All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 1, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:44
February 1, 2013, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right on, right on.
Great to have you here, folks.
I am your guiding light, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling.
Nobody more concerned than I am.
Maha Rushi on Friday.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
This is where you get to cheers what we talk about when we go to the phones.
That's where I back out of the way.
Talk about a low profile.
I'm not even here when we go to the phones.
Show is all yours.
Telephone number 800-282-288-2, the email address, L Rushmow at EIBNet.com.
Scott Brown has just announced that he is not going to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Kerry.
As he moves over to the Secretary of State position.
So the job now of pursuing John Kerry's seat will probably fall to Barney Frank.
If anybody gonna pursue that seat, it would be Barney Frank, but he retired Congress.
That was because of the change in the district.
He wanted to be interim senator.
Some point they didn't let him.
He may run for this.
New York Times wrote today, the editors had an editorial about Chuck Hagel's performance.
The only thing they could find to criticize Hegel about was some I I kid you not.
The only thing they could find wrong was some comment Hegel made fifteen years ago about some gay ambassador.
And his comments, they were they were pretty cutting, I must admit, I don't remember them off top of my head.
But he did have he he he he made some comments about some gay ambassador, American gay ambassador that um the New York Times just hasn't forgotten.
Chuck Schumer, I asked Cookie for this, she just gave it to me.
You know, we had Marco Rubio on here Tuesday, and Senator Rubio, he made it plain, and not just here, he has made it plain that if border security is not first, second, third, fourth, and last in immigration reform, then he's not gonna support the final bill.
If it's a phony attempt at securing the border, he's not on board.
If they don't do it at all, he's not on board.
He was very adamant about this, and he's right, by the way.
Without securing the border and without stopping any further illegal immigration, whatever else is done about the however many million who are already here as academic.
So I don't know what his reaction to Senator Schumer is, but Senator Schumer yesterday in Washington said, uh that border security, that's not gonna stop us.
Here, listen to what Schumer said.
He got a question from a reporter said, You uh you talked a little bit about defining metrics for securing the border.
Do you have a general sense, a rubric of what that might be, a secure border?
Can you imagine?
Yeah, I can tell you what a secure border is.
Nobody gets over it.
Anyway, here's what Schumer said.
We want the border to be secure.
It's more secure than it was several years ago, but it has a ways to go, and different sectors need different types of security.
It's a lot different having security in the Tucson sector than off the stretch in Texas, which is bounded by the Rio Grande.
But we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.
We just want to make sure, and this is very important both substantively and politically, that there is a secure border, and we're gonna work for that.
Now, when he says we, he talking about the gang of eight, of which Rubio is a member.
So he's saying at the gang eight, we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.
I'm very curious how Senator Rubio is going to react to that, because this seems at variance with what Senator Rubio's demandslash desires are.
Well, he didn't even say that.
HR whispering in my ear, saying this is kind of like Schumer, Schumer saying we're gonna try.
He said, Yeah, we want a secure border.
Oh, yeah, who doesn't want to secure a border?
But we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.
Well, Rubio has said, if you don't secure the border, I'm not signing the rest of this bill, which is devoted to path to citizenship.
And then at the end of his bite, Schumer said, we just want to make sure it's very important, both substantively and politically, that there is a secure border, and we're gonna work for it.
It's very important.
But if there isn't one, it's not gonna derail us.
And I understood Senator Rubio to say that it might derail him.
Now I don't expect him to pull out of the gang of eight yet.
Not because of this, but it ought to raise some red flags.
Governor Chris Christie uh paid tribute last night to President Obama.
Once again, Governor Christie thanking the president for all of his help in successfully passing the Hurricane Sandy Aid bill in January and continuing the unlikely public alliance between the Republican and the Democrat.
Delivering his keynote speech at a New Jersey Chamber of Commerce dinner, Governor Christie thanked Senators Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, also in attendance, before he added, quote, I will end the political portion of this program by thanking the President of the United States, close quote.
Now the last I heard, and I admit that I was surprised by this, there were still millions of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans without electricity and without heat.
I don't think a Republican president would be getting accolades.
I don't think a Republican certainly not from a Democrat.
I know that wouldn't be the we and don't forget Governor Cuomo.
I have never seen any president work faster and do more and accomplish more than President Obama in the aftermath here of Hurricane Sandy.
And it seems nothing's gotten done.
So everybody's patting each other on the back here.
Christie's praise for Obama was met with a round of applause from an audience of about 900 New Jersey lawmakers and political operatives from both parties.
They were at the Marriott Wardman Park Ballroom for the chamber's annual walk to Washington event in the nation's capital.
Governor Christie told a crowd was invited to the White House to discuss the Sandy Aid package about three days before the president set to send his proposal for the bill to Congress.
I'm not going to talk about how our conversation went.
That's between me and the president, but I'll let you know it was a lot of fun.
See, it's folks, it's this kind of stuff I'm telling you that made me think that they had fixed everything.
And I am, again, I really want to assure you, I'm not trying to stir anything up.
I actually embarrassed.
I feel kind of foolish in in allowing myself to believe that they've gotten most of the repair work done that it was well enough down the road that success signs were all over the place.
Progress was all over the place.
It turns out there hasn't been anything done, and yet they're still praising her.
We just got the bill.
And of course, nothing could be done until we get to Bill.
And the bill is filled with pork, but I mean, there is money for states that the hurricane didn't even touch.
I mean, there's all kinds.
Christie said, I just I want to thank the president again.
He has been extraordinary.
it's quotes like that that made me think that a lot of progress had been made toward turning electricity back on, rebuilding or starting the rebuilding process down on the beach on the shore and in some of the uh devastated homes.
Now I know that there hasn't been much happen at all.
And yet they're out there thanking each other left and right.
One more thing about immigration and the immigration bill and the president, the gang of eight.
And I mentioned this, excuse me, I I don't know.
Well, I mention it frequently.
It's the concept that every day a template or a narrative is established, and everybody follows it.
Everybody falls in line.
The Democrats, of course, follow it, media follows it, they set it, White House sets it, Republicans follow it.
And then in the inside the beltway media, they follow it too.
Whatever the agenda of the day is, if it's gun control, and it's talked about in that way, whatever way is set out by the regime or by the media.
Now immigration, I'll use this as an example.
And the, you know, we're just talking about Senator Schumer and border security and Rubio and border security, and whatever border security doesn't happen, we're not going to sign the rest of the bill.
And of course, everybody gets caught up in that, ignoring reality.
It's the old whipsaw comment.
I mean, every day we wake up, it's a new crisis, a managed crisis.
Fear is the number one objective or a form of manipulation.
But border security would require what?
Enforcement, correct?
If you come up with a new piece of legislation that satisfies the border security crowd, it would have to then be enforced for it to be worth anything.
Now, do we not already have laws on the books about border security?
We do.
And some of them are not enforced now.
That's why so many people get across.
And my my problem with this latest attempt at comprehensive immigration form is that assumptions are made that are totally illogical.
For example, Obama is a lawless president when he needs to be.
If he doesn't like a law, he ignores it or countermands it with an executive order.
So what good is an agreement with him on anything if he's not going to abide by it?
Yet that's never considered.
It is never mentioned.
People just get caught up in the inertia of whatever the latest daily template is.
And they talk about it in their predictable ways, be they Republicans or Democrats.
I mean, here's a guy who actually sued the state of Arizona for attempting to enforce existing federal law.
So when we have proponents of comprehensive immigration reform going on television and waxing eloquent about border security and the path to citizenship, you've got to remember we're talking about a president who essentially will ignore whatever he wants to ignore or thinks he can get away with it.
So to me, it's kind of worthless.
It's a waste of time maybe, but it's one of these exercises in futility.
I mean, everybody can say things for the record.
It'll be documented and reported.
Then voters can hear what people say and like it or not, agree with it or not, form alliances with politicians because of what they say and then what's heard.
But the reality is oftentimes not part of whatever's discussed.
Barack Obama is on record.
I mean, he's got a a record, a track record of ignoring existing immigration law.
So what good will new immigration law be if that's the case.
And I just never hear that as part of anybody's discussion about the latest comprehensive immigration reform act.
If the system were working right, for example, and if Congress had any sense of their constitutional obligation to protect their role, their institutional role, then they would react to Obama in a different way.
They would defund elements of the executive branch until he demonstrated he would execute the laws faithfully.
Now I know that's never going to happen.
But that's the way the system that Obama is doing battle with is designed to work.
My point, Obama's going to do what he wants no matter what the law ends up being.
And we know that because he already has.
He's not going to feel obligated by any new rules.
If he's not going to obey existing rules, why is there the assumption that whatever new law is passed will be obeyed?
My only question.
I gotta take a break now.
We'll come back and continue, yet your phone calls in the mix.
And I don't know.
I'm thinking of doing a Super Bowl pick, but the criteria are gonna have to be a little different than just X's and O's and that kind of stuff.
Okay, Frank in Elkhart, Kansas.
I'm glad you waited, sir, you're up next at Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
How are you?
I'm very well, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've listened to you to you since about uh the summer of 1989.
I've been pretty religious over the years, and I I really appreciate appreciate your uh your help with my sanity and so on and so forth over the years.
Thank you very much.
I'm a first-time caller.
I've never tried to call anybody else, so I'm really nervous.
I've just now got my heart right down to where I can halfway speak decent.
And what I've heard uh, well, I heard last Sunday on the uh Chris Wallace show, the Sunday show, he was interviewing uh Lieutenant Kerner, excuse me, I'm so sorry.
Lieutenant Colonel McSally, I think she was the first uh pilot female uh combat pilot and an army general who's I think retired.
Right.
And they were talking, um, Chris was talking to him about lifting the ban on women in combat, so on and so forth.
And I was listening, and uh Chris Wallace asked her if she was prepared for young ladies to have to uh register with uh selective service just like the guys do.
And he said, because that's coming down the road because with the lifting of the ban on women in combat, they're gonna have to eventually, because it's gonna go to court, and uh all things being equal, they're gonna have to end up registering.
And he asked her if she's prepared for that.
And she says, well, there's a lot of folks that a lot of smart folks I know that would argue that we don't need a selective service.
But all things being equal, and that's what we're all interested in, is equality that she's prepared for women to uh have to register 18.
Okay, the government.
Frank, I gotta take a break here.
Sit tight.
We'll we'll come back and continue here after the brief timeout.
Don't go away.
Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all the audience and caller expectations every day.
It's open line Friday back to Frank in Elkhart, Kansas.
Let me see if I understand.
You you heard you watched Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, had two military guests, women in combat as an issue came up, and some people now want to lift the ban on that, which means if you're gonna put women in combat, that means women are gonna have to be registered for selective service, right?
That's right.
That's the Point.
Right now at 18 only young men and boys have to sign up.
But if women can be shipped off to combat, and then under the premise that, hey, we're all quote unquote equal with the proper constitutional applications, then women are going to young girls are going to be required to register for selective service, even though there isn't a draft, you still have to register, and there might someday be one.
And my guess is you're not cool with that, and you probably have a daughter who's not cool with it, or you have some friends who have daughters not cool with it, right?
That's right.
I've got seven daughters, and six of them are eighteen, uh, to about nine months.
And I've talked to my fifteen year old daughter the ask the other day, and I asked her, I said, Are you ready to uh uh sign up for selective service when you turn eighteen?
And she practically squealed, I'm not doing that.
And I've been around a lot of girls, uh friend uh girls, friends and all that business, and I think they're all gonna squeal.
You know, they all want their equal rights and all that stuff, but they don't want equal responsibilities, and that's what signing up for the draft is is responsibility.
Well, you know, I think that's a good point, but I think there's something else going on here.
Let's face it.
The left uses the US military as a as a as a laboratory or a playground for their silly little social beliefs.
And this whole concept of there's no difference in men and women except the way they're raised.
Women can do combat just as well as men.
Yeah, right, uh you see women playing in the NFL.
I mean, what's the it it's it's absurd.
But anyway, anyway, point is that uh I I will bet you that you have a bunch of people, Frank, when they hear women in combat, oh yeah, I'm into fairness, and if women want to go to combat, then I'm not gonna stand in their way.
I think that's exactly a good thing.
But then you point out, well, well, wait a minute now.
If we're gonna all of a sudden lift the ban on women in combat, we're gonna need women to send to combat, and where we're gonna get them.
Uh they're gonna have to start registering for selective service.
