All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 12, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:12
February 12, 2016, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is the fastest three hours and medium.
Otherwise known as the Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB Network on Friday.
We just keep rolling here.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program and the email address is L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
For a lot of people, the most depressing weekend of the year.
Now why?
No football.
I said for some people.
Most depressing weekend, no football.
A lot of both.
What do I do on Sunday?
What do I do?
What do I do?
It's especially bad for people that live in parts of the country where it's cold and snowy.
It just makes it even worse.
But you can, you can get through it.
There's a debate Saturday night, Republican debate coming up Saturday night.
Big one ahead of the South Carolina primary.
We'll have uh everything you need to know about that on Monday.
In addition to what to think about it.
I've checked the email during the break, and there's some people ticked off at me today.
Strange.
Yeah, uh what do you mean?
The Democrat Party's the most destructive force.
You say this still full of time, you never back it up.
That's why you're so inflammatory.
Okay.
I think something like that doesn't need, even on this program explanation in detail.
But I'm happy.
I am more than happy to provide it.
This is my point here.
I mentioned earlier that normally that the desire here is just mock and laugh and make fun of these people.
Hillary and Bernie in this debate.
But the problem is way too many people really, really just believe the drivel and the bilge that these people put out.
I believe I'm look liberalism, Democrat Party, whatever you want to call it.
It is the most destructive force in America outside of weather calamities that are acts of God.
It is an organized force.
It has an active philosophy with a multiplicity of objectives, and together they are oriented and aimed at destroying and tearing down this country.
I don't think there's any argument about that.
I mean, isn't that why the people that support the Democrat Party support it because they want this country changed and transformed?
They want aspects of it they don't like destroyed.
So you know that you people can get all upset at me out there, but all I happen to be doing is properly identifying you.
The Democrat Party is the most destructive force in America.
The Democrat Party is hellbent on destroying this economy.
And they're well on their way.
They have ownership of it.
We're seven years in.
We've got 94 million Americans not working.
And then they lie and tell us the unemployment rate's 4.9%.
We have people's hours, people who are working, their hours are being pared down because of the onerous punitive nature of Obamacare to American business.
The U.S. military is it's one of the last institutions left that still it hasn't fully totally been corrupted, and they're on the way with that.
It's in their crosshairs.
And there's not even any pretense of it.
They're not even trying to camouflage it anymore.
In the old days, liberalism, they didn't even want that word used.
That's why they came up with the word progressive.
Because liberalism was a death knell.
Now, not so much.
There's no pretense.
The media doesn't hide their liberalism.
The Democrat Party openly advocates it.
Free market capitalism Is the enemy.
The system that has produced the greatest standard of living in the history of the world is under assault in this country on the basis that it somehow is unfair and rigged.
And so it's got to be blown up and replaced with what?
A bunch of neophyte, no experienced little leftists commanding and controlling the economy and redistributing everything in what they claim is fairness.
But the real objective is to keep everybody dependent on them and government, thereby ensuring massive landslide election victories every two or four years.
You have to make free market capitalism the enemy.
You have to make rugged individualism the enemy.
You have to make self-reliance the enemy.
They're on the way.
They've been doing it for my entire life and longer.
Massive taxes, tax increases.
Did you see the stories?
And they were they were abundant before the Super Bowl, how uh Cam Newton was the focal point, but it was any of the any of the players.
Cam Newton paid more in taxes than he earned playing the Super Bowl because of the tax structure.
California took their share.
The feds took their share.
North Carolina, where he lives, took their share.
And then Medicare and Medicaid, separate taxes, FICA took their share.
I think the winning share, the losing share for a Super Bowl team, I'm making this up because I don't remember it's a let's say 100 grand or something like that.
It's close to that.
Cam Newton's income tax on that income added to his income the rest of the year meant that he would pay more taxes on that income than what he earned.
It's why I don't go to New York anymore.
I learned this way back in the 90s.
