All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:56
August 6, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, let's see if I make sure I'm right about that.
Yep, 7x9.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushbo.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling maha rushy here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Look, folks, very simply, the football stuff, the NFL ban, all that.
I just cherish freedom.
I cherish liberty.
It's under assault.
That's what's under assault.
We can't eat what we want.
Well, there's an attack on it.
Well, even this Chick-fil-A thing was political.
And when Ron Emmanuel and the mayor of Boston stand up and say, Chick-fil-A doesn't represent Chicago, it's a political statement.
And it's designed to rally the base.
Dan Cathy, the head honcho of Chick-fil-A, he's not making a political statement when he talks about the values that the company believes in.
It gets interpreted that way because the left has politicized gay marriage and so forth.
And so they recognize it and think it's a threat.
So now Christianity has to be banned.
And that's where this is all headed.
All this stuff at Chick-fil-A, what's on what?
The target is Christianity, not Chick-fil-A.
The target is freedom of religion.
Obama and Obamacare.
The target is always freedom.
When we're talking about liberals, the target is always freedom.
That has to give, as the government gets bigger, that's not even arguable.
What reason is for government to get bigger if not to police things, including thought, fix things, police things, administer things, regulate things?
All of that is, you might not want to call it an assault, but it's all aimed at freedom.
Pure and simple.
And any activity that rewards freedom, any activity that freedom plays a profound role in, particularly in something that's successful or good, is an enemy.
You might laugh at this.
You go to any major football game in college, professional level, national anthem, American flags everywhere, flyovers of American jets.
I guarantee you that rubs them wrong.
Guarantee you.
They get agitated, but I'm talking about liberals and the left.
They get irritated at wanton displays of patriotism.
What was it the Boston Globe told us?
4th of July is for Republicans.
Showing the flag is for Republicans.
They politicize everything.
Frankly, I'm not speaking to you as a football fan on all this.
I'm talking to you as a very credible, accredited, competent, cultural, and political analyst.
And I'm telling you what this is.
They want to tell us what we can and can't eat.
They want to tell us where and how we can and can't play.
They want to tell us what we can and cannot drive.
They will eventually tell us where we can and cannot go.
They do not want us to be able to protect ourselves if we use guns for that purpose.
This is the latest manifestation of their attempt to grow government, which has a byproduct, and that is the loss of freedom.
Pure and simple.
That's what alarms me, because I believe in freedom.
We all do.
It's something I think that is taken for granted in terms of the role freedom plays in the greatness of this nation as founded.
Because we're born to it.
We just assume it.
But some of us, you and I, are very adept at recognizing when it is threatened.
It was U.S. News and World Report, and it was July 20th of last year.
U.S. flag only boosts GOP.
That's the story.
Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior, even though most don't believe it'll impact their politics.
This was a two-year study published in the scholarly Psychological Science.
And this two-year study revealed that a single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants' Republican voting intentions.
Patriotism.
That's why this stuff alarms me.
Football can't be fixed.
It's killing players.
It can't be fixed.
Right?
And unwitting people who love the game, who make their living from the game, are going to get bamboozled by this.
And these unwitting people are going to end up carrying the water for the people who want to ultimately have the game regulated by government.
And they're going to think that's a good thing.
Liberal sports reporters are going to think ultimately it's going to be a wonderful thing.
The thing is, I never had a doubt once this all started that it was going to happen.
I am stunned at how rapidly it's gaining momentum.
By the way, from the Washington Examiner, Nancy Pelosi is backing up Harry Reid and his baseless accusation that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes for 10 years.
Pelosi did an interview in the Huffing and Puffington Post on Sunday, and she said, Harry Reid made a statement that's true.
Somebody told him it's a fact.
Whether he did or cannot easily be disposed of, Nitt Romney can release his tax returns, show whether he paid taxes.
Harry Reid, this is Pelosi speaking.
Harry Reid's a person who is, as we know, a fighter.
B, he wouldn't say this unless it was true.
Somebody told him that.
It's hilarious.
Pelosi, she's never going to stretch the boundaries of an IQ test.
And I've got conflicting reports.
There's one story that says the White House is not supporting Reed.
Another story that says that he is.
So I don't know, but I don't need a story.
I know exactly where the White House is on this.
It's their idea.
This is probably Axelrod's idea.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Starting with Bob Schieffer, Face the Nation.
Yesterday morning, he was saying that, well, he was talking about this.
Let's just listen to Bob Schieffer.
Isn't this kind of like Joe McCarthy back in the era when he said, I have here in my hand the names of 400 people in the State Department who are communists?
It turned out he didn't.
And he was saying the way to prove that they're not is for them to come forward here.
I mean, asking somebody to come forward just because there's been an unsubstantiated charge, that's a little thin to me.
Yeah.
Now, when you start losing Bob Schaeffer, what, stirredly, what?
What?
Well, here's the thing, though.
To a guy like Schieffer, Joe McCarthy's worse than Satan himself.
Joe McCarthy is worse than Count Dracula seeing the cross.
Worse than Nixon.
Joe McCarthy, worse than Nixon.
So Bob Schieffer conflicted here because this is, in his mind, what McCarthy did.
It's a little thin.
He wants so badly to dive into this, but it's just a little thin because of its close proximity to McCarthy.
Same show.
Bob Schieffer had as his guest former governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat from Ohio.
And Schieffer compared Harry Reid to McCarthy, and Strickland reacted.
The American people deserve to know what is in his tax returns.
His father, as we all know.
So you're saying maybe that's not true, that he hadn't paid any taxes.
But he didn't.
I'm not accusing him of anything except what he is doing invites speculation, quite frankly.
The people want to know why he has his tax returns.
No, they don't.
Nobody.
There's not a person.
There's not a normal person anywhere running around talking about this.
Not a single, by normal person, I'm talking somebody that is not politically oriented.
The American people are not chomping at the bid here to have this question answered.
It's purely, totally fabricated.
The media knows that it's been fabricated.
It's a lie.
But they're fascinated with the game.
State of the Union, CNN Sunday morning.
Candy Crowley interviewed Robert Gibbs, the former White House press secretary.
She said to the propriety of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate accusing, based on a source, the presumed Republican nominee not paying any taxes for 10 years.
Is that something Chicago has encouraged?
I mean, do you want Harry Reid to stop, Mr. Gibbs?
I don't think anybody controls Harry Reid.
But if you asked him to stop it, he would.
You know, again, put the tax returns out.
Put this whole thing to rest.
Candy, have you ever seen anybody go to such great lengths to not put something out?
And when you generally don't put something out, isn't it because you're generally hiding something?
You will not tell Harry Reid to stop.
I would tell Mitt Romney if he wants all this debate to go away.
And let's be clear, Harry Reid isn't the one who's made this debate.
Mitt Romney has brought this to the fore.
This has been something that has been talked about well back into the Republican primary.
You see how this works?
Romney, it's his fault.
He's the one.
He didn't release tax returns.
He didn't release the tax returns that Democrats want.
Harry Reid's never released hers.
Pelosi has never released hers.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz has never released hers.
That is a matter, they say.
They're not running for president.
I'd like to see Harry Reids.
I'd like to know how a guy earning $193,000 accumulates $10 million in net worth.
I'd like to see how that happens in such a relatively short period of time because he hasn't made $193,000 when he was not the majority leader.
Not every senator makes that much.
Anyway, this is laughable.
But that's all they've got.
They can't talk about Obama.
They can't sing any of Obama's praises.
There aren't any.
So they've totally manufactured the story that Romney's hiding his tax returns.
And that Harry Reid's got this imaginary friend that told him at Bain Capital.
Romney didn't pay for 10 years.
And now that's, okay, now it's out there.
So Romney's got to prove the allegation is false.
That's who half the country votes for.
This kind of irresponsible, shameless thuggery.
That's who half the country votes for.
You know, I have in the stack here.
Charles Murray wrote a piece.
And where did it appear?
I am not, I think it might have appeared at National Review.
Capitalism, it's not a dirty word.
It basically is a prints to four pages.
How in the world did capitalism, which built this capital, capitalism is solely responsible for the wealth of this nation and the wealth of every nation on earth.
And so there's peace.
How in the world did it get such a bad name?
It wasn't that long ago that capitalism was, if not specifically taught, it was, the practitioners of it and everybody involved were praised.
Now the capitalist is the enemy of the country.
And Murray is, it's, I guess, a Wall Street Journal.
And Murray is trying to figure out how in the world did this happen.
And he's got a couple of interesting theories.
One theory is that people do not understand how the capitalists on Wall Street make money.
That people don't understand how the movement of money in financial markets benefits anybody.
It's beyond their ability to comprehend.
So they think of it as an insider game with a bunch of 1%ers playing in a stacked deck that only benefits them.
The second theory he has is most interesting, and it is that liberal capitalists are scared to death to admit that they are capitalists.
And he talks about people like Buffett and Gates and Hollywood capitalists that are simply afraid to cite it for political reasons.
Let me take a break and give you more specifics of what Murray writes about this because it's timely.
Sit tight, folks, much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
Don't go away.
Okay, here's the here are the relevant excerpts from Charles Murray.
I assign the timidity of capitalists to admit it to two things, two causes.
First, large numbers of today's successful capitalists are people of the political left who may think their own work is legitimate, but they feel no allegiance to capitalism as a system or kinship with capitalists on the other side of the political fence.
Furthermore, these capitalists of the left are concentrated where it counts most.
The most visible entrepreneurs of the high-tech industry are predominantly liberal.
So are most of the people who run the entertainment and news industries.
And even leaders of the financial industry increasingly share the politics of George Soros.
They're all capitalists, but they won't admit it.
And they don't want anybody to think that they are.
Their own work is legitimate, but nobody else's is.
Now, whether measured by fundraising data or by members of Congress elected from the zip codes where they live, the elite centers with the most clout in the culture are filled with people who are embarrassed to identify themselves as capitalists, and it shows in the cultural effect of their work.
Another factor in the segregation of cap is the segregation of capitalism from virtue.
Historically, the merits of free enterprise and the obligations of success were intertwined in the national catechism.
McGuffey's readers, the books on which generations of American kids were raised, have plenty of stories treating initiative, hard work, and entrepreneurialism as virtues, but just as many stories praising the virtues of self-restraint, personal integrity, and concern for those who depend on you.
The freedom to act and a stern moral obligation to act in certain ways were seen as two sides of the same American coin.
Little of that has survived.
There's not a whole lot of virtue associated with capitalism now.
It's sort of been segregated.
And again, he'd cite the Hollywood Left as examples, and maybe some tech people.
To accept the concept of virtue requires that you believe some ways of behaving are right, others are wrong.
And that means judgmental.
And being openly judgmental is no longer acceptable in America's schools or in many American homes.
You don't have the right to tell somebody else what's right and wrong.
There is no universal truth anymore when it comes to morality or right and wrong.
Anybody who seeks to be judgmental in this way is going to be cast aside, castigated.
And I, as people, people who are not desirous or able of, are able to politically analyze these kinds of things are forever going to be in the dark when it comes to fully understanding them.
Capitalism has almost been criminalized now by our popular culture, by the establishment culture.
Capitalism, it propels the Democrat Party, and yet it's been criminalized when it's committed by others.
The bad guys in movies and TV shows, even soap operas, are now capitalists.
The mobsters, the terrorists, they've all got special interest groups who protest if they're portrayed as bad guys now.
And they will not allow that to happen.
And there's even a romance that's been attached to the criminal gets away with it.
And that's been popular for a while.
Particularly if the criminal who gets away with it is sticking it to traditional capitalist structures.
So we've done a 180 on this, where the foundational building blocks that created the wealth of the world is now perceived as criminal.
And The real greed and the real thuggery, which is now found in government, is what's celebrated as idyllic and sweet and softly caring and compassionate and so forth.
It's very sad.
Mort Vuckerman was on the syndicated McLaughlin group yesterday.
And he's the editor-in-chief of U.S. News and World Report, owns the New York Daily News.
And he said that he's had direct personal contact with President Obama.
And John McLaughlin said, what is this personal contact you've had with Obama?
I was a supporter of his and quite active in his campaign.
And indeed, in the first few months, almost a year.
You visited the White House.
You've talked to him.
You've been a part of groups visiting the White House.
That's right.
They talk to me a lot about it.
And none of the programs which I proposed were adopted.
Don't get me wrong.
There's an old line, okay, that America used to boo the losers.
This administration booze the winners.
This administration booze the winners.
This is a guy who voted for Obama.
Mort Vuckerman is exactly what we're talking about.
They boo the winners.
They have the winners in their crosshairs.
Look at, look at, we're talking about liberal capitalists here a moment ago and Charles Murray's characterization.
In many ways, these liberal capitalists are the crony capitalists.
A crony capitalist is a guy who runs a company, gets involved with government for like GE.
They don't need any money, but they got $700 million from Obama to go play around with green energy.
It keeps the government off GE's back, and if it's not your money, you'll take somebody else's, do the work.
It's fine and a crony capitalist.
Get in with the government.
They leave you alone.
Government helps you turn a profit, helps you with your competitors.
You know, a lot of liberal capitalists, I'll tell you something else about these guys.
They are not like me.
They're not the kind of people that want to share.
They're not the kind of, when they do well, they want everybody else to do well.
When they do well, when they have what they want, they then think it's to their advantage for the government to make it more difficult for others to enter their markets.
Crony capitalism, probably one of the best ways to define it, when they get what they want, after they've scored, they then make deals with administrations through regulations of the industry that they're in.
After they've scored, after they've already made their bounty, then they support regulations on their own business that prevent their competitors from entering the market or if they're already in the market from doing well as well.
It's not simply an issue of naivete or political fear in the context of a liberal capitalist being afraid to admit it.
It can also be a furtherance of self-interest in a non-market way, a way in which government is used to advantage them and them alone against others.
Now, the Obama administration is full, is replete with such examples.
You dress up as green energy or you obstruct where possible fossil fuel energy versus Solyndra.
You do everything you can to shut down the Keystone Pipeline so that Warren Buffett's trains don't suffer.
Any number of ways these things happen.
And then there's another characteristic that's not all that prevalent, but it's out there, and that's people who are ashamed of their own success.
Liberal capitalists who think they'll be targets if they are too obvious in their success.
So they want to either think they don't deserve it or they act as though they don't deserve it.
They think they get paid crazy amounts of money for what they do.
Actors, actresses, they don't really.
It's a way of, we've said before, the rich, the really smart rich guys are always liberals because it inoculates them.
If you're Bill Gates with $40 billion or whatever it is and Buffett with $40 billion, what's the fastest way to get yourself left alone?
To run around and talk about how the rich aren't paying enough taxes and then run around and say, I'll be glad to pay more.
You've inoculated yourself.
You're no longer the evil rich.
They love you.
And you still have your money.
You haven't given any of it away.
You just say you want to.
You haven't paid a higher tax rate.
You just say you would support one.
And then you become loved.
Everybody hates rich people.
Love you.
You can have 15 giant yachts, biggest yachts in the world, have all the parties in the world.
Nobody's going to touch you because you think you're not paying enough taxes.
It's that simple.
This business about rich business people being Republican conservatives is such a crock, my friends, because it isn't true.
One of the really bad things that's happening in our culture is that achievement-oriented people don't have the guts to act proud of it.
Successful people don't have the guts to act proud of it.
Successful people don't engage in activity that's designed to inspire others to follow in their footsteps.
Instead, they act embarrassed of it or they try to camouflage it and hide it what crony capitalists do is simply after they finish climbing the ladder of success, they pull the ladder up with them so nobody else can get on it.
That's what's the problem with crony capitalists.
Government gives them the ladder.
They climb up the ladder.
After they got to the top, they take the ladder away.
Nobody else can get on it and climb.
And the market gets regulated in such a way that competitors are shut out.
And nobody thinks it works that way.
The average American with a high school diploma has no concept of that.
They think what Obama wants them to think, that the rich stole it, or stole the labor, or cheated somebody, or didn't pay fairly for something.
That's what Obama wants.
That's what Zuckerman is saying.
This regime booze winners.
A brief, obscene profit timeout.
We do not act embarrassed here.
Back after this.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
This is Dave in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited, and it's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
I really appreciate it.
I'm sitting here drinking my blueberry X tea.
And you were talking about professional football and how it's being attacked.
And one gentleman called and said that he didn't see that percolating down to the rest of society because of college football.
And I have to argue that point because of what's going on at Penn State and what the NCAA did to Penn State because one goofball attacked some young kids.
And it just seems like that.
Well, wait a second.
That's not exactly correct.
The goofball, as you say, attacked the kids.
And apparently the regime at Penn State didn't do anything about it and knew about it and tried to pretend it wasn't happening or hoped it would go away, didn't really.
And that's what I do think that you have a point if you say that the NCAA, whether you're not a commissioner, whatever he is, really kind of went long here to get his name out there.
But still, it wasn't just Sandusky.
It was the president of the university, Paterno.
You know what?
If I may say so, the one thing about this that's shocked me, Dave, is that nobody is questioning the free report.
The free report came out and not a soul.
Paterno's dead and can't react to it.
Nobody.
What if in the free report?
What if something in there is wrong?
Everybody just accepted it in full with no question.
I know they want to get rid of the issue.
I know they want to just move on from it.
But, wow, this thing came down the pike and whatever's in that free report ends up as gospel.
I can see the college football season this year and every ESPN show is going to have something about Penn State and something about problems with football programs that are going to kind of reverberate from that.
You're right about the way it's going to be covered.
It gets this poor coach, this Bill O'Brien guy, the new head coach, what does he sell?
He can't, the players that he recruits can't go to a bowl game for four years.
How many of the players showing up are going to be motivated?
You have a chance to restore Penn State.
You know, that's what these guys are there for?
These guys are there because it's linebacker you.
Chance to go to a ball game and get to the NFL.
Of course, that may not be an option much longer, but anyway, they were so eager for this thing to go away that whatever is in the free report, it was gospel.
Nobody challenged it.
It's just incredible.
And Louis Free has got a fine reputation.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just in a normal ebb and flow of things.
There are always some questions.
Anyway, this whole football thing, folks, I know I'm a lone wolf on this.
I really, because a lot of people don't want to have to see politics and everything.
But I'm telling you, if you're going to follow politics and if you're going to follow liberalism, to be prepared for it, you're going to have to admit to yourself that everything they do is politicized.
Everything they do is motivated by their desire for political victory.
Whether it's this football stuff, whether it's Chick-fil-A, whether it's the mayor telling you you can't eat trans fat, it's all politics.
And people hate politics, so they don't want to look at it that way, and therefore they're not ever going to understand the full truth in terms of the motivation behind some of these cultural changes.
You know, a lot of people on the left hate football because it's old America, it's merit-based, masculine, testosterone culture.
That's unacceptable anymore.
That's the old America.
That's brute force America.
Liberals hate male strength.
Liberals do not like male strength at all.
They don't like the use of force unless it's for their own ends.
They love the military when they run it, but at no other time.
A bunch of metrosexuals.
Metrosexual culture is pacifist.
That's why metrosexuals are libs that rely on government force to perpetrate their agenda.
They don't do it themselves.
Government force takes the place of powerful men in the metrosexual.
And these are the people that have this animus now for football because it's injury prone and people get concussed.
Hey, listen to this tweet from Howard Feynman.
We ought to talk about this tomorrow.
Howard Feynman now at the Huffington Puffington Post, MSNBC.com.
Used to be Newsweek.
It's about the Olympics.
Britain.
The Brits long ago lost their empire, but overall they show us how to lose global power gracefully.
We're losing global power gracefully.
It's a good thing, and the Brits can show us how.
Howard Feynman.
▲
Export Selection