richard Nixon won California four times, Reagan won California twice.
As recently as 1988.
California could be counted on in the Republican column.
And then what happened in 1986, Simpson Mazzoli immigration, and it began the end of the Republican Party's existence in California.
And while all that happened, they started redrawing congressional districts out there, not the state legislature, but they set up independent citizen panels, and they drew congressional districts based on demographics and population, not registered voters, because there's a lot of illegals that couldn't legally register.
So they drew the lines based on total population.
And it it obviously had deep meaning for elections and campaigns and so forth.
And that's what is now being threatened.
The Supreme Court, depending on the decision that could come down.
If the court issues Rulings overhauling this process, it could be a one-two punch to the gut to California, said Bruce Kane, professor of political science at Stanford.
Now, I don't have uh time to get into all the nooks and crannies of this.
But here's the analysis piece headline will give you an indication of the degree of fear and trepidation that exists.
This is Kathleen Decker, a news analyst at the LA Times headline, once aided by courts, can Latino politicians survive a Supreme Court decision.
So if they throw out the way, California has been drawing districts, which has been done to influence the Hispanic population where it lives and make congressional districts out of almost 80, 90% Hispanic population.
If that goes out the window, then all kinds of planning and future, yeah for the future, the Democrats have made the Hispanic vote shaping Democrat Party power and politics could also be out the window.
This is not, this case is really flying under the radar out there.
But it is very, very important to the Democrat Party, and particularly in California, which is why the LA Times has two different stories on this today.
So these people they can sit around here like whoever this was can love it.
No, not Ken Love it.
John King and these guys on CNN.
Well, they can talk about how the Republicans are blowing it and how the Republicans get scared and what everything goes wrong in elections.
It's the Democrats, I'm telling you.
This is what's so frustrating.
If we had a Republican Party with any confidence, we could be taking advantage of all these defeats the Democrats are incurring.
2010 and 2014.
It's just a matter of confidence.
Well, there's one other possibility that always must be acknowledged.
And it it has to be stated that many in the Republican establishment may no longer believe what we believe.
They may actually believe in open borders.
They may actually believe in Obamacare.
By the way, I've on Obamacare, I think this is not hard to read the tea leaves.
The Supreme Court case, the Burlow case on these subsidies, it is clear the Republican Party is worried sick they might win this.
Yeah, I meant to say it that they're worried sick they might win this, because a Republican so-called victory would declare Obama's federal subsidies illegal, which would mean they go away.
It wouldn't mean people have to repay the money, although it could, depending on how thoroughly people wanted to interpret it, but it does mean the subsidies would stop.
And that's for the Republican.
Oh no, God, no, that blame us.
Oh, gee, Mabel.
Oh no, we're gonna hate us again.
Why did we ever try to win it?
And I think there's a lot of Republicans who have simply in their minds, you know what?
This talk about repeating Obamacare is BS.
We're never gonna do it.
It's the law of the land.
We got to turn it into something at least workable that we can support, because there's nothing we can do, but I think that's the prevailing opinion in the Republican establishment.
Do not doubt me on this.
I think all this talk about repealing Obamacare was electioneer talk, and it was designed to get you thinking they meant it.
And maybe at some point in the campaign they did.
But where we are now, I don't think they want the work.
Obamacare is the law of the land.
Okay, we've got our health care problem solved.
If we throw it out, or if it's gutted, oh my God, can you imagine the amount of work to rebuild it?
Oh, uh with the Democrats and the media attacking us every day and killing us every day.
Oh, geez, not worth the trouble.
I think that's a prevailing attitude in the certain people and levels of the Republican establishment.
Speaking of Obamacare's a great, great piece today at uh the what is the way less government website, I think.
Let me let me make sure of this.
The way things print out sometimes, I want to make double.
Well, it's typical.
The web link didn't print.
Seton Motley, who posts at redstate.com and a number of places, has a uh website, yes, less government.org is what it is.
And he's uh got a piece yet another oh, this is based on if you heard this, that one of the ways, one of the uh strategies that some of the states have on this whole Supreme Court case, the Burwell case and subsidies and so forth, it's right here in the Hill.com exclusive.
States quietly consider Obamacare Exchange mergers.
You want to talk about a nightmare.
A number of states are quietly shh don't say anything.
They don't want us to know.
They figure because it's in the Hill dot com, we won't see it.
But we did.
So shh.
A number of states are quietly considering merging their health care exchanges under Obamacare amid big questions about their cost and viability.
Many of the 13 state-run Obamacare exchanges are worried about how they'll survive once federal dollars supporting them run dry next year.
It's another dirty little secret of Obamacare.
It's just like Clinton's 100,000 cops.
The feds paid, I think 75% of the salary the first year, 50% the next year, and by the third year, the local community had to totally pay all salaries for all new cops hired under Clinton's plan.
