All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
March 22, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, they've actually done it.
I everybody's wimping out.
Everybody is wimping out.
It's not in my world anymore.
It just isn't.
Well, look at it.
The NFL owners have just voted to basically remove the kickoff return as a play from the National Football League.
They're going to move.
They're going to move the kickoff up to the 35-yard line, which is going to guarantee a touchback, i.e., kickoff into the end zone well over 70% of the time.
They originally are going to put this book put the ball at 25-yard line after a touchback.
They're going to keep it at the 20 instead of the 25.
They're trying to remove injuries.
They're trying to remove concussions and other injuries.
They've got research data says severest injuries take place in kickoff returns.
Everybody's in high speed and opposite directions, kablooey.
So they're going to move the kick up up a 35-yard line, and the touchback will remain at a 20-yard line.
You know what?
Why don't they just eliminate kickoff?
Why is he after a touchdown just spot the ball at the 20 and go?
Change the roster's all.
You don't need a Devin Hester for the Bears.
You'll need a return specialist.
You don't even need a particularly good kickoff guy.
You don't need special teams offense and defense specialists.
Oh man.
You know what I hope happens?
You know what I hope happens?
I hope the coaches that disagree with this.
Coach their kickers to kick the ball a 10-yard line, a five-year line, and force a return.
Hi, folks.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882, and we are going to get to your phone calls in the next segment.
That I uh I promise.
That 2002 speech, Greg, grab audio sumbite number seven again before we move on to number eight.
Grab number seven there, Ed, because there are a lot of things Obama said at this speech that I want to remind you of.
I don't oppose war in all circumstances, and when I look out over this crowd today, I know there is no shortage of patriots or patriotism.
What I do oppose is a dumb war.
Now that same speech, Obama talked about the need to overthrow all the dictators in the Middle East.
Yeah, he's we can all the dictators.
You want to fight President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians stop oppressing their own people.
And suppressing dissent, tolerating corruption and inequality, mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope.
The ready recruits of terrorist cells.
That's from the same 2002 anti-Iraq war speech that uh that Obama gave.
Let's make sure our so-called allies, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop speaking of our friends, the Saudis, guess guess who got stoned the other day in Egypt?
The estimable Mohammed Al Baradai, who we were told was the number one choice of the freedom fighters, the democracy movement, quote unquote, in Egypt.
This guy shows up and he gets stoned.
Do we know if that was a democracy movement yet in Egypt?
Of course we don't know yet.
All right.
Here's this piece.
I finally found this.
It's from Politico.
This is a disgrace, folks, disguised as performing the duties of commander in chief.
The only question is who looks worse in this?
The president or politico.
But the politico, you people play.
You know we love you here.
It's a plea.
You know that we love you here.
But you gotta be embarrassed publishing this.
It's it's on their uh Politico 44 blog, Obama being president 44.
Dinner and a briefing.
While eating at an official dinner with Chile's president Monday night, President Obama was updated throughout the meal on the downed American plane in Libya.
The National Security Advisor, Tom Donovan told Obama of the plane at 7 45 p.m. before dinner and kept Obama updated during the ride, telling him the U.S. was in touch with the pilots on the ground.
Donald stayed at the hotel and provided two updates during the dinner to Chief of Staff Bill Daly, who relayed to the president about the ongoing recovery efforts.
Carney said on Air Force One.
When Obama returned to the hotel, he spoke with Admiral Mike Mullen and learned the pilots were safe.
This intersection of a formal dinner in Chile and an effort to stay updated on the pilot's safety reflects both the multitasking nature of Obama and the consequences of his decision to go on his five-day trip right after ordering an attack on Libya.
Do you realize he was that capable, folks?
Are you not dazzled by this unique talent to be informed while dining of the fate of American fighter pilots?
This intersection reflects the multitasking nature of Obama.
Do you think um I got a pretty observant note from a friend?
You think Bush reading to the kids in the classroom on 9-11 would have ever been praised for his ability to multitask?
Costly military mission shelling taxpayers.
You know, this is one of the complaints Obama had all the Democrats of how much Iraq was costing us, and how better that money could be used for what?
