All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 1993 - Rush Limbaugh Program
20:51
19931025_Rush
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Rush Lindner!
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
It's so nice to have you here.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
You know, there's a woman in this audience.
I just, I know she doesn't want to be here.
I just, I've I've been trying to find out, and I came out in the audience warm up and says, Is there any liberal here?
No, it's not you.
No, no, no, no, no.
It's not her.
It's not her.
She's very no, no, no.
I I'm there's a there's I just I don't want to point her out because I don't want to embarrass her.
I have no idea she's not standing up during any of the ovations.
She's not applauding during the times any of the audience applauds, but she's smiling, so I, you know, I don't quite uh understand it.
She knows who she is.
I I'm I'm not gonna point her out.
We have a show to do here, folks.
I'm glad you've joined us.
Wait a minute.
I don't have to unbutton this.
I've lost weight.
I can sit down with this still, but see, look at this.
All right.
My friends.
We talked as uh we got together on our most recent uh broadcast.
We talked about the uh tent that was set up at the White House that was pro-NAFTA.
Uh, all these people that came in that manufacture high-tech things.
I mean, Microsoft was in there and Sarah Lee and a number of other I don't know if you know, I wasn't what's what am I gonna tell them is high tech about Sarah Lee, and I it's probably the way they manufacture their goods, uh, as opposed to what the goods are.
Anyway, the whole point was that we are not exporting our jobs down to Mexico, and we don't have to do it.
Well, there was also something else that went on that day on the lawn of the White House.
This is absolutely amazing, and you have not seen this reported, I bet you, in your newspaper or uh, and if you if it's been in your newspapers and buried in the back somewhere, probably has not been featured prominently on your local news on TV or any of that.
And I can't let this show go by without uh pointing it out to you.
It's from the Washington Times on October 21st.
The headline of the story, AIDS Czar tells Americans to seek their pleasure in sex.
This is the facts as it uh came into me.
We don't actually have the newspaper, but right there, AIDS Czar tells Americans to seek their pleasure in sex.
And I want to show you something.
The AIDS are by the way, is a woman named Christine uh Gebby.
Uh and and she's uh had a long history in the in the health fields.
And I wanted to pull some of the quotes from the story, the indicate because I mean I'm literally, I'm amazed we have this disease, AIDS, and and what is it, about 96% of all cases of AIDS are spread by some kind of sexual activity.
Maybe it's 78% has no, it's about 90.
And then the other ten are blood transfusions and birth and drugs, IV drugs.
90% of the cases are spread by sexual activity, and here she is, AIDS Czar tells America to seek their pleasure in sex.
Now, listen to some of these quotes.
Put them up individually.
Here we go.
Uh talking about sex in terms of don't and disease is not working.
And Americans must start viewing sex as an essentially important and pleasurable thing.
Now, how is she first place?
Who doesn't look at it as a pleasurable thing?
It is a it is it is it not a temptingly pleasurable thing.
And it is called discipline and restraint that uh cause people to behave properly or improperly in the sexual arena.
But when it's you got the AIDS are out there, say, hey, go to town and enjoy it.
Um but but how do they define how do they define talking about sex in terms of don't and disease is not working?
And I could be really brazen and bold here, because I think it is.
I think that there is a vast increase in the amount of responsibility.
It just happens to be in the heterosexual adult world.
But kids were giving them condoms, we're encouraging them to go out.
There's nothing we would do, but here kid go it.
We know we can't stop you.
We have the sense to Stop ourselves, but because it's not, look, hate to say this disease is not spreading like wildfire into the heterosexual community by way of sexual content.
It's just not happening.
They can they can they can say all they want about how it's going to, but it hasn't.
Another quote.
Until they do so, we will continue to be a repressed Victorian society that misrepresents information, denies sexuality early, denies homosexual sexuality, particularly in teens, and leaves people abandoned with no place to go.
Unless we start talking about sex, we're gonna be homeless.
It doesn't make sense to me.
This is our AIDS czar.
Here's another.
I want to change the way the nation looks at AIDS.
How is she going to change the way we look at AIDS?
Is there going to be a new criterion?