With Obamacare, the states are given assistance on subsidies for the first couple years, three years, and after that, the states totally are responsible for subsidizing.
This is one of the many Obamacare tricks of offloading the cost from the federal government to the state in order to get the total cost to the CBO under a trillion dollars, so it would not be seen as a budget buster back during the original days.
They could say it costs no more than the Iraq War, which we're ending.
But at some point, the states can't print money, like the federal government can't.
And they don't have the money, plus everybody running to Medicare.
They don't have the money to provide these subsidies.
So the states that signed up and are offering subsidies.
All of them are in dire straits, and they are thinking the only way out is to merge 13 of them.
They want to create multi-state exchanges as a contingency plan for this looming Supreme Court, Supreme Court ruling that's coming up.
Okay, it isn't working here, it's not working here.
Let's combine the two.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Don't care.
I still never heard of Josh Duger until all this happened.
I still don't know who Josh Dugar is.
Is it Duggar?
All right.
Anyway, back back to the phones.
Uh, this is Chris in Woodlake, California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Megadiddle Crush.
Uh longtime listener, first-time caller.
Hey, I wanted to ask you, the liberal media spend so much time focusing on what they say is lies by you.
If they were such lies, why do they spend so much time focusing on?
Uh well, I can mean I can answer that if if I understand your point.
You you're you're if if I lie so much, why are they spending so much time talking about the if somebody lies, you're not going to pay any attention to it.
Obviously, it's sitting home.
Well, no, that's not, they're trying what what is what is happening here is an ongoing effort.
Look, I hate there's no way I can talk about this without sound like I'm whining, and I'm not whining.
But he's asked a question.
The effort here is to discredit me in the eyes of people that do not listen, so as to limit the growth of this audience.
And that's been so they've been doing this for 25 years.
They're not they're not they're not they're not trying to prove anything.
They're not even they don't even care if what they're saying is true.
They're just leveling the accusation.
It's character assassination death, whatever you want to call it, and it's ongoing and it happens multiple times a day.
I just I don't play the sound bites every day, but it happens all the time.
When my name is taken in political vein all the time, and it's either racism or lying, um, or uh extremism or insensitive some such thing, and it's just they're trying to make everybody think that that's what all of conservatism is.
It's just a bunch of liars and and malcontents and people that don't want you to have a good time, and a bunch of moral uh bumbleheads.
So it's it's an it's an ongoing effort to discredit me precisely because of my effectiveness.
They don't really think I'm lying.
In fact, they know I'm not.
The reason they're hitting me is because they're worried about my effectiveness in persuading people that I am right about them.
And since they they do not ever want to discuss the actual issues with me, they never call and want to do that.
They never want to get anywhere near the actual issues.
All they want to do is call names for the express purpose of discrediting.
That's and that's why they're content to spend so much time doing it.
I mentioned the Seaton Motley uh piece at Lesgovernment.org, and it's it's a piece that bounces off of this story that's out there about the states that are losing their shirts and the Obamacare exchanges, and every one of them is.
And these states are deciding to merge somehow thinking this is going to spread the misery a little wider and make the individual instance of the misery state state less damaging.
If state exchanges are not financially self-sufficient by 2016, which is next year, they'll be forced to join healthcare.gov.
What's happening is the states are figuring out the money is running out.
This is the guy that runs the Connecticut Exchange.
Yeah, we're figuring out here the money is running out.
At the end of next year, everybody has to be self-sustaining, and nobody's gonna be.
There isn't any state that's gonna be self-sustaining with Obamacare, because there are all these costs that nobody, quote unquote, knew existed, and all the promises of how cheap it was going to be have been blown to sky high.
So there isn't any state that's gonna be solvent in this.
So Mr. Motley here has written about this effort, calling it yet another terrible idea.
States consider combining their failed exchanges.
Starts out by saying Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster, a total miserable failure.
Everything Obama and his Democrats promised it would do, and there's a list of things, and let me go through them.
Obama promises Obamacare will not add one dime to the deficit.
Thirty-six times.
Obama said you keep your health care plan if you like it, or your doctor, your pl your insurance plan.
Obama, if you like your doctor, keep your doctor.
All the 23 times he said that.
Obama promises to lower premiums by 2,500 per year.
There are links, hyperlinks to Obama saying this stuff in Mr. Motley's piece.
You don't have to take anybody's word for it.
We've played you the sound bites.
The evidence is there, nobody's lying.
Nobody's making it up, and there's no racism here.
We're just calling Obama out on the lies he's told about Obamacare and the Democrats too.
Ten broken Obamacare promises.
CBO, cost of Obamacare subsidy will increase eightfold in ten years.
Health insurance cancellation notices soar above Obamacare enrollment rates.
OCARE premiums to skyrocket.
Obamacare deductibles hit patient pocket books and hospital finances.
That was something that we all predicted that finally happened, and people acted like they had no idea.
Why didn't you tell us we did?
When the deductibles tripled and the out of c out of pocket expenses doubled.
And the story yesterday that a bunch of newly insured people with Obamacare never had health insurance before now have it, all excited, can't afford to use it.
Deductibles are too high.
They can't afford to use it.
Obamacare was going to make health care, affordable health care for all Americans, said Nancy Pelosi.
Another lie.
It's not affordable for anybody.
Unless you're in the Bill Gates, Warren Buffett.
Bono.
Sorry, Bono, if you're in that group, I guess Johnny Ive now.
And outside of that, nobody can afford it.
Obamacare contains 18 separate tax increases, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.
And the states set up their own Obamacare exchanges.
Oregon gives up on state Obamacare sites, switches to federal exchange.
Failure and corruption in the Massachusetts Obamacare Exchange.
Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.
It's really a well done piece.
An assembly of everything that we have been lied to, in some cases numerous times about, regarding Obamacare.
And this latest idea to states to merge in their misery.
It's silly.
The only intelligent, reasonable thing to do is scrap it.
But our elected ones aren't interested.
Too much work, too much hassle.
And they're afraid of irritating more voters more of the time.
It's a it's just it's a it's a giant, I don't believe it.
Everything about this said don't do it.
And then that was implemented.
Everybody said, stop this, it's only gonna get worse.
And then they heard us and they said, we're gonna repeal even Mitch McConnell.
Repealing Obamacare.
Until it wasn't, was one of the things he was promising.
I mentioned that James Kleiburn, the former uh head honcho of the Congressional Black Caucasians in the House of Representatives.
He was on the voice of America last Friday.
The correspondent there, Cindy Sain, interviewed uh James Cleburn.
He's a Democrat, South Carolina, and they were talking about Obama's nuke deal with Iran.
And the correspondent said, Are you uh are you in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran and the right of Congress to review it?
I will say it to my friends.
Be very, very careful how you treat this president because the turnabout is fair play.
And I think that this president has not been treated with the dignity and respect that he should be treated with, especially uh when it comes to his dealings uh with foreign countries.
And that to me is a big problem here.
So I support uh this country speaking with one voice when we get beyond the water's edge.
And that is not taking place now.
What does he mean?
Be very, very careful how you treat this president.
What does he mean by that?
What is he actually saying?
And to whom be very, very careful how you treat this president, because turnabouts fair place.
You think he's signaling if you keep this up, then when you guys elect the next president, we're gonna go after him double time.
Well, what's what's new about that?
Why threaten that?
That's modus operandi.
That's SOP, standard operating procedure.
By the way, that's not all Clyburn said.
In addition to the threat, maybe very, very, very careful how you treat this president.
He also, I don't think Congress ought to have any right to circumvent the president, he said.
I don't think Congress ought to have any right to circumvent the president.
he believes the president does have a right to circumvent Congress.
He said, This foolishness has been going on up here, it's just ridiculous.
It's just foolishness.
We have to be very, very, very careful.
And for people not to see, look, I'm old enough to have seen and paid close attention to many presidents all the way back to Truman.
And so I say to my friends, be very, very careful how you treat this president because turnabout is fair play.
Let me ask a question.
Do you think didn't Clyburn sleep through the presidencies of Nixon Reagan and the Bushes?
I mean, what kind of respect did President Bush get from the Democrat Party the last six years of his term?
They tried to sabotage the war in Iraq.
You better be very, very careful how you treat this president.
I can't think of a president who has been more mistreated than George W. Bush.
And Reagan is a close second.
I gotta take a break.
Be right back, folks, after this.
Don't go away.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rushland boy.
You know, I I'm at a bad place here.
I've got I've got not enough time to take another call.
Somebody's been waiting patiently all day to get on, and I'm not gonna have a chance.
It's uh it's Kurt in Pittsburgh.
Would you see if Kurt will allow us to reconnect tomorrow?
And there's something else.
You know, I said that I was gonna get the Michelle My Bell's graduation speech at Oberlin College today.
And to be quite honest with you, Michelle my Bell and whatever she's doing didn't interest me today.
So I put it off to the side.
Still got it right there, but I didn't get to it.
So I'll do that tomorrow.
And whatever else pops, because there's gonna be all kinds of stuff popping now.
And we'll have it, and not only what it is, but what you should think about it as well.
Sit tight, wrap it up in a minute.
So okay, I admit it.
I turned on the activity app on my Apple Watch.
And one of the things it does, it tells you to stand up every hour.
And it tells me that at 10 minutes before the hour, stand up.
The last two times this is I've stood up at about 12 minutes before the hour.
Two minutes later, as I'm walking around, the watch tells me to stand up.
It's supposed to know I'm standing up and moving around.
Maybe I don't move around enough or fast enough.
But I'm still gonna blame the watch.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection