All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:59
February 16, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, you want to know the latest on this contraception business?
It was just on MSNBC.
Two.
Two congresswomen walked out of a congressional hearing on contraception saying they were offended because the panel was all male.
There were no women on a congressional panel discussing contraception as though men are not interested in contraception.
Ha!
Arguably men care about it.
More than women, have you ever heard of condoms?
For crying out loud, who do you think buys...
Look, this is, however, this is part of the plan.
Representative Eleanor Holmes-Naughton, as the Reverend Sharpton pronounces her name, Eleanor Holmes-Naughton said the hearing was being run like an autocratic regime.
From the International Business Times, congresswomen walk out a contraception hearing after GOP prevents women from testifying.
Prevents women from testifying.
Two Democratic congresswomen walked out of a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on Thursday morning after committee chairman Darryl Issa refused to allow a female witness to testify before a hearing examining the regime's new regulation that requires employers.
See, this hearing was not even about contraception.
It was about whether the regime has the authority to mandate that anybody provide contraception to their employees, either free or for charge.
It was a hearing about whether or not there is massive presidential executive branch overreach here.
ISA was conducting a hearing into whether or not this had anything to do with the Constitution, whether it was permissible.
The Democrats have turned this into saying it was a hearing on contraception.
It wasn't.
Does anybody really believe U.S. Congress had a committee today conducting business on the principle, the notion, the idea of contraception?
Of course not.
This is as absurd as Romney getting the question in the debate back in New Hampshire on January 7th.
Do you think states should have the right to ban contraception?
George, what are you talking about?
Nobody says that.
Nobody's thought that.
Nobody's planning on doing this.
This is just silly.
So now in lockstep, here comes the drive-by media reporting ISA will not allow women to testify on contraception when that's not even what this hearing is about.
ISA reportedly refused to comply with ranking committee member Elijah Cummings' request to include a minority female to testify at the hearing on the grounds that the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception.
Instead, it's about the regime's action as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience.
That doesn't matter to Elijah Cummings.
That doesn't matter to the media.
This was the Republicans denying a woman the right to talk about contraception, which is, I'm sure, what they wanted to turn the hearing into.
I have no doubt that when ISA convened the committee, the Democrat plan was to change this whole agenda into a discussion on contraception, not Obama and constitutional overreach.
The contraception panel, by the way, the witnesses were all religious leaders.
Elijah Cummings, along with Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes-Naughton, walked out of the hearing.
And Eleanor Holmes-Naughton is not even a real member of Congress.
She's not allowed to vote.
She's the delegate from the District of Columbia.
Okay, now, Snerdley, you're going to find a caller who says I'm not explaining this right?
I don't know how to make it any clearer what this whole contraception business is.
You can say that this is going to have ramifications once Obamacare is fully employed, and no doubt that it will, but that's not what this is about right now.
This is so obvious and so blatant, and I guarantee you there will not be any drive-by media reports about the truth of this.
You watch for the rest of the day and into the night, the mainstream media report on this is going to be ISA convened a committee hearing on contraception, wouldn't allow women to talk about it, and therefore the Democrats, in a matter of principle, had to walk out because of the blatant unfairness and sexism and chauvinism and whatever else you have here.
When in fact, the subject matter was does the President of the United States have the constitutional authority to do what he did last week.
Is what believable?
Well, I see, this is the well, no, it's Snerdley is asking me if it's believable.
To a certain segment of Americans, yes, it will be believable.
There's no question that a certain segment, I don't know what percentage, but a portion of the population will believe at the end of the day today, whenever they watch the news, that the Republicans wanted to have a hearing on banning contraception.
That's what the news will be.
That Republicans, feeling newly confident and wanting to impose their moral values on Americans, convened a hearing immediately to implement a ban on all contraceptives for women.
And principled Democrats walked out because they didn't permit any women on the panel to discuss this.
Now, if that's reported exactly as I think it's going to be, because it already is being, at the end of the day, you know who the dunderheads are.
You know who the glittering jewels of colossal ignorance in our population are.
Who are going to believe this?
And then there will be the ones who know it's not true, but will carry the lie forward anyway to further the political agenda of the Democrat Party.
There'll be that too.
There'll be the people who know this is BS who are going to act like they believe it's something else to give the lie total credibility.
