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, anyway.
Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open lines.
Out of the city here, Rob.
I'm reading a piece by our old buddy Ron Fournier.
Used to be the AP.
Now at the National Journal, Ron Fournier is worried that Obama might be raising expectations too high.
Raising expectations.
Are your expectations way up, folks?
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
L Rushford, EIBnet.com's email address.
Yeah, 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 poo-poo this gay rights.
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.
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 that is where Fournier is concerned.
Great presidents don't just fight good fights, they win them.
I think this is utterly amazing that this guy looks at this agenda as raising expectations.
Saving the planet.
You know, the vanity, the arrogance, 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'm telling 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.
There are 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 after 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 going to 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.
Well, 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, if all we get is 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 is going to have to eliminate all opposition.
That's what the objective is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I need to share something with you here.
25 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 10.
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 this was the learning experience.
We're simply recycling liberalism.
We're simply putting it through the grinder again.
We've done women in combat.
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, all of the spending, various budgets.
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.
Clinton did it with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Gay is in the military.
It's just a social playground.
So I want to grab somebody the 11.
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, and 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's assumptions made in this question.
Men and women are different.
This guy must have read the Time magazine cover.
As a good liberal, Don Lemon knows that men and women are different.
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?
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 going to happen with women in combat.
You're going to have women pregnant.
And how are we going to deal with that, Tulsi?
And here is Iraq war vet, Tulsi Gabbard.
She is from, she's a member of Congress now.
She's 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 going to happen.
We've been there and done that.
The only way.
Look, let me dial back my passion because I know scaring 24-year-old girls.
I'm probably threatening.
I don't want to threaten anybody, but I'm just going to 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.
There's no way she can sit here and talk about we're going to take care of each other, highly trained, highly skilled, very motivated force.
By opening these doors to women, we're going to be stronger.
No.
I thought Dianne Feinstein and other people saying the problem with Washington is too many men, too much testosterone.
So anyway, very motivated force, opening these doors to women.
We're going to 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 going to 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, payoff to the feminazis for their votes and their donations, if this is, then it's perfectly fine.
Women in combat, 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, the next doesn't do, not combat.
Don't anybody misunderstand me here.
I've been through this.
This is the great thing about having done this so long.
We dealt with this problem way, way back in the 90s.
And the key, 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 why 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 going to tell you up front, you might get offended by this, but that's not the point here.
We're just being factual, trying to avoid pregnancy among women in combat.
There's a way to do it.
And not, by the way, prohibit sex because you can't do that.
You can't stop people having sex.
They're going to do that.
It'd be silly to institute no intercourse in the military.
People are going to 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 this.
Women in combat, this is an easy way to do it.
Now, here's what we know.
We know 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 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 as 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 going to put Molly Yard, whoever the leader of the now gang is in charge of this battalion.
The possibilities are limitless here, and it deals, it accomplishes everything.
Get women in combat, no pregnancy, all, I mean, just ready to go 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.
I just checked in the email, and then people said, You may not have heard about this rush, but women in the military already, there is a shot, an injection, a shot that they're given that eliminates the menstrual cycle period for a whole year.
So it's never, ever a problem.
And that may well be true, but who knows what the side effects of that are?
As I say, it's a liberal laboratory, social laboratory.
Who knows what the effects of a shot are?
That'll eliminate a period for a year.
I mean, what are the effects on childbirth later on?
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.
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 I think, for the most part, right.
I got a story here from NewJersey.com back on the 14th of January taking up its first substantial piece of 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 can only be a member of a union.
The relief workers had to be unionized or they couldn't work.
Doesn't compute.
My request.
Have you ever heard of the Jones Act?
Remember Hurricane Katrina?
No, no, the BP oil spill.
Yes.
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.
I'm not making this up.
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, 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 non-union.
I remember that.
They were turned away from Long Island and moved.
But did they get turned away in Long Island as well, or did they get, were they accepted?
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 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 just tell you a little difference about this.
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 rejecting assistance offers, if you're rejecting people that want to help, you might, maybe you don't need them.
You got it handled.
We had one year was very bad here in terms of hurricanes, and 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 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 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 the crow's nest.
We thanked them.
I remember when I first moved down here, they got a lightning strike, lost power at 11 o'clock at night.
This four had a generator and call the emergency number at FPL and walked down the end of the driveway and the guy shows up about midnight, starts climbing the crow's nest.
And I went out and 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 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, but in New Jersey and so forth, 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, Russ.
Great to be on the program.
First of all, I want to thank you for shedding light 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.
But my comment, my concern that I hope you can talk about and make me feel a little better about today.
I live in Texas, of course, and I know that you know and you've talked about, especially in the past couple of years, liberals leaving 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's still worth something here.
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 take advantage of what we created here.
And already on Drudge Report just yesterday, there was a headline that just kind of 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 Texas.
I don't doubt that for a moment.
You talk to people in North Carolina.
They claim that the Yankees, North Carolina is not a no-income tax state, but 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 you're right, they have brought their liberalism with them.
I think I'd prefer if they just, 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?
I mean, 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 states are said to be going purple.
Combination of red and blue.
Blue states, red states becoming little blue people coming in there that's turning red to purple.
Florida's gone purple.
Texas is going purple.
It is a concern.
You're exactly right.
Well, even more concerning, this was on Drudge last week as well.
The state of Texas, the attorney general here, Greg Abbott, was boasting about it.
They now have ads in New York State encouraging gun owners to move down to Texas where we're more gun friendly.
And I don't think I want that either.
They can deal with the politicians they've elected who want to take away all of their freedoms.
Hey, thanks so much, Rush.
I'm going to get off the air with you and listen to the rest of the program.
Thanks, Russ.
I appreciate the call.
I got to take a brief commercial timeout 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.
I'm a retired engineer, and I've been working on Windows products for, well, back since the DOS days.
And I've also been fighting viruses on my now in retirement service, quite a few machines that friends and relatives, and many of them are touched by viruses.
So I'm just wondering what makes you want to know why Windows is more vulnerable to viruses than Macintosh.
That is my question.
You really want.
Okay, there's two things.
Windows, in terms of security and the way 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 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 attack the Mac.
And the primary vulnerability for the Macintosh is via Java.
And there have been a couple of Trojan horses and real problems in the Macintosh via Java and the Java applet for the past couple of months.
But the Macintosh, and I really stand to be corrected.
I start talking about this, and there are 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, but I do think I've asked the same question you have 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 harder.
I think one of the reasons why is that there are fewer users.
And you've got to understand, there's so many people using Windows and don't even know what they're doing.
They don't even, they're creating vulnerabilities.
They're not putting virus detectors on the systems, maybe.
Don't even know what they are.
It's really Windows has been vulnerable because it's so big and so massive.
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 Jobs is gone, Apple is hated more than Gates.
And so it's being targeted for a whole lot of bad stuff.
The operating systems, I know, well, I don't know if the Mac is easier to work with.
I hear a lot about its user interface maybe more.
Well, it's what you learn on.
You learned on DOS, so you learned on the command line.
Yes.
Now, you can do command line on Mac if you want.
They've got a program called Terminal.
If you want to operate on a command line, you can.
The Windows, you know, Windows is a copy of Macintosh, which is a copy of Xerox.
I see.
It just all depends what you learn on.
I learned on a Macintosh.
That's why I like the iPhone.
Anything compatible.
I had a Blackberry once.
I could never sync it.
I could never sync the contacts of the stuff that just wouldn't sync.
It didn't work with my desktop computer.
But to each your zone in this stuff, I know people have their loyalties to each.
Once you learn either system, you'll swear by it.
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 shouldn't have any trouble switching over at all.
I do think you could do both.
And 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.
David, I appreciate the call.
Thanks.
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 communists of the Communist Party of USA, not the Cubans, that's probably all of them.
Why would the communists be cheering?
Why would they be doing that?
Why would communists?
I'll bet Ahmadinezad's cheering that too.
I'll bet Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood's cheering Obama's position on guns.
The communists are too.
Yeah.
▲
Export Selection