It costs me X number of thousands of dollars a day to work in New York.
So I left New York in 1997.
I am audited every year, nevertheless.
What they want to determine is how many days I work in New York every year.
That's why I don't.
I don't want there to be any dispute about it.
But there still is.
I still have to prove 14 different ways where I am every day of the year.
They can claim, no, you work 50 days in New York.
No, I wasn't there once.
Well, we say you were.
You have to prove you're not.
So hire a lawyer, go prove I wasn't there.
It can take years.
When this all started, the way to settle this was to agree on a per diem amount per day that I worked in New York, and that's exactly how sports teams are taxed.
When the Los Angeles Dodgers go to New York, they pay New York tax for the number of days they're playing games there.
When the New York Mets or Yankees go to California, same thing.
And it's this way all over the country now.
It's called a duty day tax.
And it's these states wanting their share of whatever portion of a player's income was derived on the days those guys were in town playing.
Well, as it worked out for Cam Newton, he had to pay more in California, additional North Carolina, and all these other incremental taxes.
It all added up.
The income he made from the Super Bowl blew his taxable income up to an amount greater than what he was paid for working that day.
There were all kinds of stories about it.
It's gotten so bad that some players are determining where they're going to live in free agency now, where what teams are going to choose.
That's how they escape all this.
My point is that we owe this to the Democrat Party.
David Patterson, some reporter at a press conference, told him, you know, Limbaugh left New York because of your tax policy.
He said, Really?
Well, if I'd have known we could have gotten a limb earlier, I would have raised taxes sooner.
And the chuckles came from the media and they laughed and so forth.
But the Democrat Party is right in there raising everybody's taxes, taking away money from people who earn it and produce it to redistribute it to others.
It's all part of their transformation and their economic reorganization, which I call destructive.
And last night, the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was the equivalent of quack doctors extolling the wonders of untreated cancers.
These people actually have the gall to sing the praises of the Cuban health care system to us.
But it's not just Cuba's third rate health care system that the Democrats want.
They want the whole nine yards.
They want an economy-killing, centralized government that claims a monopoly on virtue, compassion, and intelligence, promises of revolution and prosperity, while the middle class craters and careers are transformed into part-time jobs.
And that is the history of the last seven years under Barack Obama.
And then you add to that students graduating with six digit student debt, student loan debt.
The opportunity with worthless degrees that are not going to help them recoup what they've spent for their education and then get ahead.
Last night was a naked power grab by two unaccomplished old dittering fools, both nearing their dotage, if you ask me.
Justified by lie after lie after lie when it comes to mathematics and economics.
A complete ignorance of history.
It almost forced me to turn TV off last night.
I couldn't handle the lies anymore.
One lie after another.
It became it became intolerable.
John Padoritz in the New York Post has written about it.
Apparently, we should get on a boat and leave America, ASAP.
The two candidates for the Democrat nomination spent most of two hours arguing over who was the better diagnostician of the moral diseases, ideological calamities, spiritual infirmities, racial injustices,
and downright evils that are being visited upon the suffering 320 million who have found themselves through no fault of their own trapped between two oceans in a dystopian oligarchic hell they call America.
That's exactly how this country was portrayed last night and the previous debate and every other Democrat debate or every Democrat campaign appearance.
This place is portrayed as hell on earth, brought to you by George W. Bush, the Republicans, and the Iraq War in the modern incarnation.
The America they want to save us from, the America from which they want to liberate us is not George W. Bush's.
It's Barack Obama's.
But they don't ever say that.
They blame the Koch brothers.
Nobody knows who the Koch brothers are.
The Koch brothers can't do, don't do diddly squat.
The Koch brothers never enforced a regulation on anybody.
The Koch brothers never raised anybody's taxes.
The Koch brothers never sent anybody's kids off to war.
The Koch brothers haven't done diddly squat because they can't.
They're not in government.
Government does all of this.
But in the Democrat Party world, it's the evils of private citizens who are wreaking and meeting out all this havoc, and it's the government ever expanding with more power to dominate and control, which must come in and clean out the vipers.
And the cesspool in the landfill in the utter sewer and garbage that this country is.
And I can only take so much of it for so long, particularly when I'm listening to people who have been in positions of power when all these complaints they register have occurred.
Bernie Sanders says there is massive despair all over This country.
And there is massive despair, but not the massive despair felt by the majority of Americans is despair over what the Democrat Party has done in its quest, its destructive quest in this country.
I gotta take a brief time out.
You sit tight, we'll be back.
That's my explanation for it.
I can keep going if you want me to.
No, I didn't forget.
Here it is.
You know, ten years ago, Al Gore said that if we didn't do whatever he said we had to do, that the end of the earth would have happened by now.
January 27th was 10 years.
It was going to be over.
Uh Earth was going to be largely uninhabitable.
Sea levels would have risen to the point that New York City would be partially underwater.
It would have been just an abject utter disaster.
And of course, nothing of the kind has happened because they're all lying.
They don't.
This is also getting tiresome.
All they've got's computer models.
And young people who think that they're scientists and love sci-fi and high tech and think Elon Musk is a goal is a god.
They all believe this garbage because they think it's high-tech super science.
And they want it to all be true.
They're young liberals, and these are people that are convinced of the dystopian future.
And that's all part of it.
But now the sea levels are not rising.
Just like the heat didn't happen.
Remember the story we had about three weeks ago, the ocean ate the heat.
The heat was there.
The last 15 years where there hasn't been any temperature rise.
It did.
The heat rose.
Just the oceans ate it.
Somehow the heat ended up 700 meters below the surface.
And this is folks, this is going to make sea level rise even worse because that hot heat, 700 feet down at the ocean ate is going to boil the salt water.
It'll warm it up out there.
It's going to be worse than fresh water boiling over.
And it's going to make the sea level rise even worse than we thought like 10 or 20 or 30 years from now.
Like, wow.
The ocean ate the heat.
No explanation of how.
Just some scientists, some laboratory claim to have discovered it.
Okay, so now what to do?
Ten years came and went, and we're still here and thriving.
Uh at least the destruction predicted hasn't happened.
The sea levels have not risen, so what do we do?
Well, the French news agency reports that the reason the sea level rise didn't happen was because there has been so much drought in the last ten years that the earth has parched.
And it has become so dry that it is soaking up water.
It's soaking up rainwater, it's soaking up snowpack, it's soaking up the water in aquifers, and it's because the earth is basically just dying of thirst.
Which is part and parcel of all the heat that has happened with global warming.
Satellite measurements over the past 10 years show for the first time.
The Earth's continents have soaked up and stored an extra 3.2 trillion tons of water in soil, lakes, underground aquifers, This is in the journal science.
So of course it's irrefutable.
It's in a journal called science.
The earth is so thirsty.
It somehow got so parched and so dry it soaked up all the water.
And therefore the sea level rise has been temporarily delayed.
Until the earth has soaked up more water than it can absorb, and everything is mud.
Then the sea levels will start rising.
They say this is temporarily temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise by about 20%.
J.T. Rieger, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA.
We always assumed that people's increased reliance on groundwater for irrigation and consumption was resulting in a net transfer of water from the land to the ocean.
But no, that transfer from land to ocean didn't happen because the earth is so dry.
Who knew?
And the they cloud this stuff or present this stuff in science is even doubly insulting.
But here's John in Daytona Beach, Florida.
John, glad you waited.
You're next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush Megadiddos.
Longtime listener back in the beginning of your show.
And uh long time conservative, and I'd like to just mention my son to Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, lifetime listener, also lifetime conservative.
Real proud of him.
Anyway, my reason for calling.
Um listened to Debbie Wasser and Schultz this morning on Fox News making excuses for the purpose of these superdelegates to make it fair to Hillary Clinton because there are so many white people in Iowa and in uh New Hampshire.