Education No education.
Education.
Education, education, education, which means funding our union buddies now.
We know that.
Oh yeah.
And remember, the Iraq war supposedly costs us a trillion dollars, so everything Obama was going to do was going to save was going to cost just under a trillion dollars.
Health care doesn't matter.
It's going to be the stimulus under a trillion.
Because Obama was constantly telling us that Iraq cost a trillion.
Amid fierce budget battles over record high deficits and debt, Capitol Hill lawmakers are wondering who's going to pay for the hugely expensive U.S. backed military mission in Libya.
The first day alone of Obama's Operation Odyssey.
Odyssey Dawn, I'm sorry, uh, ran up a tab for as much as 168 million dollars with coalition forces launching 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles that cost a million to a million and a half each.
That's a lot of damn health care insurance for a lot of teachers that were spending on missiles.
Most of the missiles came from U.S. warships.
The initial campaign to stifle Colonel Qaddafi's forces with a no-fly zone will cost between 400 million and 800 million, according to the center for strategic and budgetary assessments.
After that, maintaining the no fly zone will cost 30 million to a hundred million dollars a week, racking up a total bill of between 1.1 billion and 3.4 billion over six months.
Now, I have a friend who flew refueling missions for our no-fly zone over Bosnia.
He flew the tankers.
In this case, the KC 135, which the military version of the Boeing 707.
He sent me a note on Friday.
And I was, you know, I never stopped to think of this.
But I was stunned when I read this.
Again, this is from a tanker pilot.
Here's the logistical tale for all of this, Sir Rush, he calls me Sir Rush.
A four ship of F-15 Eagles, meaning uh four jets.
Four jets as part of a no-fly zone.
A four ship of fifty of uh of F-15 Eagles requires a minimum.
Folks get ready for this.
This is going to blow your mind.
A minimum of eighteen KC 135 sorties missions.
18 tanker plane sorties to keep those four Eagles manned for 24 hours.
No fly zone, they never come down.
They're all constantly up there.
These tankers, the 18, the KC-135 tankers take off with a hundred and eighty thousand pounds of jet fuel.
Whatever the derivative is for these fighter jets, I'm not sure.
This translates into 3.2 million pounds of gas to keep four F-15s airborne.
And that's just one cap station.
Qaddafi has several bases we will need to watch.
So multiply the 3.2 million pounds by the number of cap stations that you have to keep manned.
These tankers are gonna need to be put at locations which can support these 3.2 million pounds a day fuel.
Um there are not many places which can support this kind of operational tempo in Europe.
The problem with this math is that all bets are off if the Eagles actually commit on a Libyan fighter plane and shoot it down.
The first thing the Eagle pilots will do before they engage is configure the jet for combat.
They want the maximum maneuverability an Eagle Jet will give them, which means the external fuel tanks will come off.
They'll just drop them.
They'll probably keep the two wing tanks, but uh have lost the ability to carry 4,000 pounds of gas, compounding the fuel problem.
So just to give you an idea, the F-15 burns 8,000 pounds of gas an hour flying in this station in the no-fly zone routine.
It burns 2,000 pounds a minute when it is engaging or fighting a Libyan MiG because the fighter pilots using the afterburner.
Well, now you can see why all bets are off when they engage.
Our rule of thumb is that it's going to take 22 to 24 tanker sorties if the Eagles are active or engaging the MiGs, i.e., people dying in the bad guy jets.
So now you understand why sustainment of a large-scale tanker operation requires betting down tankers and airfields which are prepared for large-scale air refueling operations.
These numbers boggle my mind.
Just the amount of fuel, the amount of flights that the tankers are gonna have to make in order to keep just four F-15s in the air.
And if those four F-15s engage in combat, then the numbers expand, even more fuel is used.
Because the afterburners turned on.
And again, this is just four.
It goes to the cost of all this, it goes to the expense of all this.
And again, this is from uh tanker pilot who flew refueling missions during our no-fly zone over Bosnia-Kosovo, where a genocide took place, by the way.
A genocide took place under the no-fly zone, and our cameras aboard the planes and Clinton's no fly zone was 15,000 feet.
We saw the genocide take place.
We saw the the uh mass graves, saw where they had been dug.
At any rate, a little long here.
Let's take a break, and as I promised, phone calls when we get back.
Okay.
You never know.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, you never know what's gonna be lurking behind the blinking yellow lights on the phone system.
All we know is that if it's a cell phone, I won't be able to talk to them.
That much we do know.
And let's say Tom in Metro, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you here.
Thank you, Rush, and thanks for having me on.
Uh, I'm I'm I think the uh the stuff coming out of the White House on this whole issue in the Middle East and in North Africa is is pathetic.
And all really that I think this administration needed to do was to understand why George Bush and Dick Cheney went to the such efforts in 2001 and three to establish democracies in that area, hoping that other countries who are being run by a dictator would follow suit.
And it's not like somebody beginning in Egypt, uh, a couple guys sitting around in a coffee shop said, hey, let's go knock off Mubarik.
This was something that George Bush and Dick Cheney hoped for and I think even predicted would happen.
And now I don't think the White House understands that and is following up on it.
I think he needs to do everything he can to support those who do seek such democratic moves.
And I don't think they're doing it.
Well, now it's I don't know if is it clear yet that we do have an actual pro-democracy uh uprising in Egypt.
And we don't you know, I don't know.
We had um the other day there was it was last week sometime that uh the rebels, quote unquote in Libya may in fact be al Qaeda.
And that the it and there's two sets of them.
The others are Shiites that are that are uh sponsored by Iran.
So we don't we don't really know who these uprisings are being sponsored for for what purpose.
But that's why I think it's even more important for this administration to be involved with those countries to see that that kind of democracy that we would then hope for can proceed.
No, they thought so in Egypt.
I mean, clearly, you know, Obama went out and got in front of it and and tried to, as I say, my own inimitable way, own the mob.
Uh they clearly, and and it was it wasn't Obama alone, there was some conservative intelligentsia thinkers who portrayed this as a democracy movement from the get-go.
Still not clear.
I I I agree with you, and I don't think it is clear, but the fact of the matter is I think there is a group, a large group of people over there who are not connected to any of those rebel group uh the uh the al-Qaeda group who really do see what's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq and want to be like that.
Well, some of them are in Iran.
And in two thousand nine they rose up, but we didn't help them.
Absolutely.
And and and you you got you got uh the guy down in Zimbabwe, uh old Bob down there killing people every day.
And soon I think it's I think it's gonna spread that far.
Well, that's you know, that's I was uh sometimes I use humor to make a point, but if if if if we if we're going in to uh help mistreated citizens, Mugabe?
Darfur?
There's a lot more in Zimbabwe and Darfur than in Libya.
Arizona.
Yeah, that's true.
There's no oil in Arizona.
There's no oil in Darfur, and there's no oil in I just love tweaking the libs on this.
I just I just I just love it.
Look, Tom, I'm I'm glad you called.
Um I don't know why we don't know these somebody asking me why do we know who these people are?
Because CNN hasn't identified them yet.
Remember Leon Panetta, who runs the CIA told us he found out what was going on in Egypt by watching CNN.
And when CNN tells us who these people are, then we'll know.
That apparently is the extent of our intel.
Richard, in Port Angelis, Washington, uh, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Megadidos rushed from a military attiree and longtime listener.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Yes, my question is, do you think the Europeans might have launched the action in Libya to prevent um refugees from flooding into their countries and into their social systems?
Uh well that's possible.
Anything is possible.
I think they realize their open borders of uh their multicultural.
Well, they've said both the UK and French prime minister's presidents have said multiculturalism is a failure.
So you may have a point.
But I also think I also think Richard that they did because we didn't do anything.
We were dithering, and they decided action needed to be taken for one reason or another.
Rod in Olean, New York, you're next, sir on the EIB network.
Hello, how are you today?
Very fine, sir, very fine.
I just um very interesting topics today, but one that you had mentioned at the beginning of your show about these girls today.
Yep.
Um I'm a fifty-nine-year-old dad raising an eleven and fifteen, fifteen-year-old on my own.
Eleven and fifteen-year-old.
Yes.
Both daughters?
Yes.
And um it's just totally amazing when my daughters come home from school and tell me the things that go on.
And I work ten hour days Monday through Thursday and have Fridays off, so I get to take them to school and drop them off.
And it's totally amazing when I get to see, you know, some of these kids that are going into school and coming out the way that they're dressed.
Right.
And I mean, it's in the winter time we've we've had two feet of snow overnight, and you see girls coming out of school with foot flaps on.
And in the summertime you see them wearing winter boots.
And some of these girls that my daughters talk to me about, they have more makeup than any woman I've ever known that's had.
Right.
And worry you.
Pardon me.
That worry you.
Uh it doesn't worry me about my two.
It worries me about the future of these kids today.
And the parents that are raising a lot of these kids.
Um, because my daughters know that, you know, a lot of this behavior that they see in school and the dress and everything is wrong.
And you know, they they themselves are political, and they're both of them are very republican.
And they both know how much wrong things are being done in this country today, but when they go to school or with their friends, they keep their mouth shut because you know they these kids don't even want to talk about anything like that.
They want to talk about boys.
Well, I hope that you're right in your assessment of the peer pressure is a powerful thing.
It uh it really is.
Now, folks, what he's talking about, and I guess I'll get into this in detail we get back to it.
Wall Street Journal story from a couple days ago, three days ago, by a uh uh a liberated feminist, Jennifer Moses.
Why do we let them dress like that?
And it's all about post-feminist mothers and why they let their women dress or girls, their daughters dress for sex, and that's putting it classy.
So I have a details on that.
And still lots of other stuff, too, so sit tight.
That's for a man, a legend.
And...
A way of life, in fact.
Learn it, love it, live it.
You remember, I believe it was last week, shared with you some brilliance from the British historian Paul Johnson.
Paul Johnson sort of poo-pooed the idea that he was an intellectual.
Because it's no no, no no.
Umtellectuals put ideas before people.
And that's not right.
People always should come before ideas.
Well, it follows here, this story in the Wall Street Journal is actually from March the 19th.
Why do we let them dress like that?
Women of a liberated generation wrestle with their eager to grow up daughters and their own pasts.
And it's about these mothers, these post feminist mothers who bought feminism from the late sixties on.
Now they have their daughters and they don't like their daughters living the lives they live.
They don't like it.
They don't like the notion they can dress up and say, Come get me.
Come get me, I'm available.
That's what they did.
There was free sucks, uh, free sex, there was free love everywhere, and these babes engaged it.
They don't want that for their daughters.
This is common.
But back then you see as feminists, they were putting people behind ideas.
Ideas before people.
Now that it's their daughters, guess what counts most?
Their daughters, people, not the idea of feminism.
Paul Johnson was right.
In the pale turquoise ladies' room, they congregate in front of the mirror, reapplying the mascara and lip gloss, brushing their hair, straightening panty hose and gossiping.
This one's skanky.
That was really cute and so forth.
Dressed in mini dresses, perilously high heels in glittery dangling earrings, their eyes heavily shadowed in black pearl, and jade.
They look like a flock of tropical birds.
A few minutes later, they return to the dance floor, where they shake everything they've got under the party lights.
But for the most part, there isn't all that much to shake.
This particular group of twelve and thirteen-year-olds of partygoers.
And along with their male counterparts, they're celebrating the bat mitzvah of a classmate in a cushy East Coast suburb in a few Years their attention will turn to the annual ritual of shopping for a prom dress, and by then their fashion tastes will have advanced still more, having done this now for two years with my own daughter.
I continue to be amazed by the plunging necklines, the built-in push-up bras, spangles, feathers, slits, and peekaboos, and try finding a pair of sufficiently promish shoes designed with less than a two inch heel.
All of which brings me to a question.
Why do so many of us not only permit our teenage daughters to dress like this like prostitutes, for being honest with ourselves, but pay for them to do it with our credit cards.
I posed this question to a friend whose teenage daughter goes to an all girls private scrual in New York.
It isn't that different from when we were kids, she said.
The girls in the sexy clothes are the fast girls.
They'll have Facebook pictures of themselves opening a bottle of champagne like Paris Hilton, and sometimes the moms and dads are out there contributing to it, shopping with them, throwing them parties at the clubs.
It's almost like they're saying, Look at how hot my daughter is.
Well, what why?
Well, I think it's a bonding thing, she said.
It starts with the mommy daughter manicure and it goes on from there.
I have a different theory, writes the authoress, Jennifer Moses.
It has to do with how conflicted my own generation of women is about our own past.
When many of us behaved in ways that we now regret.
A woman I know with two mature daughters said, if I could do it again, I would not have slept with my husband before marriage.
Sex is the most powerful thing there is in our generation.
What do we know?
We're the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn't have to worry about getting knocked up.
We were also the first not only to be free of old fashioned fears about our reputations, but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom.
Not all of us are former good time girls now drowning in regret.
I know many women in my generation who waited until marriage, but that's certainly the norm among my peers.
So here we are, the feminist and post feminist and post pill generation.
We somehow survived our own teen and college years, except for those who didn't.
And now with the exception of some Mormons, evangelicals, and Orthodox Jews, scads of us, don't know how to teach our own sons and daughters not to give away their bodies so readily.
We're embarrassed, and we don't want to be, God forbid, hypocrites.
Still in my own circle of girlfriends, the desire to push back is strong.
I don't know one of them who doesn't have feelings of lingering discomfort regarding her own sexual past.
Not one woman I've ever asked about the subject has said that she wishes she'd experimented more, not less.
As for the girls themselves, if you ask them why they dress the way they do, they'll say roughly the same things I said to my mother.
What's the big deal?
It's the style.
Could you be any more out of it, mom?
What teenage girls don't want to be attractive, sought after and popular after all.
And what mom doesn't want to help that cause Well, far be it for me to insert myself here, I not only am not a mother, I never will be.
So what to do here is some might say what do you know, Rush, when they would be absolutely right.
But if you're going to spend all of this time preparing your daughter to look hot, be attractive, sexy, all this sort of starting at age twelve and thirteen.
maybe might want to encourage their education about other things too.
So Sorry, I knew I okay, sorry, the frowns I'm getting.
Who do you think you are?
Well, I mean, if you're gonna spend all this time teaching twelve and thirteen year olds how to dress seductively.
See that look it.
If you compare and contrast this, and I did it at the beginning of the show, if you can tear compare contrast this story with the uh Chinese mother who wrote about Chinese moms, tiger moms, and how all they do is push them, push them, push them to be educationally the best, and so forth, none of this kind of stuff.
There's got to be a happy medium here.
That article created a whole lot of controversy out there among among parents.
But uh Jennifer Moses says here in my own case, when I see my daughter in drop dead gorgeous mode, I experience something akin to a thrill, especially since I myself am somewhat past the age to turn heads.
Aha.
Uh-huh.
Might that be a to some degree relevant factor.
Living vicariously through the daughter.
But it's easy for parents to slip into denial.
We wouldn't dream of dropping our daughters off at college and saying study hard and floss every night, honey, and for heaven's sakes get laid.
But that's essentially what we are saying by allowing them to dress the way they do while they are living under our roots.
Don't forget now what's what spawned this is this how this mother and her buds lived.
This is what feminism taught them.
And they don't like it.
The idea takes second fiddle to people when the people are their daughters.
And this woman thinks that she is of the first generation that actually did this.
And is there a first in anything anymore?
Might be the first pill generation, might be the first generation to not have to worry about consequences because of the pill.
I can understand that.
But is this really the first bunch of mothers that I mean, show me the group of mothers who wanted their daughters to appear average.
It doesn't happen, does it?
Anyway, back in the old days, women went to college to get married.
That's why their that's why their parents sent them there.
Find a husband, that was it.
Once men figured that out, they stopped going to college, and that's why you have this terrific lack of proportion now at student body percentages.
Back to the phones we go, Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And the Delaware, this is uh Mary Ann.
Mary, is it Lewis or Louis, Delaware?
Lewis, Delaware.
Great to have you on the program.
Thank you.
Uh Joe Biden country.
I called to uh mention about the president of Chile.
He didn't leave the country when the miners were uh trapped down there in the mines, but uh Obama seems to think the world's on fire here and he can just travel around wherever he wants and you know, playing summer vacations and spring break uh for the girls and uh uh Mrs. You are you are forgetting the uh the admonition we all got earlier from politico, Obama can multitask.
You and I can't really relate to it or even hope to understand it.
We just have to accept it.
He has pragmatism, uh he has the ability to multitask and can do all of these things, many different things at one time is still in stay on top of all of them.
Yeah, well, that's the point.
I think we tried to get across when President Bush would vacation, and and when he would vacation, he went to his own ranch or the family home up in uh Kenny Bunkport, which uh when the Clintons and the Obamas go on vacation, it's out our expense.
They have to rent from very expensive donors.
And um, you know, it it it's at our expense, but that that's okay.
And they never hold on a second.
It's be fair.
The Clintons never had a house.
Well, they do now at our expense up there in um uh New York, where uh we pa we were paying for that, I'm sure.
Well, no, they bought it, they bought it with uh book money and in uh in Chapel Claw, but I mean while they were president, Clinton they never had a house.
Uh they had always lived in government housing.
Yeah.
Obama's places in Chicago, and you don't go there in snowstorms in the winter and that kind of stuff.
So has he been back other than to campaign for somebody?
I uh you know, I don't think he's been back since.
I just thought the president of Chile stuck with his his people in time of crisis and was concerned.
And uh President Obama just feels like he can just um be the world traveler when the world is in chaos, and especially our country with the the economic situation we're under, and he just votes present and then leaves.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've been a lot of years trying to get through, and I'm glad I did.
I'm glad you met I'm glad you made it through, Marianne, and and you you pretty much got it sized up.
Uh there's I what else is there to say on uh on that topic.
Fred in Ontario, Canada.
Uh uh, California, sorry, you're next, and it's great to have you here.
Oh, gee, Rush.
This is great.
Uh an honor.
Thank you, sir.
Uh I haven't uh just came up with uh an idea that nobody's mentioned the fact that uh uh it's about time Gaddafi uh answered for uh uh his uh effort in the Pan Am bombing.
Oh, yes, the Lockerby bombing.
Well Lockerby bombing, yeah.
Uh is that would be reason enough, I would think, for to go after him.
And uh and also uh that other fellow they let out of jail uh uh fraudulently uh because he had uh cancer.
He had cancer out there, now it's gone away.
Yeah.
Wouldn't you think that's reason uh enough to go after him?
Well, uh it was enough for Reagan.
It was enough for Reagan to go after him uh when Qaddafi had engaged in terrorist activity in a nightclub and killed uh killed Americans.
But that's clearly not why we did this.
If that was the reason, they would say it.
Yeah, they would.
If they had conclusive evidence that Qaddafi was eh, would they they'd hide behind that or do something?
No, that this is um this is the bottom line is Obama didn't want to do it.
He just didn't want to do it.
Well, it supposedly is against a lot of target leaders, but you can get exceptions to it.
Uh but establishing the fact that Qaddafi is a bad guy is uh long ago been been done.
Anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Fred.
Thanks, uh thanks much.
It was, by the way, Qaddafi, November 30th last year, warned that his country Libya would no longer be a coast guard for Europe.
He reiterated his demand for six and a half billion dollars a year from the EU to stop black migrants from overwhelming Europe.
He told him.
He said we should stop this illegal immigration.
If we don't, Europe will become black.
It'll become overcome by people with different religions.
It'll change.
He was speaking at the opening of the third EU Africa Summit held in Tripoli.
He went a step further.
Only Italy had understood the situation, he said, pointing out that because it had cooperated with Libya, it managed to delay illegal immigration.
So Qaddafi's uh trying to warn you and now who is it that's turned on him here?
You know what?
Just imagine.
Imagine how nuts the left will go if Gaddafi is weapons of mass destruction aren't found.
Anyway, we got some funny left-wing sound bites of people angry at Obama.
All that coming up, plus uh much more in our remaining broadcast hour.
▲
Export Selection