If all sexes, all three sexes are gonna go off to war and you know, be in the foxholes and stuff, then we're all gonna have to register selective service.
And that's why a lot of people, you're right, are probably gonna say, No, no, no, wait a minute.
What do you mean register selective service?
Well, you said you're for women in combat.
Well, I am, but but but but well then uh welcome to the real world of the military.
Well, I believe that they were talking about that this has already been to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that uh girls didn't have to register for selective service because they aren't combat ready.
Right.
That may be.
I'm not up to the I believe that's what Chris Wallace had said.
He he kind of presupposed you know, put that in his question that now the ban has been lifted, they are combat ready, and that this is coming down the pike sooner or later.
And I just don't know why why this hasn't been addressed, and maybe I'm hypersensitive because I've got daughters.
Because I don't think anybody's no Frank, I don't think anybody's thinking of it that way.
I I I think you know, women in combat is women firemen, women equal rights, women equal pay, women can it's they're not even thinking about what it really means.
Then when you point out to well, women in combat, um, the only reason women don't have to register selective service, Supreme Court said if you're right about this is because they're not shipped off to combat, they don't have any combat roles if that's gonna change.
That's when people wait a minute, I don't mean that.
I just if if women want to carry guns, I I just I I think it's gonna wake a lot of people up, like it has waken awoken you and your seven daughters and whoever else you're talking to about.
I just think people are not putting two and two together here and getting four.
Well, can you imagine all those all those college age girls and and and high school girls, if they're told that they have to do that when they turn eighteen, just like the guys do, what kind of reactions are gonna get out of that?
I uh what do you think their reactions are gonna be?
Well, I bet if you took a poll uh uh poll a hundred girls, hundred eighteen year old girls, and ask them if they want to go down and and register for selective service, I bet it's not I bet it's not gonna be good.
I bet ninety five, ninety-eight are gonna say, I don't want to do that.
Well, um they're not gonna have any choice.
Well, no, they're not, but uh but they don't know now.
And and I just don't know why that's not being brought up.
If this is gonna happen, you know, it's a big hoorah for to lift uh the ban on uh women in combat, but they're not talking about the hoorah.
Yay, you girls are going to go down and uh register for selective service eventually.
Well, I look again, I'm repeating myself.
I don't and of course it's unlikely, but I could be wrong.
I just I I think women in combat is a it's almost a buzzword or a buzzphrase.
And it's it's something that the the feminazis, the women being discriminated against crowd point to as a way to equalize things, as women are being discriminated against, we need to be able to live and go to combat, and they just it's an isolated thing.
Then when you point out what the consequences are, then reality hits them, and they find out there's much more to it than just the so-called romance of being in combat, uh, it will wake a lot of people up.
And I've I've often thought in the concept women's rights and inequality and discrimination, I've always thought a lot of people had this dead wrong anyway.
For example, in the workplace, women have much more freedom than a man has, both as an employee and as far as public perception is concerned.
Let me give you an example.
A woman, because of the cruelty of nature, women are the only ones with wombs.
And because of the cruelty of nature, therefore women are the only ones who can give birth until the NFL comes up with the artificial womb and equalizes things.
But until then it's only women.
So allowances have to be made.
Motherhood, very important to the American society and culture.
So we allow maternity leave.
And not only paid maternity leave, and sometimes it's many, many months, and while the new mother is on leave, the job has to be kept open for her while somebody else is doing her job.
So two people are being paid while one person's doing the work, then that job has to be available for her when she decides she wants to come back.
And in some cases, depending on the vagaries of power and a business or company, maybe there is uh daycare at work so that mom can bring little Johnny in so that the daycare center at work or not, but some places have been uh motivated to offer such things as an employee benefit.
If a woman at age 35 starts getting nervous because the biological time bomb is about to explode, and she realizes she hasn't yet had a child and hasn't yet had a family and wants to do that.
She announces that she's leaving work to go home and start a family, and what does a society do?
Applauds her.
That's a wonderful thing.
She wants a family.
She wants to be a mother.
She's leaving her career, leaving her job, she's going home.
And I'm not don't misunderstand people properly applaud it.
Women have a lot of flexibility in the workplace.
If a man tried any of that, he'd be finished.
No man is gonna get nine months, six months, one month of maternity leave.
Well, I say I could be wrong.
Maybe they do now.
If a man at age 35 to 38.
You know what?
I want to be a house husband and quits his job.
There's a th that's not applauded.
Um his role is to keep the nose to the grindstone and keep working to provide for that family.
But women in the workplace have a lot more flexibility.
I'm not gonna say freedom, culturally, in terms of stigma, and in reality, much more than men do.
The reason I bring this up is because the attach okay, here men have to sign up and always have had to sign up for selective service.
And when there was the draft, it was male only.
I'll take you at your word.
Supreme Court decision that selective service applies only to men because only men serve in combat.
Times of draft.
If that's going to change, if women are going to have combat roles, I guarantee you they will be required to sign up selective service.
And there will be hell to pay.
Defeminazis, the leaders says, no, that's a denial of freedom.
That's what do you mean?
It's not equal rights.
What if a woman doesn't want to sign up?
I just I'm not saying this right.
I'll give it another go.
I just I think women in combat is almost one of these rallying cries that most of the people who who are for it don't even really stop to think what it means.
It's just the latest cause.
It's just the latest way of expressing anger at the unfairness and the inequality and the discrimination that exists against women.
I think any culture that would knowingly send its women off to combat needs to seriously examine itself.
But that's just me.
I don't think it's a great culture and a magnanimous and open and free, whatever, that decides its women are worth sending off their different it's it's a it's not an ignoring of the difference in roles, but we live in a culture which's trying to blur that difference, make everybody's the same.
So I just think, Frank, that it's a bunch of people who live in a cocoon.
Women in combat, when you throw in selective service, oh wait, wait, Dad, we don't mean that.
No, no, we don't mean that.
We just are talking about if if little Mary wants to join the Marines and eventually go to a foxhole in a rock, she can.
Well, then little Mary's gonna sign up for her luck.
No way, Jose, I'm not having my daughters on it.
No way, she's not gonna be well.
I just don't think people are thinking about it on this or a whole lot of things, to tell you the truth.
All right, folks, time for my Super Bowl pick.
Now, in the past, as you know, we've sometimes spent close to entire hours uh analyzing and picking the Super Bowl winner uh in the past with Ken Hutcherson, affectionately known as the Hutch in Seattle.
I frankly my interest in this year's Super Bowl is not nearly as great.
I not even close as it has been in the past, and there are a number of reasons for it, and you probably are shocked to hear that, but if you've listened carefully, you also know what the reasons are.
But here's the way I look at this game.
Both teams are pretty equal on the rap sheet.
The 49ers are obviously they're they're on defense.
They've been embarrassed, and they've got some explaining to do on gay rights, gays in the locker room and gay marriage.
The Ravens are very confident on that score.
The Ravens have uh they've had to make no apologies and make no excuses about that, but the 49ers have been asking for forgiveness all week.
They've been making excuses, the coaches had to talk about it.
Uh meanwhile, Terrell Suggs says, no, we got no problem.
We're we're we're we're hip to it.
But the 49ers, they've been they've been knocked off uh the whatever momentum they have, they've been knocked off the pace they were on.
And as such, they may face uh a tougher obstacle, a bigger rotaho when uh when when Sunday comes.
So in this case, I don't even know what the point Brian, do you know what the points are?
Is it is it uh you don't I think I saw three and a half, but I don't know who's getting the points.
Uh I just I uh I'll have to go with the Ravens uh in this case.
Especially you got a team from San Francisco that that that really has been knocked off its uh game here on the issue of gays in the locker room, gay marriage, gay rights.
That just they ought to be leading in that score.
And they're not.
Ravens clearly dominant in uh in that it just it it just means the four 49ers don't have their minds right.
Uh Ravens do.
So I don't think it matters Ray Lewis's last game, uh, although it it might, but uh I don't think that's really one of the uh deciding factors.
Sources of so take the Ravens and either lay the points or give the points, whatever you need to do.
It was the Supreme Court decision, Rosker versus Goldberg, 1981, the combat exemption, women, if it's lifted, there is no constitutional reason to exclude women from the draft if the ban on women in combat is lifted.
So get ready to sign up for the draft, ladies.
See you Monday.
▲
Export Selection