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 live 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.
Talking about a low profile.
I'm not even here when we go to the phones.
Show is all yours.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo 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 are going to 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 at 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 kid you, not the only thing they could find wrong was some comment Hegel made 15 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 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 going to 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 is 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 going to stop us.
Here, listen to what Schumer said.
He got a question from a reporter.
He said, 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 going to work for that.
Now, when he says we, he's talking about the gang of eight, of which Rubio is a member.
So he's saying at the gang of eight, we're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship.
Now, I'm very curious how Senator Rubio is going to react to that, because this seems at variance with what Senator Rubio's demands/slash desires are.
Well, he didn't even say that.
HR whispering in my ear, saying, This is kind of like Schumer saying we're going to try.
He said, Yeah, we want a secure border.
Oh, yeah, who doesn't want a secure 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 going to work for it.
It's very important.
But if there isn't one, it's not going to 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 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, 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 start anything up.
I'm actually embarrassed.
I feel kind of foolish in allowing myself to believe that they've gotten most of the repair work done, that they were 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 can be done until we get the bill.
And the bill is filled with pork.
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 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 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 inside the Beltway media, they follow it too.
Whatever the agenda of the day is, if it's gun control, 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 were just talking about Senator Schumer and border security and Rubio and border security.
And whenever 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.
The overall question that I have in my, and 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 countermans 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, and 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 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 got to 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 going to 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, Rush.
How are you?
I'm very well, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've listened to you since about the summer of 1989.
I've been pretty religious over the years, and I really appreciate 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 rate down to where I can halfway speak decent.
And what I've heard, well, I heard last Sunday on the Chris Wallace show, the Sunday show, he was interviewing Lieutenant Kerner, excuse me, I'm so sorry, Lieutenant Colonel McSally.
I think she was the first female combat pilot and an Army general who's, I think, retired.
Right.
And they were talking.
Chris was talking to him about lifting the ban on women in combat and so on and so forth.
And I was listening, and Chris Wallace asked her if she was prepared for young ladies to have to register with 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 going to have to eventually because it's going to go to court.
And all things being equal, they're going to have to end up registering.
And he asked her if she was 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 have to register 18.
Okay, let me do that.
Frank, I got to take a break here.
Sit tight.
We'll come back and continue here after the brief timeout.
Don't go away.
Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all audience and caller expectations every day.
It's Open Line Friday back to Frank in Elkhart, Kansas.
Let me see if I understand.
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 going to put women in combat, that means women are going to 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 18 to about nine months.
And I've talked to my 15-year-old daughter the other day, and I asked her, I said, are you ready to sign up for selective service when you turn 18?
And she practically squealed, I'm not doing that.
And I've been around a lot of girls, girls, friends, and all that business, and I think they're all going to 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 U.S. military 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.
You see women playing in the NFL.
I mean, it's absurd.
But anyway, anyway, point is that 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 going to stand in their way.
I think that's exactly a good thing.
But then you point out, well, wait a minute now.
If we're going to all of a sudden lift the ban on women in combat, we're going to need women to send to combat.
And where are we going to get them?
They're going to have to start registering for selective service.
If all sexes, all three sexes, are going to go off to war and be in the foxholes and stuff, then we're all going to have to register selective service.
And that's why a lot of people, you're right, are probably going to 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, 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 girls didn't have to register for selective service because they aren't combat ready.
That may be.
I'm not up to that.
I believe that's what Chris Wallace had said.
He kind of presupposed, you know, put that in his question, that now that 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 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 think, you know, women in combat is women firemen, women equal rights, women equal pay, women, they're not even thinking about what it really means.
Then when you point out to, well, women in combat, 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 going to change.
That's when people are, wait a minute, I don't mean that.
I just, if women want to carry guns, I just, I think it's going to wake a lot of people up like it has 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 college-age girls and high school girls, if they're told that they have to do that when they turn 18, just like the guys do, what kind of reactions they're going to get out of that?
What do you think their reactions are going to be?
Well, I bet if you took a poll, poll 100 girls, 118-year-old girls, and ask them if they want to go down and register for selective service, I bet it's not going to be good.
I bet 95, 98 are going to say, I don't want to do that.
Well, they're not going to have any choice.
Well, no, they're not.
But they don't know now.
And I just don't know why that's not being brought up.
This is going to happen.
You know, it's a big hoorah to lift the ban on women in combat, but they're not talking about the hoorah.
Yay, you girls got to go down and register for selective service eventually.
Well, look, again, I'm repeating myself because I don't, and of course, it's unlikely, but I could be wrong.
I just think women in combat is a buzzword or a buzz phrase.
And it's something that the feminazis, the women being discriminated against crowd point to as a way to equalize things.
Women are being discriminated against.
We need to be able to go to combat.
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.
It will wake a lot of people up.
And 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 daycare at work so that mom can bring little Johnny in, sit at the daycare center at work or not, but some places have been 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 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.
Don't 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 going to 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, that's not applauded.
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 going to 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.
The feminazis, the leader, says, no, that's a denial of freedom.
What do you mean?
That'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 think women in combat is almost one of these rallying cries that most of the people 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 an ignoring of the difference in roles.
But we live in a culture which is 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, we don't mean that.
No, no, we don't mean that.
We just are talking about if little Mary wants to join the Marines and eventually go to a foxhole in a rock, she can.
Well, then little Mary's going to sign up for like, no way, Jose.
I'm not having my daughters done.
No way.
She's not going to be.
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 analyzing and picking the Super Bowl winner 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, 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 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 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.
Meanwhile, Terrell Suggs says, nah, we got no problem.
We're hip to it.
But the 49ers, they've been knocked off whatever momentum they have.
They've been knocked off the pace they were on.
And as such, they may face a tougher obstacle, a bigger rotahoe 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 you don't?
I think I saw three and a half, but I don't know who's getting the points.
I'll have to go with the Ravens in this case, especially you've got a team from San Francisco that really has been knocked off its game here on the issue of gays in the locker room, gay marriage, gay rights.
They ought to be leading in that score.
And they're not.
The Ravens clearly dominant in that.
It just means the 49ers don't have their minds right.
Ravens do.
So I don't think it matters Ray Lewis's last game, although it might, but I don't think that's really one of the 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