We ought to look at it with a lot of fear, a lot of fearful respect, a lot of trepidation.
We don't.
We we, in fact, you know, we do need to start looking at it that way.
She's right about this.
We're looking at it as a civil rights case.
Yeah, we it's the first protected virus in the country.
It has its own set of civil rights, and we ought to stop looking at it politically and looking at it as a health issue, which we're not.
It's a political issue.
She doesn't mean that though, so you are again fortunate to have me to translate what she really means or should have meant.
When we approach AIDS, we approach it as a sexual disease, not a plague.
Now that's that's by the way, not her, that's her sister, Ben Marrill, special assistant to Christine Gebby.
Uh, when we approach AIDS, we approach it as a sexual disease, not a plague.
Are we supposed to approach it as a plague?
Is that what you would prefer us to do?
Approach it as a plague, but it's a sexual disease too.
And it's not spreading as it nearly, it it's it's not spreading at all in epidemic proportions in the heterosexual community.
It just isn't.
In addition, now we don't, I'm gonna put this word up there because you aren't I I don't want to fan flames here.
But there are people in the AIDS activist community who are unhappy with Christine Gebby.
No, you're saying, well, I would be too.
No, no, no.
You uh the you're here's the AIDS czar.
I mean, this is this is what the AIDS community demanded that President Clinton do for them.
Now, this man's name is his name.
What I'm gonna tell you his name is is his name.
He's changed his name, obviously.
He's trying to make a political statement with his name, Mr. Luke Sissy Fag.
Don't laugh.
Would you not laugh when you see what's gonna happen is I'm gonna say his name.
It's his name.
It's right here in this paper, Luke Sissy Fag, an AIDS activist who criticized Ms. Gebi, said of her comments yesterday, Christine, put your money where your mouth is.
She says the right things like Bill Clinton, but doesn't do anything about it.
So we're gonna get cards and letters.
See, you're making up names, you're making fun.
No, no, no, no.
I am just a journalist.
I'm just reporting here what I what I see.
We have um we have one more story.
We got another asinine mascot is bad story.
This time it's from the University of Alabama, Birmingham.
Do you know what their mascot is here?
Look at their mascot.
Put this up there.
That is the uh, it's called Blaze.
That's a blazer.
That's the mascot.
There have been a button.
Now leave it up as I talk about it as you've got to hear what the criticism of this is.
Blaze is too violent, too mean, too white, and too male.
And the athletic director, the sports information director, is a guy named Grant Shingleton.
He says, I hate to use the word, but Blaze is too Aryan.
And he is a white male figure who didn't represent women or the ethnic mix on campus.
And so they got rid of Blaze.
He is gone, that's their mascot.
This is another example of how the PC crowd, a very small minority amplifying their voices so that it sounds thousands of times louder than it really is, has now caused another wimp administration at an institution of higher learning to cave in to a bunch of pressure.
And it's just this is getting to be too much.
Because nothing, let me tell you the irony of this.
You know all the Native Americans and Indians out there who are upset like with Washington Redskins or the tomahawk chop at the Atlanta Braves against here.
Watch that.
What do you think of this?
I love a Tomahawk show.
Oh!
Oh!
Why do they say we got rid of get rid of the Redskins or the tomahawk chop?
Because it offends them, right?
It offends Native Americans, offends the Indians.
Well, if anybody ought to be mad at this, it ought to be Aryans.
It ought to be people who are too mean, too white, and too male.
And they're not mad.
So here it is.
The activists, you can't offend them by making fun of them, and you cannot offend them by not even talking about them.
This has nothing to do with them, and yet they say it offends.
They want to control every aspect, folks, of your thoughts and of your ability to think, speak, and whatever else.
And they got institutions caving in and going along with it.
Minnesota Vikings.
You know what who to be mad at about that?
Is people who live over there in Norse land.
Whatever you what is it?
Holland, Dutch.
Do you see them complaining?
No, who's who's mad at the Vikings?
Probably some animal group is mad at the Vikings because of what they did together.
I mean, it's absolutely stupid.
And uh, you know, people laugh and think this is funny and so forth, and as isolated incidents, they are funny, but it's it's it's unfortunate.
People ought to be just you are stupid.
Go the hell back to class.
Start paying attention to what we're trying to teach you so that when you get out of here, you're capable of working and earning a living instead of sponging off the rest of society.
Now get out of my office.
This is what they ought to be told.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
And we'll be back right after this.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's time to revisit this violence on television business.
We talked about it uh a couple of shows ago, but it there are some things here which need to be said, and I want to concentrate on the lack of personal responsibility that seems to be sweeping this country.
We want to excuse everybody for what they do, find other situations to blame, other people to blame, anything other than the person who actually does something, good or bad.
It's never their fault or never to their credit.
Now, uh, we want to show you a couple more things here uh from uh Janet Reno and uh we have we have Senator Fritz Hollings with with some brilliant uh speech making from the Senate uh hearing room where this took place.
But first, we sent our cameras out.
We asked some people on the street whether or not the government ought to get involved in determining what should be seen on television in the area of violence, and here's what we found out there.
Sir, do you think that the government should regulate violence on television and in the movies?
Absolutely.
Because it includes violence.
You can see it with the kids in school and everybody.
No.
I don't think I think if you want to go watch something, you can watch it if it's freedom of choice.
Well, I think they should have started doing that a long time ago.
I think it's gone pretty far now.
I think, yes, actually, the answer to my question, maybe they could regulate it on certain channels and things like that.
The crime come from really the um the parents, the old generation.
I think that um a lot of people, because of the the working parents out there, you know, they're not really um home to support the children.
I don't believe in censorship.
I don't believe in censorship because um it's uh it's destructive, it's disruptive to the fabric of the country.
We need a we need a free flow and a free exchange of ideas, and the marketplace should really regulate uh what we see or what we don't see.
People think there's too much violence on television, you should turn their TV sets off and read a book.
Last two people, that's right.
That is absolutely right.
And I want to expand so not to impugn anybody else of that tape.
The last two people made the most sense uh about this whole question.
Uh, want to uh uh show you now, Senator Hollings, uh, who doesn't even know what's on television as he attempts now here to regulate it.
Watch this.
The TV is the most pervasive parent.
Call a narcotic, but the truth of the matter is, and we've got to acknowledge it.
It's the most pervasive of parents, all children see.
Uh, we got this, what is it, buff coat and beaver or beaver and something else?
They have I haven't seen it.
I don't watch it, but whatever it is, it was at seven o'clock.
Bopcoat and it put it on now at 10 30, I think.
They've pleaded guilty.
And they'll do it as long as you and I have hearings, but we just can't have hearings like we've had now for 40 years and get nowhere.
And yeah, we'll go see the attorney general, we'll go see the chairman, we'll go see, go see.
We good people, you good people, and we doing it.
But the truth of the matter is it's more and more provisions.
More and more violence on television.
Can't we do that?
And not really be uh constitutionally in violation or really uh uh hurting, as you and I don't want to do the First Amendment.
You you yeah, what?
Uh you got people, we got people, and we doing it.
Uh he's been talking to Christine Gebby, you know, the new age czar.
Um look, uh this is really tough because can you imagine if the founding father, the the First Amendment really is and it is was intended to cover political speech.
And uh, I think if the founding fathers think of this, can you imagine if uh, say Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, any of the guys who signed the declaration, worked on the Constitution, came back and saw Beavis and Butthead.
Um can you just see these guys as Beavis and Butthead signing the kind of the declaration?
This is cool.
Um I mean, it's it's uh uh there's no question there are problems that there's a lot of idiots uh doing television.
And I disagree with some.
I I want to a couple of quotes here from Janet Reno.
Let's let's look at this uh still store from uh this is from USA Today's cover story on Thursday.
It says here, I want to challenge TV to substantially reduce its violent programming now, or else the government will have to intervene.
We need to put a period in there after programming now.
Get that uh else the government will intervene stuff out of there.
Here's another quote from her uh where she occasionally she makes sense.
This woman occasionally does, and it's hard to pin her down ideologically.
But the promise of television remains vastly unfulfilled.
Too much of today's programming neither uplifts nor even reflects our national values and standards.
Instead of disseminating the best in our culture, television too often panders to our lowest common denominator.
She's right.
She's absolutely right, folks, about that.
But still, here's what you cannot lose sight of.
Mass marketing bad taste makes people think that most of America likes bad taste, but it doesn't.
The vast majority of the population of this country don't indulge in bad taste.
They don't live it that way.
Bad taste doesn't make headlines.
Bad taste does not make news.
Or it does make news.
Good taste and people following high standards, that's dull and boring.
And people who engage in in maintaining high standards and setting high standards and living their lives according to the traditional values and institutions that made this country great, they're made fun of.
But you can't cave into this, folks.
But you don't want the government moving in and turning uh uh in uh television into a government propaganda arm.
Look, it's real simple.
If you don't like Beavis and Butthead, turn it off.
It's real simple.
There's an on-off switch, and this is not cliched to say.
Televis I can't believe when you see 8,000 hours a year of television or whatever it is people are watching, gee whiz.
It's too much.
But it's not that difficult.
You don't need to have the government do for you what you can do for yourself, because once you start letting them do for you what you can do for yourself, you'll never be able to do it for yourself again.
They won't let you.
So if you don't like your kids watching stuff, don't watch it.
Turn it off.
It's a vast wasteland anyway, except for this show where we maintain high standards.
Don't be back.
right away I have to uh I have to apologize for something here because I went along with some other stuff.
There's a brilliant piece that appeared in the Thursday edition of the uh Wall Street Journal.
Uh Daniel Cass, uh, there it is, Shades of Carter in the Clinton Healthcare Plan.
What he's done here is gone back and compared the way Jimmy Carter's presidency ultimately failed uh with a stupid panic-generated energy program based on uh all kinds of contrived energy crises and fuel shortages and everything else.
And he makes the point that it was uh this expansive program that nobody could ever understand, that nobody could ever make head or tails of, that gave Ronald Reagan his opening to go in and just campaign on uh a smaller, less interventive uh government, interventionist government in people's lives.
And this thing since chills up down my back because uh I have been beating around this issue for a long time.
He really nailed it.
I wish I had written this, because he talks about how there needs to be philosophical opposition to the health care plan, and the Republicans are just waiting for a career to be made.
I want to take you through this, but I'm not gonna be able to do it.
There's simply enough time, and I don't want to just throw this stuff on the screen.
Uh, so we'll do it, I promise you on our next show.
I I want to take a break here, come back, just show you some of the latest health care problems the administration has.
They're major, and it's all good.
We'll be back after this.
Thank you.
Time goes on, the truth comes out about this health care plan.
Take a look at this story.
USA Today, more health plan exemptions sought.
This is a story about the National Association of Manufacturers say, hey, we need some exemptions from this health care plan.
And the administration said, okay, okay, okay.
So they're caving in here and there.
This is another interesting story.
Hillary's task force lacks records.
Uh White House lawyers in a surprising federal court revelation yesterday said that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care reform task force was so disorganized its total membership can't even be determined.
They can't even find out who put this thing together.
It's all a sham.
They can't, there are no details.
We knew more about who was running the Soviet Union because we can have pictures at least and find out those people were.
Finally, finally, this is not good news.
Look at this headline, my good friends.
This is from the New York Post.
That's Governor Kumo, Health Care Plan Bodzil for New York.
Says state has taken too many federal hits.
Aha, here comes the old Reagan problem.
Now, you know, New York's in bad shape because of Reagan and Bush, now Reagan Bush Clinton.
This simply means that Cuomo wants something.
And unless he gets it, like the next Supreme Court nomination, or whatever it is, he's going to be running out there running down the health care plan.
And this is how he operates.
I'll get what I want.
I'll start criticizing what they need.
They'll have to buy me off.
Keep an eye on Cuomo.
What does he get?
That's how they science him.
We're out of time.
Wish we weren't, but we've got a new show soon, so we'll see you back.
Bye.
Services provided and promotional fees paid by the following...
Quick suing tobacco with mint snuff, all mint chew.
Mint snuff is made for mint, not tobacco.
▲
Export Selection