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.
You know, there's a woman in this audience.
I just, I know she doesn't want to be here.
I just, I've been trying to find out.
I came out in the audience warm up and says, is there any liberal here?
No, it's not you.
No, It's not her.
It's not her, she's her, no, no, no, 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 don't quite understand it.
She knows who she is.
I'm not going to point her out.
We have a show to do here, folks.
I'm glad you've joined.
Wait a minute.
I don't have to unbutton this.
I've lost weight.
I can sit down with this still button.
See, look at this.
All right.
My friends, we talked as we got together on our most recent broadcast.
We talked about the tent that was set up at the White House that was pro-NAFTA.
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 people.
I don't know if you know, I wasn't.
What am I going to tell them as high-tech about Sarah Lee?
And it's probably the way they manufacture their goods 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, and 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 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 came in to 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 czar, by the way, is a woman named Christine Gebby.
And she's had a long history in the health fields.
And I wanted to pull some of the quotes from the story to indicate.
I mean, I'm literally, I'm amazed.
We have this disease, AIDS, and what is it, about 96% of all cases of AIDS are spread by some kind of sexual activity.
Maybe it's 78%.
No, it's about 90.
And then the other 10 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 Americans to seek their pleasure in sex.
Now, listen to some of these quotes.
Put them up individually.
Here we go.
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, is it not a temptingly pleasurable thing?
And it is called discipline and restraint to cause people to behave properly or improperly in the sexual arena.
But you've got the AIDS are out there saying, hey, go to town and enjoy it.
But how do they define talking about sex in terms of don't and disease is not working?
And I'm going to 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, we're giving them condoms.
We're encouraging them to go out.
There's nothing we would do, but here, kid, going, we know we can't stop you.
We have the sense to stop ourselves.
Because it's not, look, I hate to say this disease is not spreading like wildfire in the heterosexual community by way of sexual content.
It's just not happening.
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 going to 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.
In fact, 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.
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, by the way, not her.
That's her assistant, Ben Murrill, special assistant to Christine Gebby.
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's not spreading at all in epidemic proportions in the heterosexual community.
It just isn't.
In addition, now we don't, I'm going to put this word up there because you aren't, 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.
Here's the AIDS czar.
I mean, this is what the AIDS community demanded that President Clinton do for them.
Now, this man's name is his name.
What I'm going to 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?
See, what's going to happen is I'm going to say his name.
It's his name.
It's right here in this paper.
Luke Sissifag, 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 going to 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 see.
We have one more story.
We've got another asinine mascot is bad story.
This time it's from the University of Alabama, Birmingham.
Do you know what they're mad here?
Look at their mascot.
Put this up there.
That is the, 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.
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, 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 get here?
Watch out.
What do you think of this?
a little tomahawk chop 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 he got institutions caving in and going along with it.
Minnesota Vikings.
You know who would be mad about that?
Is people who live over there in Northland?
Whatever you're, what is it, Holland, Dutch?
Do you see them complaining?
No.
Who's mad at the Vikings?
Probably some animal group is mad at the Vikings because of what they did together.
It's absolutely stupid.
And, you know, people laugh and think this is funny and so forth.
And as isolated incidents, they are funny, but 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 is what they ought to be told.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's time to revisit this violence on television business.
We talked about it a couple of shows ago, but 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, we want to show you a couple more things here from Janet Reno, and we have Senator Fritz Hollings with some brilliant speech making from the Senate hearing room where this took place.
But first, we sent our cameras out.
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 is what we found out.
Sir, do you think that the government should regulate violence on television and in the movies?
Absolutely.
Because it increases violence.
You can see it with decades in school and everybody.
No.
I don't think, I think if you want to go watch something, you can watch it.
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, to answer my question, maybe they could regulate it on certain channels and things like that.
The crime come from really the parents, the old generation.
I think that a lot of people, because of the working parents out there, you know, they're not really home to support the children.
I don't believe in censorship.
I don't believe in censorship because it's destructive.
It's destructive to the fabric of the country.
We need a free flow and a free exchange of ideas, and the marketplace should really regulate what we see or what we don't see.
People think there's too much violence on television.
You should turn your TV sets off and read a book.
Last two people.
That's right.
That is absolutely right.
And I want to expand.
Not to impugn anybody else to that tape.
The last two people made the most sense about this whole question.
Want to show you now Senator Hollings, 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.
They call it 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.
We got this, was it Buffcoat and Beavo or Beava and something else?
I haven't seen it.
I don't watch it, but whatever it is, it was at 7 o'clock.
Buffcode, and they 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 pervasive, more and more violence on television.
Can't we do that and not really be constitutionally in violation or really hurting, as you and I don't want to do, the First Amendment?
Yeah, what?
You got people, we got people, and we doing it.
He's been talking to Christine Gebby, you know, the new age czar.
Look, this is really tough because can you imagine if the founding fathers, the First Amendment really is, and it was intended to cover political speech.
And I think if the founding fathers, think of this, can you imagine if, say, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, the guys who signed the Declaration, worked on the Constitution, came back and Beavis and Butthead?
Can you just see these guys as Beavis and Butthead signing the kind of declaration?
This is cool.
I mean, it's, it's, uh, uh, there's no question there are problems.
There's a lot of idiots doing television.
And I disagree with some.
A couple of quotes here from Janet Reno.
Let's look at this still store from, 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 else the government will intervene stuff out of there.
Here's another quote from her 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 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 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.
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.
We'll be back.
I 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 Wall Street Journal.
Daniel Cass, there it is, The 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 with a stupid panic-generated energy program based on all kinds of contrived energy crises and fuel shortages and everything else.
And he makes the point that it was 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 a smaller, less interventive government, interventionist government in people's lives.
And this thing sent chills up down my back because 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 healthcare plan and the Republicans are just waiting for a career to be made.
I want to take you through this, but I'm not going to be able to do it.
There's simply enough time.
I don't want to just throw this stuff on the screen.
So we'll do it, I promise you, on our next show.
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 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.
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 puts 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 could have pictures at least and find who 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 bodes ill for New York.
It 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 chewing tobacco with mint snuff, all mint chew.
Mint snuff is made from mint, not tobacco.
▲
Export Selection