Yeah, yeah.
It wouldn't be fair, right?
That's what they claimed.
And uh, but yet she makes me think of the um superdelegates situation when she gets to South Carolina where she claimed that's her firewall, it's made up of so many minorities is going to give her an advantage.
So, how is that fair to Bernie Sanders if the superdelegates give her a little bit of a couple of things?
No, no, no, no, no.
In the end, that's no no no.
You're listening too carefully to them.
You're you're this is what you're the kind of guy that the Democrats hate because you actually listen to what they say, and then you're able to throw it back at them.
You're not supposed to think about any of this.
You're supposed to, oh, South Carolina's a firewall, new uh New Hampshire and Iowa, Lily White, not fair to Hillary.
That's why we needed the superdelegates.
South Carolina, that's where we make it fair.
Wait, no, you just made it fair with a superdelegates.
What do you mean she's got a firewall?
Isn't this unfair to to to Bernie?
Well, no, Bernie's not gonna win this anyway.
Then we can't tell you that, but Bernie's not gonna win it anyway.
It's all been structured so that Hillary wins no matter what Bernie does, don't ask me anymore.
That's the way to deal with it.
Um here's uh Gary in Shelby, Michigan.
Great to have you, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Hey, Rosh Democrat uh dittoes to you or uh the debate dittoes.
Uh we watched the other night played your drinking game.
My wife's so mad she'll never let me watch another one because I drank all her wine, but uh Okay.
Listen, Russ my point.
Uh I've been a long time listener since 1992.
I love you.
And I've always heard you say you never endorse a candidate during the during the uh the primaries.
But I've never questioned that.
That's your that's your prerogative.
But I've also heard you say on a lot of occasions that you'll let us know when it's time to panic.
And if we get the wrong person elected this time, is it time to panic?
We have a true conservative in this race.
You've said it many times that Ted Cruz is the only true conservative we have, and if we don't elect him, I think it's time to panic.
What do you think?
Well, n that's that's tough.
Um because what I've always meant by that is that it's time to give up on the country.
And that's uh I don't think we're there.
There's too many of us out here, Gary.
Uh to just decede the country to these people.
Now, on the endorsement side, can you hang on while I play a couple sound bites here?
Because it dovetails with exactly what you're asking about here.
Don't Gary, don't hang up no matter what you hear here, because I'm coming back to you when this is finished.
We've got uh Megan Kelly and her show on Fox last night.
And by the way, I I I get grief every year on this no endorsement policy.
And today there's a there's an editorial that it visors investors uh business daily, praising me for what I said about Cruz, but claiming that it's too late.
If I'd have said this weeks ago, that it might have mattered.
But since I didn't say it weeks ago and only said it this week, that it's too late.
I'm f I'm I'm flattered that so many people think that I could determine who wins and loses these things.
That's what I reject by saying I don't endorse.
Now I th the thing about this is folks, one of the things that I've I've always from the first day of this program, and this program in particular, because it was national, if it worked, it was gonna be a big deal.
And one of the things that I have always strived, striven, whatever, to do, is keep myself in perspective.
Uh you hear complaints that the moderators become the story in the debate or something similar.
I never wanted to do that, and I never get lost contemplating how important I am or how big I am, because I I've just made a concerted effort to keep what I do and who I am in perspective.
So I don't get lost in ego, become insufferable.
And I can give you names of people who have become, they're out there now, what I never have wanted to become.
Not endorsing is made up of many theories and strategies.
And in no particular order, one of them is I don't know these people that well, and I've got no control over how they're going to run their campaigns, and I've got no control over whether they're going to stay true to who they say they are or not.
The last thing I'm going to do is tell you, by virtue of endorsing somebody, that you can give it up for them too, months and months ago, only to find, say, at this point in time or next week or whatever, they totally bail and become something else.
I don't want, since I can't control them doing that or not doing that, I'm I'm not gonna invest myself in it.
I don't control them.
I'm not part of their campaigns, I'm not part of their staff advisory or otherwise.
In addition to that, there is this business of not wanting to trample on the event.
I'm not running.
I look at newspaper endorsements and I read all these people that do, and I I think they're full of it.
To think they're bigger than the process.
The process is where we determine who wins.
It's up to the candidates to win, not me or anybody else.
Now I'm flattered that somebody or people think that I could be the margin of victory, somebody, but I don't look at myself that way.
And if I ever did, you would not be able to put up with me.
I would make Max headroom look like a dwarf.
And I vowed never to do that.
But I'm not running.
I I therefore I I'm not going to act as though I'm the guy with all the answers, and these people are all doofuses and idiots.
I will tell you what I think of the process as it goes by and what I think of the people as it goes by, the same as you.
You are free to agree with me or not.
But I have never, we get to the general, it's a whole different thing.
Then that's then it that becomes our team versus their team.
And that's a whole different thing.
There are any number of people that I think running now who can beat whoever the Democrats throw up there.
And it's not contrary to people who might wish me to uh utilize whatever power they think I have, I do not think in those terms.
So when I said what I said about Ted Cruz, it was because it was important to say at the time there were Republicans that were beginning to cave, and they were trying to tell everybody how conservative they were, but yet they were trying to sidle up to Democrats or one thing or another, and one thing I felt confident saying is that Cruz wouldn't.
I don't mean to be putting down Rubio when I say that Cruz is the closest thing to Reagan we've ever had.
It doesn't mean that Rubio is no good.
And it doesn't mean that Trump is no good.
I also said yesterday, at the same time I said what I said about Cruz, I don't think Trump is ideological.
That's not a criticism.
Not everybody looks at things through the ideological prism like I do.
Or maybe like you do.
Like I said about Trump, when he looks at Chuck Schumer, he doesn't see a raging commie leftist.
He sees a New Yorker that he has to get through, go around, deal with whatever in his business.
It's better to be friends with the guy than not.
But in politics, that that all changes.
But Trump doesn't look at people that way.
And it's not a criticism.
Everybody in this race is different.
Trump is attracting a wide variety of people.
His coalition is made up of people above and beyond those who call themselves conservative.
There's this new group out there called alt conservatives, which are basically a bunch of young populists, when you get right down to it.
They're not doctrinaire conservatives ideologically, but they are right wingers on enough, but they're also populists and nationalists.
And they think conservatism doesn't go far enough in some cases.
So it's a made up, he's got a broad-based coalition out there.
Now, this all came up last night on Megan Kelly on Fox.
She had Dr. Krauthammer on it.
By the way, I pronounced his name that way, it's because how Henry Kissinger pronounced it to me one time.
He asked me, Did you see the Grand Emma Gulum?
Which one?
Deviceing didn't post this morning.
No, I didn't see it.
Ever since he said that, I just when it comes time to make mention Crowdhammer's name and Dr. Emma, it's just my Kissinger impersonation.
Oh mean anything by it.
Anyway, Megan Kelly, two sound bites here with Dr. Emma, talking about Cruz, me, and what it all means.
What's so fascinating about Trump is, and Rush Limbaugh was making this point, that he's not ideological.
What Limbaugh was saying, he's not a Republican, but he's not a Democrat.
He's not an ideologue at all.
He was saying, if you are an ideologue, if you are going for the most conservative guy, you go for Cruz.
Trump's got sort of a different group.
I'll let Limbaugh say it in his own words here.
Listen.
If conservatism is your bag, if conservatism is the dominating factor in how you vote, there is no other choice for you in this campaign than Ted Cruz.
Because you are exactly this is the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan.
And it yeah, I've heard people you left out Rubio.
No, I don't we're talking here about the this other fact.
Rubio's a good guy, don't misunderstand this.
This is why another reason why I don't endorse.
Because for everybody I would endorse as 90 others that get ticked.
Can't make everybody happy.
Here's Dr. Grad Emma of Devising didn't post, responding to what I just brilliantly had said moments ago.
I would disagree in the sense that I think Rubio is an authentic conservative.
Bush is kind of a reformist conservative.
All of them I think would be comparable to Rangin in 1980.
There are several candidates who are conservative.
But I do agree that Trump is not a conservative.
I think you know, he would probably reject that, but I think the record would show he's a Trumpist.
He's kind of a what the hell is meaning, you know, these guys have not succeeded.
As he said in a tweet, I think uh today, you elected these guys to the Congress.
They made the promises, they haven't kept them.
And therefore he's coming in to solve problems, and he's not a traditional conservative.
Okay, Gary, hang on.
I gotta go to commercial break next, and we'll be back and discuss this.
Okay, now we bring Gary back into this in Shelby, Michigan.
Now you've heard all of that.
How would you react to it?
Based on the question that you ask me.
Well, Rush, first of all, I really respect your humility.
Um a lot of people wouldn't believe you're humble man, but you're a very humble person.
And you don't think you make that big of a difference.
I also know that that uh the only true principal conservative with the Constitution and grain in his brain is Ted Cruz.
And what concerns me is it's the possible four to four Supreme Court nominations in the next four to eight years.
We're barely hanging on by a thread there right now.
It's five, four could go either way.
That's true.
I mean, that is that's that's ball game kind of true.
That that's time to panic if if that happens.
If we get somebody, and I'm talking anybody but, because I've heard some of the nominations uh suggestions from the other candidates, and they're scary.
Ted Cruz is the only person that will stand up and use his political will to put the right people in the court, and and he'll be damned if if he doesn't.
Well, here's let me illustrate it.
What when I when I said what I said yesterday, I got some email reaction.
When I said what I said is about Trump, that he's not a conservative, and Dr. Gebethammer thinks that he might disagree.
But my point is Trump, I don't think is, not like you and I are.
That doesn't mean he's not going to do the right things in my mind by any stretch.
But my illustration that when Trump sees Chuck Schumer, he doesn't see a raving leftist.
But I think he should.
Given what Trump believes on immigration, Chuck Schumer is in the way.
If Trump really believes this stuff about building a wall and sending him home and send him back and make this immigration system illegal again, he's got to realize Chuck Schumer is a pro-amnesty leader.
And now I don't worry that Ted Cruz will not see Schumer that way.
That's all I mean by Trump not being ideological.
And a lot of people aren't, folks.
It's been one of the most frustrating things about doing this program for 27 years.
I've always said I'm blowing the face that if we could have educated, we tried here, to get more and more people just attuned to the ideological identifications of people, that we could have spared ourselves so damn much trouble.
If people knew what liberalism meant to their lives, if they really knew what it meant, not Democrats equal compassion and caring and equality.
If they knew the destructive nature of it, if they knew the reason they can't get a job is liberalism, rather than Bush and the recession, which is what liberals tell them, you realize how many people still think that the economic problems today are Bush's fault?
Partly because the media gets away with lying about it, and the Democrats do, but it's also due to the fact that people are not educated to the realities of liberalism, and they do not understand the direct hands-on role Barack Obama and the Democrats have had in the economic destroy.
How do you still blame Bush eight years ago?
But they are.
We still haven't recovered from the Bush recession.
That's what they tell themselves.
You want to talk about frustrating.
And I've always thought the cure for this is ideological education.
But hell when the Republican Party won't even go there.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Hope you have a great weekend.
Whatever you intend to do, hope it works out well for you.
We'll be back here on Monday to discuss the Republican debate in South Carolina on Saturday night.
CBS has it.
CBS is it.
So it's not Wolf Blitzer.
Okay.
Whatever, we'll find it.
Whoever's got it.
▲
Export Selection