All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:44
April 4, 2011, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, I've noticed that Trump's not giving it up.
Trump is not, he's doubling down every day.
When asked about Obama's birth certificate, he's doubling down on it.
You know, I was over in Hawaii on a weekend.
I talked with a friend of mine about this, and he was laughing.
You know, the governor over there, Neil Abercrombie, a family friend of the Obama's, announced he's going to put an end to this.
He's going to go out.
He's going to find the birth certificate and he's going to make it public and then put an end to it.
And he can't find it.
So Trump, Trump hanging in and being tough on this.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
What do women really want?
Let me just cut to the chase on this, and then I'll give you the details.
70% of women, according to a poll taken by Celinda Lake, 70% of women want security from government.
So the answer to the question, what do women want, 70% want to be taken care of?
Hey, Gloria Steinen, so much for the feminazi movement.
We had a movement here that corrupted, as far as I'm concerned, the male-female relationship dynamic in this country for 40 years.
It has totally corrupted it.
It was supposed to make opportunity for women.
They were supposed to go out there and be exactly like men, have the same rules, be able to play the same game with the same rules, wear the same kinds of clothes, same opportunity for women, and yet, after 40 years of feminazism, all they want is security, but not from men.
That's one thing that hasn't changed.
Men are jerks.
They want security from government.
Celinda Lake is a political pulser.
She and Ed go as do the Battleground poll.
It's highly regarded.
Most highly reputed polls that there is out there.
And she says here, for Democrats and Republican Party leaders now jockeying in the budget debate, failure to understand women's concerns could have major implications in 2012.
Female voters, like men, are focused on the economy, but women care about kitchen table issues, investments in public education, affordable health insurance, protecting Social Security, equal pay enforcement, minimum wage increases, job training.
By the way, I have a serious question with our culture, the way it is evolving.
Is there really this kitchen table stuff?
Does that happen anymore?
A lot of families.
I mean, families don't even eat dinner together anymore.
Certainly not every night.
I mean, do moms and dads and the 2.8 kids sit around the kids.
Hell, do mom and dad sit around the kitchen table?
You know, we've seen the pictures, mom and dad sitting at the kitchen table.
The monthly bills are there.
They're going through it and they're sweating and they're rolling their eyes.
Oh my God, Mabel, how are we going to pay this?
We can't afford this, Mabel.
And then they start talking about who they're going to vote for in context of kitchen table issues are now, is that trans fat?
A kitchen table issue is, what's a caloric con?
A kitchen table issue, no, you eat the salad.
You don't need those French fries.
That's a kitchen table issue.
Am I right, certainly?
That's what a kitchen table is.
I'm serious.
Some of you, if any of you still do this kitchen table stuff, it's a staple of the American, you know, it's almost a staple, a Norman Rockwell-type staple of the American political scene.
Anyway, in the midterms, these concerns were largely unacknowledged by both parties, meaning the November elections.
That's one big reason why, for the first time in decades, Democrats lost the female vote.
Now, you know what she's saying here?
She's saying that the Democrats would have just remembered to promise more spending for more security, for more women that the Republicans would not have won.
What Celinda Lake appears to be saying here is that women, if they just, if you want more spending, say so, that equals security.
That that party is going to win.
The budget debate, with its disproportionate emphasis on reducing the deficit by cutting essential programs, is misfiring when it comes to women's concerns.
Now, let me look at this one.
The budget debate, with its disproportionate emphasis on reducing the deficit by cutting essential programs.
Ms. Lake, you know, most people's focus on the budget has to do with spending.
It's the spending side that's got everybody's attention.
It's spending that's out of whack.
Nobody's really up in arms here about proposed cuts.
That's going to happen starting tomorrow.
A Democrat's going to start squealing like stuck pigs tomorrow.
Democrats and Republicans alike need to understand that women have a different relationship with economic security than men.
Women value security for the economy while men value opportunity.
According to a 2010 Lake Research Partners survey for the Center for Community Change and the Ms. Foundation for Women, the survey showed that women pick security provided by government over opportunity 70% to 29% compared to 54% to 43% among men.
And I'm going to tell you something, folks, this bothers me.
I can understand, I'm going to catch hell for this, but I can understand 70% of women wanting security.
Because feminism has been a joke from day one.
I mean, feminism basically tried to change human nature because human nature had been so unkind to many of the early feminist leaders.
I mean, that's basically what got this whole thing started.
Let's just be honest about it.
What do I mean unkind?
It's self-explanatory.
It makes perfect sense.
Human nature had been unkind to the earth.
So this is all about altering natural roles.
Men and women have natural roles.
We talked about it last week.
You know, some of these idiots at the news magazines admitted that they bought into this notion that if you raise a little girl with G.I. Joe in a dark blue bedroom, that she won't end up being feminine.
And they tried it.
And if you put a little boy in a pink bedroom with a bunch of Barbies, he'll end up not being masculine.
Turned out not to be true.
There are natural roles.
And feminism came along and tried to tamper with them, change them.
And it didn't work.
And proof positive of it here is this survey.
70% of women still security.
Now, don't misunderstand me on this.
This is not to say that, well, maybe it is to say it.
It's best for me not to explain it if you don't understand it.
I'll just have you guess.
What worries me about this, I mean, 70% of women wanting security, fine, get it.
But 54% of men, 43% pick security over opportunity.
That's what feminism's done.
Feminism has destroyed men.
Look at what the hell.
54% of men side on security instead of opportunity.
Am I reading that right?
Maybe it's 43, 50.
Let's see.
Survey showed women pick security over opportunity 70 to 29.
Yeah, 54% of men pick security over opportunity.
Oh, geez.
That's depressing.
Celinda Lake says this is no wonder, given the clustering of women in dead-end, low-paying jobs.
What?
Anyway, the persistent gender gap in wages, there isn't one anymore.
Never mind.
And the fact that nearly half of women are now unmarried or unpartnered, single, divorced, separated, or widowed.
Well, look what happens here.
We go back to the concept of family.
Look at here.
The survey here, it's even worse.
Women demand more security when they're unmarried, when they're widowed, divorced, or separated.
Why, why, what?
Why, that's bringing family values back into the debate.
Democrats don't want to talk about family values.
But here they are.
The House Republican budget bill slashes nearly 10% from Social Security for the remainder of 2011.
These cuts hurt women who are 57% of Social Security beneficiaries ages 62 and older.
Polling shows that women are more concerned than men that family income will not be enough to meet basic expenses.
Two-thirds of women express strong doubts that they will ever be able to cover basic expenses when they retire, but men aren't worried about it so much.
That's what the polling data shows.
It does.
This poll makes it sound like everybody involved here has given up.
Folks, do you realize 70% of women want security?
What does that mean?
Who's going to pay for it?
They want it from the government.
Who's going to pay for that?
Oh, geez.
Well, then, there you have it.
Feminism, big whoop, right?
Women, who has done more to break up the American family and make women more dependent on government?
The Democrat Party.
And now we know why.
Votes.
Now we know why.
Just the same destruction that they have wrought over the black population in this country and over other minorities.
They apparently have succeeded in doing this with women, starting a soccer mom phenomenon and all that.
It's right.
As I say, Celinda Lake has a great reputation as a pollster.
Extraordinary.
Brief timeout, folks.
Got to take it.
We'll continue with much more, and I promise to get some more of your phone calls in there when we get back.
Eric Holder was just on television announcing the trial of Khalil Sheikh Mohammed will remain at Club Gitnow.
Holder is still insisting that the best venue for the trials would be in federal court.
But he started whining.
He said, Yeah, Congress has intervened.
So isn't this going to taint the convictions?
Not the best place.
Unfair trial.
Convictions could be challenged.
Since Holder said today, they didn't get as good a trial as they could have gotten.
And this guy's supposed to be a lawyer.
I still say he's posing.
All this is just posing for the radical kook fringe left.
Here's Don and Tampa, Don.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you here with us.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
And it's an honor.
And I just want to say and admit, I guess it seems like every day my feud seems to be getting shorter and shorter.
And the reasons why I wanted to call was on the subject of the crony capitalism and the unionism.
But that call just before the hour, Mr. Kopay, I don't have a message for him directly.
I mean, he's retired and good for him.
But for all the UAW folks that are 55 and under, and the Teamsters and the teachers' unions, we're not in Mr. Trumpka and Stern.
We're not afraid of you.
Stern said the other day he's prepared for a Vietnam-style war.
We are not afraid.
I am an entrepreneur, and I'm not going to say how hard I work and how much money I spend in healthcare.
Trust me, I'm not worried about copay.
And maybe it's his whole copay mentality.
But I just want to share with folks, Rush, I am actually, I'm jazzed up.
I love guys like Paul Ryan, and I love guys like the Donald.
And I think it would be a great ticket.
But I see myself as a producer and as a saver.
And as such, I see myself as a consumer and as an investor vigilante, a 401k vigilante.
I remind my wife, every dollar we spend, every dollar we invest, and I won't name companies, I won't go there.
I'll be, you know, but we all know who they are and who the players are.
But if I have a choice between what package I ship from one company to the next, what plane ticket I use, what have you, I am exercising my power.
Let me translate, for those of you in Rio Linda, what old Don here is saying is that whenever he walks by anything and there's a something, there's a bad smell, there's usually a union involved in it.
You got it.
All right.
I knew that's drain, drain the swamp, Rush.
That's what I'm saying.
The folks in the crony capitalists, and we know who they are.
We don't have to name out the companies.
We know who it is.
It's incestuous.
But for the Trumpkers of the world, and particularly that Stern, and they're calling for a strike on this.
They want to boycott this and strike the banks and the mortgage.
No, we're going to strike them.
We're going to take the fight to them.
And I can't wait.
I'm jazzed about it.
I want it.
I like your enthusiasm out there.
Absolutely.
We shouldn't be turning tail on any of them.
Take it to them.
We are much more in number than them.
Let me tell you.
We are the producers.
We are the savers.
I'll tell you what.
You are.
And you're also, you are an endangered species.
You rock, sir.
You do.
This guy rocks.
And there are probably many more of him out there than anybody knows.
By the way, grab audio soundbites.
Hold on, wait a minute.
Now, well, I just got to have time to read these.
It doesn't matter.
Eric Holder did remind everybody, doesn't mean that we're not going to close Gitmo.
Having a trials down there doesn't mean that we're not going to close Gitmo at some point.
Still something on their minds out there.
Obviously, the radical left saying, well, wait a minute, we're going to have these military trials down there.
How are you ever going to close the place?
And Holder pointed out, oh, we're going to 45, audio soundbite number 45.
There's a QA during the presser.
A reporter said, where is this decision due to the administration's plan to close Guantanamo?
If these military operations are held at Guantanamo, doesn't that mean the facility is going to have to stay open for many months, if not years to come, for the trial?
We will fight to get those restrictions lifted.
I think it will necessarily have an impact on our ability to close Guantanamo.
We'll probably extend the time.
It is still our intention to close Guantanamo.
It is still our intention to lift those restrictions.
So, yeah, we're going to be there a little bit longer than we'd planned, but don't sweat it.
We're still going to close the place.
They're not going to close Guantanamo Bay.
They'll keep it open if for no other reason than they have a place to put us.
They're not closing it.
Bill in Williamsburg, Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, thanks for having taken my call.
You bet, sir.
I was thinking about this Reverend down in Florida and his burning of the Koran.
And we kind of get a little bit offended by that, even though we still protect his right to do it with our First Amendment.
But we don't recognize the attack by our own media and by the rioters in other parts of the world as an attack on our values, a direct attack on our values.
Ask Daniel Pearl about that.
What do they do?
They cut off heads.
But we try to have a discussion and we defend our values and our values are worth defending.
And that's what they're trying to do is to disarm us from that intellectual response to this insanity of Islamo-fascism that's going on in the world.
Yeah, I know.
That's a good point.
Well, about the burning of the Quran, nobody knew about it for a week after it happened.
Right.
The minister burned it up there, and it wasn't until somebody got wind of it and started making a big stink about it.
But the act, in and of itself, didn't spread much beyond the flock.
Yeah, well, you could tell they were prepared for that because a couple months ago when he announced he was going to do it, they made a big flack over it, and then they seemed to forget about it.
And then when he did it, they didn't pay much attention for a couple of weeks.
So it looks like a concerted effort, as you call it, posturing.
Yeah.
There's so much posing going on that sometimes you don't know where it ends and reality begins.
Well, they don't respect reality.
The president does not attack people burning Bibles.
People are making excuses.
It's fun to read the pseudo-intellectuals.
The pseudo-intellectuals saying, no, well, the proof of our decency, the proof of our goodness, the proof of all of our great system is that we'll applaud people who burn our flag, for example.
And we will gladly sit by and we'll applaud people who burn a Bible.
But we don't think people ought to be burning the Quran because the Quran's a direct word of God.
What if we get some of the most convoluted gobbledygook that's supposed to pass for superior intelligence?
Yeah.
Well, part of that is when faith collides with faith, there's no recourse to reason.
The only thing you can resort to is force.
And that's what they're doing.
That was the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 93.
And they weren't successful, but they managed to knock the buildings down at a later date.
And we don't believe that they really intend to destroy our culture.
And that is stupid of us.
Oh, I know.
No, we actually believe that they are going to reform theirs.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, we haven't.
This isn't based on reason at all.
Look at the results of this guy that made the cartoons, you know, pillaring Muhammad, you know, and pointing out some of his foibles.
God, they had riots all over the world in response to that.
But that was orchestrated.
That's not just an emotional response of the people who are doing the demonstration.
More posing.
Yeah, it was more posing.
More posing.
Anyway, well, I'm glad you called out there.
Thank you.
Thanks so much, Bill.
I appreciate it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the good people at Mediaite, Mentioned them in the early portions of the program, then I might have made an improper association between the Time magazine guy named Ghosh and the Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher, because they've got a post there at Mediaite and Limbaugh slams Mediaite after misreading story about burning of Koran and Bible.
Here's what they say on Sunday, Mediaite published an article in which I was critical of Time magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh.
It's Tommy Christopher here's the poster here for statements that he made on Friday's edition of Hard Boiled.
Ghosh explained why burning the Quran was much more inflammatory than burning a Bible.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh took issue with Ghosh's remarks on his Monday morning show, it's in the afternoon, by the way, and then slammed Mediaite by pointing out exactly the same thing we pointed out in our commentary.
Limbaugh seems to have barely skimmed the article he's referencing as he attributes Ghosh's sentiment to Mediaite's writer, me.
To catch you up, here's what Ghosh said, and then here's what Mediaite's writer said.
And somehow Rush got it all confused and thought he was disagreeing with me.
I know I never expected it to happen either, but I still comprehend English, be it spoken or written.
For example, he says, whoever wrote this obviously hasn't ever gone to Sunday school.
I did say that because I did skim the story, and it did appear that whoever wrote it happened to agree with Ghosh, that it was an interesting intellectual point that we needed to examine here.
Somebody posits a Time magazine reporter who wrote the phony Haditha murder story.
I mean, the guy Ghosh, who fabricates a story of Time magazine about the Marines and raping and killing of Haditha.
And that story picked up by John Murphy and others, all the Democrats in Congress at the time, to slam Bush, the war in Iraq, and the U.S. military.
So this guy is now on Hardball.
He's out there saying, well, a Koran, you know, that direct word of God.
Bible written by men.
Whoever wrote it at Mediaite said, well, this is an interesting debate that we're having here.
And I just, I don't know, I kind of do find it amusing what people who think they are in the upper 10% of the intelligence group in the world think is smart.
I mean, obviously, this whole notion that the Bible was written by men, the Quran's a direct, how silly.
Whoever said it didn't go to Sunday school.
But if I say, if I misinterpreted Mr. Christopher here with Mediaite, I will make the correction here and state that I didn't intend to do that.
Now, if I were like those guys, now remember back during the ill-fated effort on my part to become a part owner of the St. Louis Rams, the National Football League, absolutely false, totally made-up quotes were happily attributed to me by members of the august mainstream media and ran for weeks.
And when it was finally pointed out to them that they were made up, the consensus response was, well, okay, he didn't say it, but he probably believes it anyway.
So, Mr. Christopher, if you were to get the treatment I get, I would say, okay, okay, you didn't say it, but you probably agree with the guy anyway.
Laurie in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Nice to have you on the program.
I'm glad you called.
Hi.
Wow, Rush.
Teamster at Kitty Dittos.
It's just an honor to talk to you.
How are you?
Very good.
Thank you very much.
I'm good.
My dearly departed brother Bob would be so thrilled just to know that I was talking to you.
He drove out to your bake sale and had a wonderful time.
Well, he went to Fort Collins?
Yes, he did.
And I laughed at him for driving out that far because I had never listened to you, and I just believed all the hype that, oh, Rush doesn't know what he's talking about.
And by gum rush, I started listening to you, and it was like a light went on.
So thanks very much.
Thank you very much.
Another life changed.
Oh, it's just awesome.
By EIB.
Now I probably make you look like a socialist.
I'm so gung-ho right-wing.
But anyway, the reason I called this morning on the radio, I heard a soundbite.
I'm not necessarily a sports fan, but I happened to hear the coach of the UConn team at a press conference.
Right.
And the reporter was asking him, didn't he think he should give part or all of his $1.5 million salary back to the public?
And I'm hoping you can find this soundbite to hear for yourself.
The coach absolutely ripped him a new one.
What he said was, do you have any idea how many millions of dollars our sports programs bring into the university?
And he basically told him either to get your facts straight or get out of the room.
Rush, I'm hoping you can hear this for yourself.
It was absolutely fantastic.
Our microphones, our microphones were there, and we'll find it.
But I have a question.
What was the context of this?
Here you got the Final Four championship game tonight.
What is this reporter asking a question about the coach's salary for?
Well, it's probably just, you know, he's probably just a member of the mainstream media that has the whole wealth redistributionist union give it back to the government mentality.
I don't really know.
No, but there still has to be a reason.
I mean, I don't follow the final four, so I don't know if the coach's salary is already a matter of concern in Connecticut.
I don't know why would this guy be bringing it up?
Well, that's, I really don't know.
You could probably, I don't think we got the full press conference, so I'm not really sure.
But it just, it riveted me how this coach really took it to the reporter.
It's like, how dare you?
Well, it is rare.
I'll grant you, it's rare for an income, a high-income earning individual to defend it.
Most of them wimp out and chicken out and started making all kinds of excuses for it.
This guy actually defended the fact he makes a million and a half.
Absolutely.
And what he was, and his voice got stronger and it almost got to an octave lower.
He was getting so angry, but he was very articulate and very controlled.
All right.
Well, thanks for the heads up or the tip-off.
I'm going to look into it and find out about it.
Our microphones are everywhere.
We'll have that soundbite.
I want to find out the context of this, too.
We'll explain it all.
If there's any mystery here to be uncovered, we'll do it and have it tomorrow.
Sandra, Sunset Hills, Missouri, you're next on the EIB network.
I've got about a minute and a half here, Sandra, is all, but I wanted to get to you.
Uh-oh, I think I'm going to take all of it because I had two parts.
The first one is I'm about the same age as you and have grown up studying and hearing about the Civil War and all the issues and everything, just as everyone else has.
And I always thought of how unbelievable it was that all our fellow countrymen and members of the same families could be so far apart in their ideologies that they would actually go to war with each other.
And I watched a show last night on PBS on the Civil War, and I was astounded as I sat there watching it at how different my reaction was because every time they talked about an ideology or a belief that one senator thought as opposed to another senator and then so forth and so on, they weren't any worse than the differences that we have now today.
And it scares me to death because before our last election, when Obama was elected, it seemed like, you know, between George Soros and other Democrats, they were all fired up and were going to get that guy elected no matter what.
Yeah, but here's the thing to remember about that.
Obama was the great unifier.
Obama was going to bridge these gaps.
Obama was going to bring love between people back.
And all he's done is divide the country further.
But that's an interesting take that you've got.
I mean, the Civil War, you can't find a period in our country where, our history, where we've been more divided, obviously by definition.
And for you to watch that and think we're close to it now is fascinating.
I wish I had more time here with you, Sandra, but I really don't.
I have to go.
But thanks very much for calling.
Okay, we got the context of the sports question.
Some sniveling reporter said, Coach, considering then you're the highest paying state employee and it's a $2 billion budget deficit.
You think that you should, and the coach shouldn't even wait.
He said, not a dime back, pal.
We have the sound bite, and we'll let you hear it tomorrow because we don't have any time today.
We'll look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection