All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:11
January 25, 2013, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, just go ahead and hit it.
Friday for the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live out of the city here, Rob.
I'm reading a piece by our old buddy Ron Fournier.
Used to be the AP.
Now it's a national journal.
Ron Fournier is worried that Obama might be raising expectations too high.
Raising expect.
Are your expectations way up, folks?
800 282 2882 if you want to be on the program L Rush for EIBNet.com's email address.
Yeah, I guess I guess there are a lot of people out there worried that we're shooting too high here.
That cracks me up.
Let me read to you what he says here.
And so Obama is raising expectations.
This time for combat over a liberal agenda that'll save the planet.
Fortify the middle class, protect entitlements, regulate guns and extend gay rights.
See, there it is.
I'm telling you, don't sit there and poop with this gay rightsman.
I'm telling you, it is at the top of practically every group on the left's agenda.
At any rate, let me start again.
I for some reason this amuses me that they're worried worried about raising expectations.
If only we were raising expectations.
And so Obama is raising expectations this time for combat over a liberal agenda that'll save the planet, fortify the middle class, protect entitlements,
regulate guns, and extend gay rights, and even if he fails to push his policies through Congress, Obama can now claim he fought the good fight, but this is where Fournier is concerned.
Great presidents don't just fight good fights, they win them.
I think this is uh utterly amazing that this guy looks at this agenda as raising expectations.
Saving the planet.
You know the the vanity, the arrogance, the the hubris.
Before you even get to that point, the belief that the planet is dying.
What must these people think of every day as they go about life?
I tell you, they look out and they see nothing but misery, suffering, incompetence, planet dying, and it's all because of humanity, by the way.
Too many people.
That's the problem with the planet and too many people on it.
Okay, so save the planet, fortify the middle.
Mr. Fournier, do you see what's happening to the middle class?
Fortify great expectations?
Shooting too high.
Fortify the middle class for four years of what has happened to the middle class, and then protect entitlements.
The road we are on is going to bankrupt them.
And then regulate guns and extend gay rights.
Yep, that's a hell of an agenda.
Man, that is an agenda of greatness.
Why, that's an agenda they're gonna be writing about in the history books.
Who the hell was Lincoln when he gets through here?
Who the hell was Washington?
Who the hell was Jefferson?
What difference did it make that we had these guys?
It didn't matter Hill of Beans, where we really, we really, as a nation, fulfilled our destiny.
Under President Obama, we saved the planet.
We fortified the middle class.
We protected entitlements.
And we extended gay rights.
Who could possibly measure up to any of that?
Why, there hasn't been a president with this amount of courage and vision, and I don't know when, maybe ever.
And Ron Fournier is worried that Obama is shooting too high.
That it's hilarious.
And his last line is you see, the real problem is if all we get is big fights, i.e., Obama fighting, all we get's big fights, nobody wins.
So all this is wonderful, but presidents don't just fight good fights, they win them.
Mr. Fournier swerved into a truth here that I don't think he understands, and that is for Obama, it's all about the fight and the destruction.
I mean, to accomplish all that, Obama's gonna have to eliminate all opposition.
That's the objective is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I need to share something with you here.
Twenty-five years in August been doing this show.
And that's long enough to notice things that you can't possibly notice in your first five years or even ten.
For example, I am now able to see how a whole bunch of things simply repeat themselves.
Issues, battles, political fights, how they repeat themselves, how a lot of this is just cycled and recycled.
I have to confess, when I first became aware of women in combat as a political issue this week, my first reaction was well, no, no, we did that back in the 90s.
It really was.
We did that.
What are we doing that again for?
And I had to stop myself, and uh this was the learning experience.
We're simply recycling liberalism.
We're simply putting it through the grinder again.
We've we've done women and we've had the argument about it.
Just like we've had the argument over tax cuts versus tax increases.
We've had the argument over deficit spending over balancing budgets.
We've had all that, and yet they just recycle.
And the thing that keeps the cycle going, obviously, is an infusion of young people into the process who don't know about any of this stuff.
They're not old enough.
To a lot of people, the women in combat issue is the first time they've ever heard of it.
Even though we dealt with it back in the 90s.
Every which way from Sunday we dealt with it.
Every argument pro and con was made.
This kind of kind of came out of nowhere because we have a president here who's well, actually, it doesn't come out of nowhere.
We have a president who is trying to essentially really eliminate the defense posture of this country.
Really wants to downsize it, really does want to cut the defense department, this all of the spending, various budgets.
He really does.
That's where he really does want to cut.
Now we know that liberals always use the military as a social laboratory.
As long as I've been alive, that's what the military has been for, primarily.
Social experimentation.
And women in combat is social experimentation.
It's where you try out new things that go against the norms.
Uh Clinton did it with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Gay is in the military.
That's it's just a social playground.
So I want to play grab somebody to leaven.
Late yesterday afternoon on CNN's newsroom, the anchor Don Lemon, who probably, I don't think he was on CNN back in the 90s, so this may be his first go At women in combat.
To him, it may be the first time it's ever come up, and it may be a great thing to him.
He was talking to an Iraq war vet.
Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi again, they're discussing women in combat, and Don Lemon said.
Men and women are different.
We know that.
How should the military handle pregnancy, for example, for women in combat units?
Should a combat unit leader be able to direct a woman member not to get pregnant.
Okay.
So you see there this assumptions made in this question.
Men and women are different.
This guy must have read the Time magazine cover.
As a as a good liberal, Don Lemon knows that men and women are he probably knows that they're born different.
He probably read that in Time magazine.
Because they had a cover story on that back in 1998, something.
So he's asking this Iraq war vet, how should the military handle pregnancy?
See, it doesn't occur to him that pregnant female soldiers in combat units may not actually be a good thing.
He just assumes it's gonna happen with women in combat, you're gonna have women pregnant.
And how are we gonna deal with that, Tulsi?
And here is Iraq war vet, Tulsi Gabbard, she is from a member of Congress.
Now, as a Democrat from Hawaii, this is what she said.
Looking at someone in a deployed setting, it's not in their best interest to get pregnant overseas, but if it happens, it happens, and we take care of each other.
We have a highly trained, highly skilled, very motivated force, and by opening these doors to women, we will only be stronger because of the unique capabilities that women bring to the table.
No, that's not what's gonna happen.
We've been there and done that.
The only way uh look, I'm let me dial back my passion because I know scaring 24-year-old girls.
I'm probably threatening.
I don't sound threaten anybody, but I just gonna tell you that in order to have women in combat, you are going to have to lower qualification standards.
There's simply no way around that.
And it's precisely because of what the brilliant Don Lemon said in the question Men and Women are different.
You d there's no way.
Well, you see, you can sit here and talk about we're gonna take care of each other, highly trained, highly skilled, very motivated force.
By opening these doors to women are gonna be stronger?
No.
I thought Diane Feinstein and other people saying the problem with Washington is too many men, too much testosterone.
So anyway, uh very motivated force, opening these doors to women are gonna be stronger because of the unique capabilities that pregnant women, that's the question, unique capabilities that pregnant women bring to the table.
That's gonna make us it's not going to make us stronger.
But if that's not the objective, then it doesn't matter.
If the objective is social engineering, social laboratory, uh pay off to the feminizes for their votes and their donations, if this is then it's perfectly fine.
Women in combat, if if you're trying to please women who voted for you and fulfill the dreams of feminism, then fine.
But in terms of making a military stronger next doesn't do not combat.
Don't anybody misunderstand me here.
I'd been through this is a great thing about having done this so long.
We dealt with this problem way, way back in the 90s.
And the key, and and and Tulsi actually said it, the key here is not getting pregnant when you're a woman in combat.
That's the key.
There are times to get pregnant, and that's not one of them.
So how do you, if you want women in combat, you don't want them getting pregnant, what do you do?
Well, many of you have heard this, you've been here a long time, but for those of you new to this, I'll take you back to an idea that we had and came up with it back in the early 90s when there was a military operation to get grapefruit face out of Panama.
That would be Manuel Noriega.
If you look at his face, it looks like a Pockmark grapefruit.
That's what we call him grapefruit face.
And here's what you do.
We all know there's some assumptions here.
Now everybody knows these assumptions are true, but this is one of those times where you mention them and you're right, you offend people.
So look, I'm just gonna tell you up front you might get offended by this, but that's not the point here.
We're just factual, trying to avoid pregnancy among women in combat.
There's a way to do it.
Um not, by the way, prohibit sex, because you can't do that.
Can't stop people having sex, they're gonna do that.
It'd be silly to institute no intercourse in the military.
That's not gonna people are gonna do it, right?
We can't stop it.
So how do we allow that with no pregnancy?
And we don't want to mess around with the pill and all that.
This is a mil women in combat, that is an easy way to do it.
Now here's what we know.
We know that that women who live together or who are housed together, dormitories, for example, in sororities, you never know.
After a certain passage of time, this is one of the marvels of creation.
No one can explain it, but it happens.
Menstrual cycles happen to synchronize.
You can get mad at me all you want for saying it.
But it happens to be true, and it's not a put down and it's not taking away from the individuality of any women or woman.
It just happens.
So what we do, we create we call it the all American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion, and we segregate women enough in various bases, barracks,
so that you have synchronized menstrual cycles timed in such a way so that at any on any day of the year, you are guaranteed to have a fighting female force all in PMS.
All during pre-menstrual syndrome.
You you can do it because they synchronize the cycles.
So you house them.
It wouldn't take much of a computer program to figure this out.
No matter when you need them, you're always going to have a combat ready battalion of women on PMS.
Pregnancy problem solved.
And pretty damn good during combat.
At the same time.
Talk to any man about not being sexist here, we're just dealing with reality.
That's how you do it.
Now I proposed this way, way back in the 90s.
You're gonna put Molly Yard, whoever the leader of the of the now gang is in charge of this battalion.
The possibilities are limitless here, and it deals it, it accomplishes everything.
Get women in combat, uh, no pregnancy, all I mean, just ready to go at on any day of the year, combat ready.
PMS.
And it's all made possible by that miracle of synchronization that nobody can explain, but it does happen.
See, we try to help here.
You may not have heard about this rush, but uh women in the military already.
There is a shot.
Uh an injection, a shot that they're given that eliminates the menstrual cycle of the period for a whole year.
So it's never ever a problem.
And that may well be true, but who knows what the uh side effects of that are.
That's what I say.
It's uh it's a liberal laboratory, social laboratory.
Who knows what the effects of a shot are?
It'll eliminate a period for a year.
I mean, that what are the effects on childbirth later on?
Who knows my way is all natural.
It can't be beat.
And the reason it'll never be adopted is because it's my idea.
But still, okay, here's Bill in Fresno, California.
Bill, hi, Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
What an honor.
Thank you, sir.
I have a question, and then I have a request, if I may.
Yeah.
My question being, I heard a report that in New Jersey they passed a law that said any construction bid from somebody or from a company that was non-union would not even be considered.
And my question is, how does that correlate with the proclamation of Obama's everybody getting a fair shot?
It doesn't.
And you I think for the most part right.
I got a story here from uh New Jersey.com back on the 14th of January, taking up its first substantial piece legislation relating to Hurricane Sandy, the state Senate, New Jersey, today passed a bill that would let governments call for all union workers when hiring contractors to rebuild key pieces of infrastructure because there was this restriction.
You could only be a member of a union.
The relief workers had to be unionized, or they couldn't work.
Doesn't compute.
My request is...
Have you ever heard of the Jones Day?
Remember Hurricane Katrina?
Or no, no, the BP oil spill?
Yes.
That we would we would not permit the Obama administration would not permit international relief workers.
That's right.
Because they weren't union.
Politics comes first.
Absolutely.
Politics comes first.
But I just see I didn't think any of this mattered.
I thought this had been fixed.
I did.
There wasn't I'm not making this up.
I don't know.
Everybody thinks I'm sitting here trying to stir things up, and I'm not.
I'm being honest.
When I saw the story that there are still people without power and without gasoline and limited food supplies.
Three months after the w when there's no news about this, I thought the problems had been fixed.
That's right.
We did.
We had those stories shortly after like a month, maybe three weeks after Hurricane Sandy hit.
We had stories about utility workers.
They're the guys that drove all the way to New Jersey from Alabama to try to help.
And they were turned away.
Because they were uh they were non-union.
I remember that.
They were turned away from Long Island or moved.
But did they get turned away in Long Island as well, or did they get were they accepted them?
Okay, so here's what happened.
Guys from Alabama and other states drove they're looking for work, by the way.
They drove up to New Jersey to help out and get paid on hurricane relief, and they were they were not allowed because they were not union in New Jersey.
So they kept going to Long Island and they were rejected there too.
Now let me let me just tell you a little difference about this.
I I I I distinctly remember we had those stories.
That's another reason why, by the way, and I'm being totally serious that I thought the relief efforts were complete.
If you're if you're rejecting assistance offers, if you're rejecting people that want to help, you might yeah, maybe you don't need them.
You got it handled.
We had uh one year was very bad here in terms of hurricanes, and then not a direct hit.
One, maybe one was, but there were a lot of near misses.
But we had here right here at EIB Southern Command on the island.
We had a lot of downed power lines.
And after the enough time had passed that they opened the bridges and let residents come back.
I drive home from work and I would notice repair trucks from other states.
Alabama, Mississippi, and these guys were up in their crow's nests fixing wires and stuff.
I remember a couple of times.
I actually stopped the car.
I pulled off the side of the road just to thank them.
Because the local crews were overwhelmed.
Florida Power and Light and whoever, they were simply overwhelmed.
They couldn't have gotten everything back online as quickly as they did without all that assistance from out of state.
And I know a lot of people that live on the island, literally stopped.
Some of them offered tips, and some accepted them, some didn't.
But we routinely stopped and thanked them, got out of the car and walked and shouted up to their crow's nest.
We thanked them.
I remember when I first moved down here that got a lightning strike, lost power at eleven o'clock at night, and this forehead the generator, and uh call the emergency number at FPL, and walk down the end of the driveway, and the guy shows up about midnight, starts climbing the crow's nest, and I went out.
I thanked him for showing up.
It's midnight.
This guy's getting whatever.
He got his emergency call, but he showed up.
He was kind of surprised.
I don't know if he thought and I was a fugitive from an insane asylum, because these guys don't get thanked very much.
They're derided a lot.
But I know a lot of people in New Jersey and so forth, they will these guys weren't even allowed in because they weren't union.
Here's Russ in Dallas.
I'm glad you called, sir.
It's nice to have you with us.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Really great to be on the program.
Uh first of all, I I want to thank you for shedding on the plight of one of America's most discriminated against minorities, the American smoker, earlier in the program today.
Thank you very much for that.
I appreciate that.
Um but my my comment, my concern that I hope you can uh you can talk about and make me feel a little better about today.
Um I I live in Texas, of course, and I know that you know and you've talked about, especially in the past couple of years, uh, liberals leaving uh states like California and states in the Northeast to move to states like Texas that have actually been governed conservatively and are doing things right where the economy is still, you know, it it's still worth something here.
Um and my big concern is that they're going to be diluting conservative votes in conservative states because they're not going to leave their ideology behind when they move here.
They're going to take advantage uh of what we created here, and already on Drudge Report just yesterday there was a headline that just kind of uh it sent me into a panic mode that Democrats are planning to start making moves on what they view are now going to be vulnerable elections here in in Texas.
I don't doubt that for a moment.
You talk to people in North Carolina.
They claim that the Yank in North Carolina is not a no income tax state, but it's a it's economically nevertheless attractive, and even climate wise, you got the mountains in the summer, it's very attractive, and a lot of Northeasterners have moved to North Carolina, and they you're right, they have brought their liberalism with them.
I just w I think I'd prefer if they just uh you know laid in the bed they made for themselves.
Well, I hear you.
I hear you.
Why are you fleeing what you voted for?
Exactly.
Why are you leaving?
Yeah, you're telling us that California is Nirvana.
Why are you leaving it?
You voted for it, you made it possible.
I hear you.
I understand.
That's one of the reasons that the the the states are said to be going purple.
Combination of red and blue.
Blue states, red states becoming little little blue people coming in there that's gonna get turning red to purple.
Florida's gone purple, Texas is going purple.
It is a concern.
You're exactly right.
Um well, even more concerning, uh, this was on uh Drudge uh last week as well.
Uh the state of Texas, uh, the attorney general here, Greg Abbott was uh was boasting about it.
They have uh they now have ads and and New York State encouraging uh gun owners uh to move down to Texas where we're more gun friendly, and I don't think I want that either.
They can they can deal with uh with the politicians they've elected who want to take away all of their freedoms.
Hey, thanks so much, Rush.
I'm gonna get off the air with you uh and listen to the rest of the program.
Thanks, Russ.
I appreciate the call.
I gotta take a brief commercial time out here.
We'll do that and be right back.
Don't go away.
Sorry, folks, answering emails about old computer equipment.
Great to have you back.
Open line Friday, David Spotwood, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, Rush.
Pleasure to talk with you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Uh, I'm a retired engineer, and I've been working on Windows uh products for well, back since the DOS days, and uh also been uh fighting uh viruses on on uh my now in retirement service uh quite a few machines at uh friends and relatives and many of them are uh touched by viruses.
So I'm just wondering uh what makes uh Do you do you r you really want to know?
Yeah.
You want to know why Windows is more vulnerable to viruses than than Macintosh.
That is my question.
You really want okay, there's two things.
Windows, in terms of security the way the it's written is inferior to Macintosh.
Number two, Bill Gates is more despised than Steve Jobs.
Number three, and for the longest time this was the number one reason there weren't that many Macs to mess with.
The hackers, even if they did succeed in uh infiltrating a Mac, they still weren't affecting that many people, as opposed to how many people's lives they could screw up with a Windows virus.
Now, as the Mac market share has crept up, there have been far more attempts to to uh attack the Mac.
Uh and the primary vulnerability for the Macintosh is via Java.
And there have been a couple of Trojan uh horses and real problems in the Macintosh via Java and the Java applet for past couple of months.
But the the the Macintosh, and I I really I stand to be correct on start talking about this, and they're aficionados of both who really get ticked off if they hear something they think is wrong.
So I'm not trying to be wrong about this.
I but I do think I've asked the same question you have uh to people who have infinitely more knowledge of the operating systems than I do.
And I have been told that it's just much tougher to penetrate the Mac system, the OS, than it is Windows.
It's just it's just harder.
I think one of the reasons why is that there are fewer users.
And you gotta understand there's so many people using Windows and don't even know what they're doing.
They they don't even they're they're creating vulnerabilities, they don't they're not putting virus detectors uh on the systems, maybe don't even know what they are.
It's it's just it's it's really windows been vulnerable because it's so big and so massive.
That's but it uh i even given all that, I have been told that the Mac OS is just a little bit more secure.
I see.
And it has been less of a target.
But now that now that jobs is gone, Apple is hated more than Gates, and so is being targeted for a whole lot of bad stuff.
Mm-hmm.
Um the operating systems, I know uh well I don't know if uh the Mac is easier to work with.
I hear a lot about its uh user interface uh maybe more uh it's what you learn on.
You learned on DOS, so you learn you learned on the command line.
Yes.
Now you can do command line on Mac if you want.
They got a program called Terminal.
If you want to operate on a command line, you can.
The uh the the the Windows, you know, Windows is a copy of uh Macintosh, which is a copy of Xerox.
I see.
Um it just all depends what you learn on.
Uh I I learned on a Macintosh.
That's why I like the iPhone.
I anything compatible.
I had a Blackberry once.
I could never sink it.
I could never sink the contacts, every stuff that just wouldn't sink.
It didn't work with my uh with my desktop computer.
But uh to each own in this stuff.
I know people have their loyalties uh to to each.
Once you learn either system, you'll swear by it.
I just I have found that Windows users who switch marvel at the intuitiveness of the Mac system that's not present in Windows.
But you sound like you've got enough experience.
You you shouldn't have any trouble switching over at all.
I do think uh you didn't you could do both.
And we you get a Macintosh now, by the way, and you can run Windows on it on a separate desktop on the same computer.
You can run Windows two different ways.
A virtual version called parallels, you could boot camp and run it straight off the processor.
So if you get a Mac, you're covered.
You can run both on the thing.
It might be something you want to consider.
Um David, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
Okay, folks, that's it for another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence.
What is this headline on Drudge?
Communists cheer on Obama's gun grab.
The the communists are the communist part of the USA, not the Cubans.
That's probably all of them, but just why would the communists be cheering?
Why would they be doing that?
Why would communists?
I'll bet Ahmadini Zad's cheering that too.
I'll bet uh Morsi, uh Muslim Brotherhood's cheering Obama's position on guns.
Communists are too.
Yeah.
▲
Export Selection