Get this.
A group of NARAL pro-choice America employees, this is the pro-abortion NAGs, joined pro-choice lawmakers for a press conference to highlight ISA's outrageous behavior in forbidding women from testifying at a hearing on birth control.
They were not conducting a hearing on birth control.
So this is manufactured hysteria.
Now, the five witnesses on the first panel that ISA convened were male religious leaders or professors, including a Catholic bishop.
Carolyn Maloney demanded that ISA allow Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown University, to testify about the impact of the new requirement that most health plans offer contraceptive coverage with no copay.
They've got this down pat.
They have got this down to a science.
And of course, the only thing that makes it work is the media being in lockstep with them.
That's the only thing.
I've got a couple things here that I want to try to dissect and make a point about.
But I don't want to mention any names because the point is not to criticize any particular individuals.
These are two blog posts.
And they illustrate to me a surprising amount of naivete among people who I have been under the impression are much farther along in their advanced understanding of Democrat tactics and are much farther along in their understanding of what liberalism has done,
primarily how successfully they have dumbed down general education in this country.
I have to take a break now because of the programming format.
I'll do that.
And while I'm away, while we're in the break, because this is not going to be easy to do, but that's why I am the one to do it, because it's precisely not easy to do.
Before that, though, this is from big government, Andrew Breitbart's series of websites.
Headline, Obama administration offers $75,000 grants to sign up more food stamp recipients.
Over the last three years, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by two-thirds, stands at a record high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people.
Despite this, the regime believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be, and they are offering $75,000 grants to groups of people to devise effective strategies to increase program participation among those who have yet to sign up.
U.S. Department of Agriculture website singles out Hispanics and elderly Americans as groups who often fail to enroll in the food stamp program and say that one of the contributing factors that must be overcome to get more people to sign up is individual pride.
Must find a way past the stigma.
So with debt piling up, with the financial collapse of the United States clearly visible on the road ahead, massive deficit spending, no end in sight to it.
A couple of days after submitting a campaign document called a budget, we now learn the USDA, look at they're not hiding this.
Once again, this is right there at the USDA website.
They're offering people like you $75,000 if you can give them a good idea on how to recruit even more people to the food stamp program.
Now, how many of you believe that in years past, the objective of a responsible government would be to eliminate as many people as possible, to get them off the program, because that would mean an improvement in their lives.
Now we have an administration, and this is not new, by the way, the food stamp program always tries to recruit more members to make sure its budget doesn't get cut.
But now what is new, here we have the regime openly paying money to average citizens to come up with strategies, effective strategies that will increase the number of people.
And one of the biggest obstacles is the stigma.
We must find a way to get people to not feel guilty about taking these benefits.
And if you can come up with that, they'll give you $75,000.
I don't know how to...
I mean, we've gone from welfare queens to food stamp dudes.
I mean, this is outrageous.
We got Barack Obama in office just over three years.
His budgets are fiscal disasters year after year after year.
You doubt that it's on purpose?
$75,000 grants to sign up more food stamp recipients?
Be back after this.
Have an audio, somebody I want you to hear.
It's this afternoon on PMS NBC, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
She was talking to a businessman, Foster Freeze.
Foster Freeze is one of the big donors to Rick Santorum.
I think he's funding Santorum Super PAC.
I could be wrong about it.
I know he's one of Santorum's donors.
I'm not sure it's Super PAC or straight up, but that's who he is.
And Andrew Mitchell said, so, Mr. Freeze, you have any concerns about some of your guys' comments on contraception, women in combat, whether that would hurt his general election campaign?
Would he be the novice?
Andrea's saliva.
They think they've destroyed Santorum now with his contraception stuff.
They think they've painted him as a Neanderthal from the Stone Age.
So she's asking one of his donors, so, so, you got any concerns here, Freeze, about your guy's issue here, contraception, women in combat?
Huh?
I get such a chuckle when these things come out.
Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed.
We have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about.
And people seem to be so preoccupied with sex.
I think it says something about our culture.
We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are.
This contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's such inexpensive.
Back in my days, they used bare aspirin for contraceptives.
The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly.
Oh, no, no, you said that to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
Did you get that, Dawn?
Did you understand that?
Did you understand that, Snerdley?
Snurdy didn't understand.
Okay, Illustrate this.
Foster Freeze said that women used the cheapest contraception out there was an aspirin pill.
Just put it between their knees and go about their day.
It wasn't that costly.
Just put an aspirin pill right there between your knees and bam, contraception solved.
Yeah, you wait till that mixed outside.
You wait till that one makes it outside Andrew Mitchell's show.
You hear what Santorum's guy said?
The best way to contraception is an aspirin pill between women's knees.
My God, how old-fashioned.
Just saying women shouldn't, if they don't want to have a baby and don't have sex, who does he think he is?
This is the next thing that's going to happen.
He said it.
He said, back in my day, they used bear aspirin for contraceptives.
The gals put it between their knees.
It wasn't that costly.
Oh, yeah.
He also said, I tell you, so many people seem to be preoccupied with sex, with the economy the way it is.
Jihadist camps being set up in Latin America.
I think it says something about our culture.
They maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues here are instead of all this sex stuff.
My gosh, it used to be so inexpensive.
You just use bare aspirin.
Girls put it between their knees and it didn't cost that much.
And here, ladies and gentlemen, is how it sounded when Eleanor Holmes Norton and Carolyn Maloney walked out of ICE's hearing.
We've been denied the right to have a witness.
I want to have the right to make a parliamentary inquiry.
Let one woman speak for the panel right now on this all-male panel.
She is here in the audience today.
She is steps away.
Even if you think you will disagree with everything she says.
And then they walked out.
They walked out.
And again, it was not a hearing on contraception.
All right.
Do I have time to do this?
You know, I actually probably ought to wait till after the break.
Basically, what I'm going to end up trying to make the point here, a couple of blog posts I read that I was just stunned how naive the posters are.
Like, for example, one of them expresses shock that the American people don't understand that nothing is for free.
And I'm thinking, where I have to be very careful about this, too, because it's not just a question of where have you been.
It's like these two posts.
I'm not going to mention their names because it's not the point to talk about these two people because they represent a body of thought that probably is shared by a lot of people.
It is patently obvious to me that these two posts indicate that these guys are clueless as to what the left has achieved in terms of dumbing down our education system and disrupting our culture.
And that matters because it affects the way they go about their work.
They assume that people have a basic level of understanding and they start at that point when in fact they need to be starting at a much lower point because they're assuming people know a lot more than they do.
And in the art of persuasion, you have to know who it is you're talking to and what they think before you can change their minds.
And if you don't understand that there are a sizable number of Americans who believe that a government will give them things for free, in other words, if it's news to you that a lot of Americans think there is a free lunch, then what have you missed?
What have you not been paying attention to the past 30 years?
But I can do better than that with specifics from the individual posts.
It may not be all that important when I finish with it, but last night when I went through these two things, I printed them out.
I jotted some notes.
It's like one of these things.
If this show had been on last night, it would have been the first thing I talked about.
I get here today, and some of the enthusiasm had waned forth.
Maybe I don't feel the same way about it.
It's like when you accept an invitation on Monday for Friday, Friday gets it.
You say, why did I do this?
I really don't feel like going.
It's the same thing.
I'm still debating whether I ought to wade into this or not.
My instincts say do it, so I probably will.
But another obscene profit time out here first, and then we'll get straight to it.
Okay, grab a call here because this guy's been waiting for many, many moons, and I want to get to this guy.
His name is Dwight.
He's in Houston, and then we'll get to these two blog posts.
Dwight, thanks for your patience.
I really appreciate it.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you so much for taking my call, Erush, bro.
You bet.
I'm a truck driver, and I've been, you know, listening to your show.
I've been listening to you for the longest.
And the things that you say, I use is that.
And I go back to the hood, Rush, and say what you said, but I don't tell them you said it.
And they agree 100%.
No arguments, no nothing.
And how you know I listened to your show is because you'll say, well, I'm 99% 0.9, always percent is going to be.
99.7, Dwight.
Okay, well, you're right.
You're right.
But then, and I know your callers call in and say, well, Rush, I know you said this or you said that, and they try to have a chance of winning something.
Well, I know on the Florida caucus that you did say that Newt Gringers and Rick Santeris would have more votings in that election over there at Fidel's caucus and that would outbeat Mitt Romney.
But instead, it was reversed.
Mitt Romney took it by a landslide.
Am I correct?
Well, not a landslide, but it was, and I didn't predict definitely.
I said it's likely.
It's right.
It's likely, but that was the first instance where Romney's total votes were larger than the two or three conservatives opposing.
It was the first time it had happened.
But I want to go back.
You said that your truck driver, you listen to what I say.
Yes.
And you take it back to your buddies in the neighborhood.
You don't tell them who said it.
You just say what I said as though it's your own thoughts, and they agree with all of it.
They agree with it.
Now, what would happen if you told them that you had been listening to me that day, and this is what I said?
Well, I don't know what they would say, but they probably would look at me like I was funny, like I listened to the Rush show.
Not afraid of that.
My wife, she drinks that, I don't know if you heard that, Arizona or some kind of tea.
I don't even want to say the name.
So I brought it up in attention.
I was saying, I know this is a great tea that we can order.
And, you know, I say, let's order with Rush.
It's a tea.
It's a real good tea.
They talk about it.
It's beautiful.
I listen.
I know it.
Oh, I don't want to drive.
I ain't going to hang on.
I ain't going to do that.
I don't want to.
So I was like, but you ain't never tried the tea.
So why would you think that it's no, you see what I'm saying, Rush?
So I just think we are just being manipulated.
I don't know why we want to hide from this.
I'm going to ask you a very sensitive question, Dewite.
Are your buddies prejudiced?
I mean, you don't tell them who said what you're repeating.
You're afraid to tell them it's my tea.
Are your buddies bigots?
Are they prejudiced?
I don't want to see if they're prejudiced or not, but I don't think that if you, they don't want to hear it from you.
Even though it's the truth, Rush.
Yeah, I know.
They may not want to hear it.
You see what I'm saying?
So, I mean, and that could be.
So what do you think I ought to do?
That's a big problem for me, Dewite.
I mean, I'm right, but if they think it comes from me, people will just oppose it on that basis alone.
What should I do?
Well, Rush, it don't matter what you do, because every station that you listen to, you can hear them.
They talk about you.
They hear it.
But they don't want to believe it.
Like you say, I'll say something, you say it, and bring it to him.
I'm on top of the, he knows.
He got his, he's on top.
DeWitt's, he good.
He knows what he's talking about.
Okay, DeWitt or Dewite, I'm sorry, here's the answer.
You now have a new responsibility.
Okay.
You have to be my emissary.
You have to take what I say and take it to as many of your friends wherever as possible and say it as yourself.
Because the point, the real objective here is to have your buddies understand what's really going on.
And if they're going to reject it simply because it comes from me, then you're doing the right thing, sadly.
You're doing the right thing by telling them it's not for me.
But now the onus is on you.
The onus is on you to get their minds right.
Okay.
I appreciate that.
You got to keep listening to me, and then you got to keep spreading the word that I say as though you believe it.
You heard it somewhere.
You think it's true.
You know it's true.
You found it on your whatever.
And then you'll be doing these guys a favor.
You're helping them out.
You're correcting their mistakes.
You're showing them the right way versus the wrong way.
That's right.
I mean, I heard when you talked about Territor Smiley and the Cornell West and how he was getting on him.
And I want to use that same, I can't know how you said it, but I used that same way you said it.
And I was right.
You were right, too, Rush.
Yes, I know.
I'm used to that.
Well, it's fast.
Dwight, you know, this has been, I know this happens all over the country.
A lot of people, I don't know, I don't know what to do about this.
This is, by the way, a testament.
It's an example of how the media can succeed in discrediting people that they disagree with.
They haven't been able to destroy me, but they can discredit me with people who don't take the time to listen themselves.
I appreciate the call.
You now have the onuses on you.
The responsibility is yours.
I appreciate it, Dwight.
Okay, let me take a stab at this.
And again, it may well be that these people I'm talking about will be identified.
I'm not going to myself, but it's not about them.
I was just stunned when I read this.
The subject of the first post is an attempt to explain why the Republican leaders in Congress so badly blew the payroll tax cut battle.
Well, it's not smoldering about it, but I'm fascinated to read what people think went wrong.
And here's the nut of this one.
What's even more ominous is that this national suicide attempt they're advocating for appears to be great politics.
As Tucker Carlson said, the problem here is very simply that people like free stuff.
The Democrats have realized that they can cobble together winning electoral coalitions by offering the middle class a ton of free stuff.
This is not a safety net for the poor and the downtrodden.
It's more free stuff for people who already have cars and TVs and phones, more than they can afford.
It's the basic idea of the subsidies in Obamacare.
So any extension in the payroll tax cut without a spending cut offset is a travesty.
In fact, we should have insisted that the extension be offset with entitlement reform to make no mention of spending after spending 80% of the post on what the Republicans should have done but didn't do.
Then there is this.
But that's why it would be wrong to blame Speaker Boehner.
The fault lies elsewhere.
Okay, well, that intrigued me.
The Democrats' bid to expand the entitlement state for political benefit is a mortal threat to the future of our country.
That's very true.
And it's been true for 30 years.
I got the impression it was just recently realized.
The Democrats' bid to expand the entitlement state for political benefit is a mortal threat to the future of the country.
But the fact that these collectivist schemes continue to play out in their favor is not the fault of conservative leaders.
It is rather a sign that Americans have lost their way.
We conservatives have to make a much more convincing case that the road to a better society lies in the direction of self-reliance and limited government and away from the debilitating entitlement state to which the Democrats poison carrots are leading.
I don't know how to express this.
I don't know how to express this.
We should have known this for 30, 40, 50 years.
We conservatives have to make a much more convincing case that the road to a better society lies in the direction of self-reliance.
And yeah, well, I can't do this without coming down hard on this guy.
That's not my point.
It really isn't.
Well, no, what I'm trying to say or what I'm not saying is that, yeah, we're talking basic conservatism.
And why is it so hard for it to be found in conservative publications?
We got conservative publications are all tied up in the horse race aspects.
Conservatives ripping Romney to shreds or alternately ripping Santorum to shreds or ripping Newt to shreds.
No, conservatives aren't doing conservatism.
We are here.
But this, I guess, is what frustrated.
Yeah, the concept of self-we have to do a better job pushing self-reliance.
Yeah.
Duh.
Where's it been?
We're just now figuring this out.
Ought to be 30 years behind what's been going on here for 30 or 40 years.
Well, since FDR, the Democrats have been countering that.
And Obama has codified the notion that self-reliance is not the ticket.
Self-reliance is painful.
It's failure.
You're not going to get anywhere.
The deck's stacked against you.
The future is for you to let us take care of you.
I don't know.
Second one is the idea that these services will be free runs against the most basic understanding of economics.
It's like the Democrats and the media think calling expanded coverage free makes it free.
If there's no free lunch, there are no free abortive fashions either.
Yeah?
We're just now discussing that or discovering that people actually think that free is free.
Where are these eggheads been?
I'm still not expressing this right.
My bad.
I have to continue to think about this because this is, for some reason, my gut, my instinct is telling me this is important as it relates to the so-called conservative movement and a failure taking place within it.
But it's not, I don't want to focus on just these two people.
That's not really the point of this.
And that's sadly, if I'm not careful where this is going to end up, but I got to take a break.
Sit tight, folks.
We'll be back and continue here.
Don't go away.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that these, these are, this is really not personal.
I have to, it's bigger than that.
These posts are evidence that the so-called first thinkers, the so-called conservative leaders, have abandoned conservative principles and instead have gotten caught up in the minutia of reform and policy and tinkering around the margins with policy proposals.
with no attachment to principle.
And so the realization that I mean, the surprise that there are people who actually think there's a free lunch,
if you're just now figuring out that there are people who think there's a genuine free lunch, then what else have you missed?
I don't know.
That's not it either.
I'm looking here at a vanishing programming format clock and a number.
And I am trying to keep this away from these people.
It's not about them.
It's representative of something much larger than that.
I'll keep working at it, folks, because in my gut, I know there's a major important point here, and I will find it if I keep digging deep enough.
So MSNBC just had a banner, a Chiron graphic giant font with a question mark at the end.
It said, New War on Women.
New war on women.
And we know that the White House communicates with Media Matters, which writes the scripts for MSNBC.
And they all started putting this together last gen, maybe in December of last year.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection