All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:11
December 2, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey folks, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God.
Right now.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, illrushboat at EIBnet.com.
Coming up, United Health CEO, United Healthcare CEO on Tuesday said that he regretted the decision to enter the Obamacare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in millions of dollars in losses.
His name is Stephen Hemsley.
He was at an investor's meeting in New York.
It's a Bloomberg business story.
He said, yeah, it was for us a bad decision.
You know, grab the violins.
It wasn't necessary.
This should not be a surprise.
This was predictable that this was going to happen, that Obamacare was going to be exactly what it's become.
I have to say, this is one of these things, this is one of the many things about this country that frustrates me.
These are smart people who should have known never to get in bed with this to begin with.
And the reason they did it was crony, whatever it is, you know, sidling up to business and government, trying to get favorable treatment from the government vis-a-vis your competitors.
And so I know exactly why these guys do it, but it ends up harming people.
It ends up hurting the country.
It hurt this guy's company.
It hurt his customers.
And all of it was predictable.
It was unnecessary.
But I guess the lure of being so close to presidential power is hard for most people to resist.
But I don't mean to sound callous here.
I feel bad for the customers of this outfit that got hit, but if it was a surprise, if it was unexpected, fine, we can be a little sympathetic.
But when this was in the cards from day one, that this had no prayer of working out economically.
Obamacare, I mean.
It had no prayer.
It didn't have a chance.
It wasn't even designed to work economically.
It was designed to be so bad that you couldn't tear it down.
Anyway, I wanted to make sure I mentioned that.
I had it top of the stack today.
I didn't want to get it relegated to tomorrow or the day after.
So I got that in there, and I'm going to go back to the Cruise stack.
And what I want to do, play that soundbite again because there are two of them.
This interview that Cruz did with the ABC Info Babe.
It's their website.
It's not broadcast.
Now, we'll have the link to the entire video interview.
It's about four minutes, 25 seconds.
We'll have it at rushlimbaugh.com.
And you'll be able to see it in its entirety.
But it's important to note that it did not, I don't think it's aired anywhere.
There may be excerpts.
I'm not sure if it has.
We got it off the website.
But here's what it's based on.
Here's the setup.
The study that Ted Cruz is referencing in this interview is reported in the Washington Examiner back in January of 2014.
Jail survey, 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats.
And from the article, professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford found that in some states, felons register Democrat by more than 6 to 1.
In New York, for example, 61.5% of convicts are Democrats, just 9% are Republican.
They also cited a study that found 73% of convicts who turn out for presidential elections would vote Democrat.
The study looked at three states which are reminding convicts that they can vote after leaving jail, New York, New Mexico, and North Carolina.
They provided the following Democrat to Republican breakdown and felon party registration patterns.
In New York, 61.5% registered Democrat, 9% Republican.
New Mexico, 51.9%.
So basically 52% registered Democrat, 10% Republican.
And in North Carolina, 55% register Democrat, 10% register Republican.
And that's what Cruz is talking about with his info, babe.
Now, I have a thought here.
Take a look at what's happening here.
The Democrats have to import voters from other countries if they're going to grow their base.
They have to have amnesty.
We need illegal immigrants.
We need amnesty for them.
We need the border to remain open so that future Democrat voters can get into the country.
Then these refugees, it has been determined that a majority of these refugees also end up using past refugees as the sample, end up voting Democrat.
And now the Democrats are going after the felon vote.
And Hillary Clinton is one of the leading figures trying to get this legalized.
That felon ex-cons will be granted the right to vote.
At present, they can't.
Now, isn't it interesting that the Democrat Party looks like, if you just looked at this on a surface level, you could maybe assume that the Democrats believe that they have lost the support of American citizens.
I mean, their actions demonstrate that they don't think they can win with the American law-abiding public.
Look at all of the, I'll use the word illegals that the Democrats are seeking to register as voters because they know that they're inclined to vote Democrat.
Illegal immigrants, now the felon ex-convict bloc, and the refugee bloc.
And every Democrat Party policy is oriented toward increasing the number of those people in the country, the exception of felons, they're already here, and then making it easy for those people to end up registering to vote.
The Democrat Party is actually tolerating, I won't say promoting because I'm not going to go that far yet, but they're tolerating criminal and illegal behavior in order to profit from it.
Now, why?
There has to be a reason.
I know the Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass.
And in the old days, when we had a growing economy, what would happen is that members of the underclass would eventually become middle class.
Some of them would become upper middle class.
Some of them would become the top 5%, top 1%.
With the Obama stagnant economy, nobody's moving up because nobody can find meaningful employment.
Well, not nobody, but we have a flat economy.
We have a stagnant economy.
There isn't any job growth.
There isn't any wage growth.
And so the traditional mobility upward in the U.S. economy has been brought to a screeching halt precisely because of Obama policies.
It's not the country has seen its best days.
It's not that the country's best days are behind it.
It's not because actions have caught up with the country.
It's because of this administration and the Democrat Party and their policies, which have brought this economy to a standstill.
And even with that, the Democrat Party sees the need to import a bunch of non-citizens or ex-cons as voters, because it sure seems to me that they don't think they can win with the law-abiding citizen class, if you will, in this country.
Now, I don't know if Cruz thinks that or not.
I'm just telling you this study from the professors at University of Pennsylvania in Stanford went out and detailed the voting registration habits of convicts and ex-cons, and they found out that it is vastly majority Democrat.
By the way, should add that the authors of this study are now whining that Ted Cruz misinterpreted their data.
Oh yeah.
These professors at University of Pennsylvania and Stanford are now whining and moaning at Cruz is misinterpreting their data.
What's there to misinterpret?
They simply are reporting the voter registration and voting tendencies of convicts and ex-cons.
Felons.
It was in the Washington Examiner again back on January 2014.
So it sure seems to me that the authors of the study are trying to save their academic careers.
The worst thing can happen is when Ted Cruz cites your work, it'd be like Sarah Palin citing it.
Oh my God, how embarrassing is it?
Oh my God.
And they got to run from their work and say Cruz is misinterpreting it and so forth.
Plus their grant money is at stake here, don't forget.
Given that, we go back now to the two Cruz audio soundbites interviewed by the ABC Infobabe outside his office in the hall, questioned that study only cites a few states as having a majority Democrat registration.
So your assertion that it reflects the overwhelming majority nationwide is not accurate, Senator.
It is exactly accurate.
We can draw a reasonable inference.
When elected Democrats support putting judges on the bench that release violent criminals, when elected Democrats, such as President Obama, try to appoint to senior Justice Department officials lawyers who glorify and lionize cop killers, when elected Democrats push to give felons the right to vote, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable inference to say those Democrats understand that the overwhelming majority of violent criminals vote Democratic.
You don't like that.
I understand that.
In the state of New York, 62% of ex-felons who registered to vote registered as Democrats, 9% registered as Republicans.
Those are the facts.
Reporters then says, well, in specific states, but that doesn't suggest a vast majority of Democrats of violent criminals throughout the country, sir.
It just does it.
You're just not right.
We do have the behavior of elected Democrats, which is...
How does that affect violent criminals in their Democratic or Republican registration?
Because elected Democrats are behaving in a way that clearly indicates they understand that criminals vote Democrat, and it's why they support putting judges on the bench that release violent criminals.
It's why Democrats push so hard to restore the right to vote to ex-felons because they understand those ex-felons are going to vote Democratic.
That is a point that is basic common sense.
And I will point out the academic data overwhelmingly supportive.
But how does that affect criminals, violent criminals, and their Democrat or voter registration?
How did they do that?
Just, again, you got to admire Cruz for his patience because he understands he's not trying to change her mind.
He knows he can't change her mind.
And he's not trying to impress her.
He's using the opportunity of having her camera and microphone get his message out.
And to the extent that we're helping here, because it was a website, ABC website interview.
Now, I warned everybody, I told everybody way back in October that the way this primary is shaping up, I said, keep your eye on Ted Cruz.
Cruz at the time was in the bottom tier candidates just starting to make his move upward.
Now, I just want to remind you in this audience what I predicted as we get into some of these Ted Cruz greatest hits of recent days.
I think there is one candidate who is positioned here.
Now, I know it's getting late.
Trump has had the lead for 100 days here or more.
Well, he's been in the lead ever since he got in.
And there are now fewer days to Iowa than he has been in the lead.
I mean, he's over the hump in that regard.
But there's still a long way to go.
It's politics.
Any number of unforeseen, unpredictable events are potentially out there.
And there has been somebody trucking along here, steady Eddie, that has continued to be who he is and continues to lay down foundational markers for himself, and that's Ted Cruz.
And I think Ted Cruz is positioned, I wouldn't say ideally.
I mean, I'm sure Cruz would love to be in the top two, top three here.
But of all the others in the race, you take Trump and Carson here, and they're at number one and two.
Carson's pulled ahead of Trump even in Iowa now in two polls.
But overall, Trump leads, and his lead continues to expand.
But what if it doesn't?
What if something happens?
We're not shut out here.
We still have somebody in our roster who opposes every bit of the Democrat agenda, perhaps more than anybody else in the race, and that's Cruz.
I mean, Cruz does not have in his record any statement like Trump does of having supported certain things that Democrats have done.
Cruz is inarguably thoroughbred conservative.
And I think the more I read about the millennials, by the way, and I've got some stuff about them in the stack today, the more I read about millennials and where they are attitudinally, politically, socially, economically, Cruz is somebody I think has a great opportunity to connect with them.
I don't know that that's happened, by the way.
I just say he has an opportunity to connect with them.
But Cruz has been on fire the past couple of days.
And he's out there nuking the left on many things.
Here he is Monday night in Bettendorf, Iowa, held a town hall campaign event.
And during the Q ⁇ A, Ted Cruz had this to say about the so-called war on women.
When the war on women came up, Republicans would curl up in a ball.
They'd say, don't hurt me.
Jiminy Cricket, this is a made-up nonsense example.
Last I checked, we don't have a rubber shortage in America.
Look, when I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom.
You put 50 cents in it.
Now, we edited that.
What he's talking about there is contraception.
And it's very key to understand this.
The war on women began with a question to Mitt Romney from George Stephanopoulos in a Republican debate back in 2012 about whether or not Romney supports...
I don't even remember the question.
It had to do with contraception.
The subject had not come up.
It was not a factor.
Nobody anywhere was talking about it.
But Stephanopoulos is not a journalist.
He's a Democrat Party consultant.
He's a hack.
He's a Democrat Party activist.
And he didn't care.
But for one thing, he wanted Romney to answer the question.
It didn't matter what Romney said, as long as he answered the question.
Put a question out there about contraception.
Romney, George, no, no, nobody wants to, we're not trying to stop women from being able to get, what are you talking about?
War on women began.
And it was over contraception.
And you'll remember what happened after that.
All of these claims that the Republican Party wanted denied birth control, all of these poor college women who wanted to be paid $3,000 a month to handle all the contraceptives they needed because of all the sex they were having when you could, for $12 a month, go get it at Sam's Club.
And what Cruz is talking about here is there's no way anybody in the Republican Party has ever stood in the way of contraception.
There are condom machines wherever you go.
We don't have a rubber shortage.
Contraception is up to the individuals.
It doesn't need to be a federally paid-for program.
The Republican Party's never removed a condom machine.
They've never made birth control pills unavailable.
The whole thing was totally made up.
And that was his point here in making the condom joke.
And he's trying to illustrate to people what a phony thing this war on women is and why nobody should be afraid of it and run from it and curl up in a ball over it.
I got more.
Here's that question that Stephanopoulos asked Romney.
Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
And Romney said, George, I don't know if the state has a right to ban.
I don't know what you're talking about.
It's a silly thing.
We're not even talking about it, George.
And that began the war on women.
That's where it began.
That's all it took.
And so Cruzes are running around saying the Republicans are not the condom police.
You get a condom, you get a birth control pill, what it doesn't cost Jack whatever.
Go get it whenever you want it.
It's up to you.
And one more cruise sound bite again from Newton, Iowa.
This is Sunday campaign event.
Cruz turning the left's arguments around on them, and they don't get it.
There has been some vicious rhetoric on the left blaming those who are pro-life.
We don't fully know the motivations of this deranged individual.
We know that he was a man who registered to vote as a woman.
And the media promptly wants to blame him on the pro-life movement when at this point there's very little evidence to indicate.
It's also reported that he was registered as an independent and as a woman and a transgender leftist activist, if that's what he is.
I don't think it's fair to blame on the rhetoric in the left.
This is a murderer.
It's a murderer who is not being blamed.
No, no, the purpose is not going to Republicans, pro-life or whatever, get blamed.
That's why I asked, well, why doesn't Planned Parenthood get called up here?
They're the ones that traffic in body parts, which seems what upsets this guy.
By the way, he's not transgender.
A clerical error led to mistaken reports that he was born a woman.
His female status was not an expression of identity politics, according to the chief deputy clerk in the Colorado County where deer was registered.
It was just a clerical.
I don't know.
Why in the world would anybody think this guy ever was a woman or is a woman now when you look at him?
I mean, come on.
I know.
I'm probably going to get in trouble with it.
It's time to take a break.
Another one.
It's sad, folks, but it just came that time.
And Coco just told me that the entire Ted Cruz interview is posted at rushlimbaugh.com, including everything I had to say today about Planned Parenthood, Anna Shooter, and Dingy Harry.
All active and current at rushlimbaugh.com as of this moment.
Howard in Germantown, Maryland.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hey, what's up, Russ?
No problem to wait, man.
I will admit, you start to get a headache when you hear some of the garbage that comes out the other side's mouth.
Oh, there's no question you do.
Hello?
Yeah, I'm here.
You hear me, Rosh?
Yeah, I think you're cracking up on your cell coverage.
Sorry, brother.
I pay all this money for sales service, and it barely works.
Yeah, I hear you.
Well, now, the reason I called is I'm a black police officer.
So I have, you know, I get it from all sides in today's world.
But what you said earlier, by definition, the Black Lives Matter group is a hate group.
There's no denying that.
By definition, they are a hate group.
I don't know how anyone could say otherwise.
Explain what you mean.
A hate group is defined as an organized group or movement, one, which they are, two, which advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence.
That's point two against any designated sector of society, which would be police officers.
It's cut and dry.
I don't see how.
Okay, so you're a black police officer, and part of the definition of a hate group is if they practice hatred.
Black Lives Matter hates who?
They hate police officers.
I'm sure they hate other groups, but their focus is police officers.
They hate police officers.
They practice hostility.
You don't even have to watch the news.
You can look up YouTube videos and see the hostility.
I mean, look at what happened in Chicago last week.
You got paid protesters yelling in officers' faces, throwing punches.
But in the midst of all that, you know, the police are deemed the problem.
And people fail to realize that we're oftentimes the only thing standing between order and chaos.
Yeah, by the way, you said Germantown, Maryland is where you're from.
How close to Baltimore is that?
Not far at all.
I work with guys who had to go up there during the Freddie Gray riots.
So you're a black policeman near the front lines.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I've worked in predominantly black areas.
I've worked in predominantly white areas.
And the thing is, police officers, we don't, you know, as much as people think we discriminate, we don't.
And when you see an officer putting somebody in handcuffs and fighting, guess what?
There's no way to make that look pretty.
It looks horrible.
We'll admit that.
But it doesn't mean we're wrong in what we did.
But when you blast them on the news and then you show, you know, the mother of the kid who was arrested or shot, we look like the bad guy.
It's all doctored to make you look like, you know, you're just the enemy.
But something, when you played the audio by that guy by Harry, he actually said something I agree with.
He said words are powerful when spoken by people with political influence, like Jesse Jackson, like Al Sharpton, like certain other people who created this anti-police movement.
I mean, it's hard to not feel like you're part of the most hated group in America right now.
I mean, we know it's not true, but that's how you're made to feel.
And officers feel like we are just hated.
And there's nothing we can do.
I have to tell you something.
Howard, I'm so happy you heard the sound bites from Harry Reid because one of the things he said is Black Lives Matter.
They're peaceful and they're just interested in the greatness of equality and they're just trying to force equality on things and stand up for people's rights.
And I can imagine what your reaction to that was when you heard it, knowing now what you think about them.
It was frustrating because I've seen firsthand Black Lives Matter, you know, people who are 100% affiliated, who throw bottles, who hold up signs saying, you know, all my favorite heroes kill officers.
You know, and it's like, I almost feel like, you know, we don't deserve that.
I understand that there have been instances in history where officers have acted out of the line of duty.
I will never deny that.
There are.
Howard, let me tell you, I'm glad you called because, by the way, you should know, we're just now getting reports.
There's a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.
20 people.
The shooter is active.
Cops, EMS are mobilized.
And I don't know anything more than that.
Don't know where other than San Bernardino.
But the thing I wanted to say to you was the police in this country are becoming very close to the military in terms of the way the American people respect you.
You really are in the front lines.
You really are, and you're up against it in a domestic situation rather than on foreign territory as the military is.
But the thing that you have in common is that the current administration is attempting to make the police in this country the enemy.
They are tagging and categorizing the police as the provocateurs.
And they're using incidents in these cities to take over these police departments, the Justice Department, with their various consent decrees demanding that police departments accede to whatever the Justice Department thinks policing ought to be if they are to maintain accreditation and get federal funding and so forth.
And so you work in a job now that has been targeted by your country's own government as a problem.
And it's got to be unnerving.
Here you are out trying to keep peace, do everything.
We know what police officers do.
We know what you're up against.
And now you're being tagged as the provocateurs.
And I'm just telling you, Howard, that there are a lot of people in countries sympathetic and on your side about this that you may never know because the news media joins with the administration in the way people like you are reported on as you go about and do your job.
So I'm glad you're there and I'm glad you called.
I really appreciate you taking the time and I know you're on hold for a while and I really appreciate that.
Thanks.
Thanks so much.
I have to take a break now, folks.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
And we are back.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, sitting here wallowing in my trauma, stress, suffering.
The EIB network.
The New York Times, I mentioned this earlier and may have to hold it over tomorrow.
But to give you an idea, the New York Times has yet another story on the total frustration of the Republican Party and establishment over Donald Trump.
They are literally at their wit's end.
It's yet another in a long line of stories reporting that the party thought Trump would have long ago imploded or had begun his implosion by now.
Many leading Republican officials, strategicists, and donors now say they fear that Trump's nomination would lead to an electoral wipeout, a sweeping defeat that could undo some of the gains Republicans have made in recent congressional, state, and local elections.
But in a party that lacks a true leader or anything in the way of consensus and with the combative Trump certain to scorch anybody who takes him on, a fierce dispute has arisen in the party over what to do about Trump.
And it's led to a standoff of sorts.
Almost everybody in the party's upper echelons agrees something has to be done, but no one's willing to do it, the New York Times says.
Well, they don't know what to do.
They're at their wit's end.
They don't know how to defeat the guy, how to take on.
They don't know how to compete.
They don't know what to do.
They've tried the donor class.
They just don't know what to do.
And even if they did know what to do, they're afraid to try it.
And can I tell you something?
This story says, I don't know if it's true or not, it's the New York Times.
The New York Times says the Republican Party is afraid of taking on Trump because of their fear of what Trump would say about them in response.
Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Republican Party afraid to take on Obama for fear what the media will say about them.
And now the Times is reporting anyway that the Republican establishment, many people, are worried to death that if they criticize Trump, that he's going to double and triple criticize them, and it's going to really hurt.
And the story goes on to say that several prominent Republicans, even some names you would know, elected Republicans say that they would vote for Hillary if Trump's the nominee.
And some of them even say they would vote for Hillary if Cruz is the nominee.
And now they're comparing Trump to Goldwater and Cruz to Goldwater.
They fear a landslide defeat that it would take a generation to recover from.
They are paralyzed with fear.
Again, according to the New York Times.
And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has basically said that his boss is full of it.
Chairman of Joint Chiefs says, we have not contained ISIS, but Obama says that we have.
What will Obama do to this guy, if anything?
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection