All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 11, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
February 11, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
It's great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, as always behind the golden EIB microphone, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Uh telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
And the email address L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
I got some questions in the break.
I checked the email.
Why haven't you talked about the Grammys?
You know, pop culture and low information voter region.
Frankly.
Folks, I don't think that the low information voters found the Grammys all that exciting last night.
Well, there wasn't any anti-Bush, there wasn't any anti-conservative no political rhetoric at all, no creaming of Republicans.
There weren't any wardrobe malfunctions.
The F bomb didn't happen.
Well, wait a minute.
I don't think it did.
In fact, listen to this.
I I've got a piece here from the Washington Post Feminist blog.
It's by a woman named Susie Parker, and her blog is called She the People.
And the headline, with the CBS breast ban, the grabbing awards take a leap back in time.
I remember back in the 90s, I would read the New York Post and the New York Daily News Entertainment pages.
And after an Academy Awards or a people's choice, all these reporters would call the ceremonies and the telecast dull.
If there wasn't any profanity, there wasn't any nudity, MTV awards, uh if there wasn't any anti-Republican rhetoric, they'd also not a boring show.
And that's what this babe is saying.
With CBS breast ban, the Grammy Awards take a leap back in time.
Is this country regressing instead of progressing?
She asks.
Feminism's a dirty word, and skimpy clothes on stars is a no-no, even in the world of rock and roll.
So Susie Parker, the war on women has been so successful that women are not allowed to bear their breaths on the Grammys, and because of that was a dull show.
See-through clothing that could possibly expose female breast nipples was banned.
And then there was this please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible puffy bear skin exposure.
This is the entertainment business, not high church.
Without shocking costumes, you've got, well, lackluster TV.
So she was all upset.
There wasn't any nudity, there weren't any bare breasts, there weren't any bare pubic regions.
It's a dull show.
And this covering up of the female anatomy, in her mind, is part of the war on women.
Most viewers, she writes, want performers to wear clothes that they could only dream of wearing themselves.
Award shows or fantasy worlds where the average American can escape for a few hours and yank about it the next day.
They don't want to see a turtleneck on Alicia Keys or Lady Gaga.
They want to see boobs.
They want to see pubes!
Washington Post!
Blog She the People.
So I figured if the Glitterati think it was a boring telecast, why talk about it here?
And they thought it was boring.
Because there wasn't any nipples.
There weren't any pubes.
Just turtlenecks.
There wasn't any political rhetoric.
There wasn't any fantasy.
It was just about the music.
Just about the music and the award winners, and it was not exciting at all.
It was a dull show.
And I figured this woman probably is the barometer.
So why talk about it?
Here's David Ignatius, by the way.
I just we have the soundbite now of uh Ignatius on Chris Matthews Show on Sunday, where he is asking Obama, please.
In your State of the Union, let your ideas triumph on immigration, don't destroy Rubio.
I mean, I really think that this is a big deal.
He's gonna make immigration one of the issues he talks about in the State of the Union.
State of the Union is good, but here are the things we need to do.
He's gonna talk about immigration reform, he's gonna talk about climate change, he's gonna certainly talk about bringing the troops home from the wars.
I think he'll announce a number of troops who will be withdrawn.
But you know the Marco Rubio question gets to whether Obama can get out of the zero-sum game, Washington, where to do something good on immigration reform, he's gotta, you know, destroy Marco Rubio, who's the Republican symbol of progress on that.
So Ignatius is openly wondering can Obama triumph on immigration reform and not destroying a Republican.
Can he?
Now I'm telling you, folks, I again I'm I I don't want to attach a deep, big meaning to this.
I don't think it means anything like revolt in the Democrat Party or massive unsettledness with Obama, although I think I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that there is.
What the guy is acknowledging, all this is is an acknowledgement of Obama's technique.
And he's not what everybody thought he was in 2008.
He's not postpartisan, post-racial, he's not messianic, he's not the nice guy, he's not the unifier, he's not working together with this guy's a divider and a destroyer.
And that's what Ignatius is saying.
And Ignatius is saying he doesn't like it.
He's not comfortable with this.
He's not comfortable with Obama having to destroy everybody who disagrees with him.
Why can't you let your ideas win, bud?
Let your ideas triumph.
Well, the answer to that is Obama's ideas won't triumph.
The Democrat Party's ideas today would not triumph if that's how they ran for office.
But of course they don't.
They do demonize, criminalize, politicize their opponents, and annihilate them.
Take them out.
Exactly what they did with Romney.
But rather than read the Bible, I just wanted you to hear the soundbite in Ignatius' own words.
Christopher Dorner, the fired LA copose.
If you hear that Dorner is anywhere near where you live, and based on what I've heard from the left in recent weeks, of safest thing you can do is turn in your guns.
That's what will make you safe.
I've heard every Democrat, I've heard the media say this, that the way we're gonna make this country safe is for everybody to get rid of their guns.
So if this Dorner guy who's already killed three cops, shows up in your neighborhood, somehow make it known so that he finds out that you've gotten rid of your guns and he'll leave you alone.
He's only gonna go find people that have guns and wipe them out.
If you are a good citizen and get rid of yours, why Dorner might even write you up in his next manifesto.
Seriously, this is what they want us to believe.
Getting rid of your guns will make you safer.
And also seriously, you know what's happened?
This guy is becoming a cult hero.
In every story about this guy, it's no longer mentioned in his manifesto that he is pro-lib, that he's inspired by people like Obama, inspired by left-wing media people by name, that he's out on this killing spree inspired by American leftists.
It is stunning.
After every mass killing in this country, the media turns over every rock to try to find any evidence whatsoever that the killer was inspired by conservatives.
Here you have a man who has admitted who his mentors are.
Here you have a man who is admitting who he's trying to please with his actions.
Christopher Dorner is admitting that he idolizes left wingers in politics and in the media.
And it's not news.
It's no big deal.
And in fact, what's even worse, the guy is becoming a cult hero.
Among leftists on Twitter and Facebook, he is gaining in popularity with people urging him on.
I am not kidding you.
Support growing for former L.A. officer accused of killing spree.
If you uh Michelle Mulkin Has a website called Twitchy.
It's an aggregator site, essentially, where she aggregates all kinds of tweets on all kinds of things.
And rather than have to go find individual tweeterers, she she combines them, and there's a whole never-ending, it seems, list of tweets for people who say, oh, yeah, love this guy.
He's the modern day real life Django, for example.
Oh, it is sick.
It is entirely sick, but I'm telling you, it is not an insignificant number of people in this country on the left who are excited and are encouraging this guy.
So let's go to the audio sound bites.
This is every day.
It becomes more surreal.
CNN reliable sources.
Howie Kurtz spoke with George Washington University professor Steve Roberts, who used to be a reporter for Newsweek.
He's married to Koki Roberts, who used to be a reporter for ABC, and still does commentary on their Sunday show.
And they're talking about the media and Chris Horner.
And to set up the segment, Howard Kurtz first says this.
I've been getting a lot of heat on Twitter, Steve Roberts, from conservatives who say this guy Dorner, he loves all these liberals.
He also likes Chris Christie, by the way.
He likes all these liberals on TV.
the media is covering this up and somehow tying the fact that of these media personalities to this murderous alleged rampage and saying well we blame conservatives and be different if we said he'd like rush limbaugh or sarah palin i I don't know what to make of that.
How I don't know what to make of it.
Howard Kurtz, I don't know what to make of this.
Howie, come on, man, where are you?
Don't know what to make of it.
Do you not remember Brian Ross after the shoot em up at the Ohio at the Colorado Theater after the movie Batman movie?
Brian Ross trying to confirm the shooter was a Tea Party member and actually went on TV and said it might be that he's a member of the Tea Party, and you don't understand?
Conservatives emailing you saying, how come you're not telling the truth that this guy idolizes you and people like you on the left?
I don't understand it.
I don't know what to make of this.
And here's Steve Roberts trying to tell Howie Kurtz what to make of it.
Well, I thought the more interesting part of his manifesto was his analysis of the LAPD.
There is a long history of racism there.
There is intelligence there at work.
Now, this man has obviously gone on a murderous rampage and not in any way excusing that, but there is a very serious and careful analysis of the endemic racism in the LAPD, a historical sensibility.
That to me is worth paying attention to despite the murder.
My God, fuck.
Steve Roberts is saying, not only saying the guy's got a point, he may be right.
There's racism in the LAPD, and because of that, we must pay attention to this, despite the fact the guy's on a murder spree.
He is praising Dorner's intellect.
This is exactly what they did with the Unabomber.
Remember, he was a fallen liberal.
He's such a smart guy.
It's like these guys in Canada that made the movie or in Washington wrote the book on how to assassinate George W. Bush.
And people like Steve Roberts said, well, now let's not let's not overreact here.
This is a book of great literature, and we must we must pay attention to this book.
We must analyze this writer and his point.
It's well written, they said.
And the movie that dramatized the assassination of Bush.
Let's not be too quick to judge.
There might be this a tremendous work of art here that we must endeavor to appreciate, they said.
So now you have a murdering former LA cop, and Steve Roberts is saying, Well, wait a minute now.
This guy, this guy is uh is it the intelligence there at work here?
And there is racism in the LAPD.
Everybody knows this.
This guy's got uh historical sensibility.
We we we gotta pay attention to this guy, despite the murders.
No, the fact he's smart, the fact that he's smart it and and knows that there's racism.
Look, the fact that he's black is a factor here.
I'm sorry, but what else would explain this?
What else would explain excusing this?
Or if not excusing it, relegating the murder aspect of what the guy's doing, the secondary status, and that the primary thing we must see is his intellect.
And his grievance.
His grievance is real.
There is racism in the LAPD, and everybody knows it.
Rodney King, anybody, everybody, and you remember those cops and CME Valley.
Everybody.
This is the implied content of what Roberts is saying is racism.
Everybody knows it, and this guy's black, he knows it.
He got fired, probably unjust.
Okay, so he's killing people.
But we gotta listen to what he said.
That's that's Steve Roberts.
Ryan Lizza was on the show.
He's a New Yorker magazine correspondent for Washington.
And after Robert said what he said, then Dorner having some legitimate points.
Then uh Ryan Liza and Howard Kurtz uh take another spin at this.
I think there's a kernel of truth to the criticism you're getting on Twitter.
Sometimes the media does have a hair trigger when you find out a murder suspect has ties to say the Tea Party or some radical right group.
And I have criticized that.
And we and we get all over it sometimes fairly, sometimes not so much.
So I can understand why there's some sensitivity on the right to this.
I think there's a kernel of truth here to the criticism you're getting, uh, Howie.
Yeah, the we we sometimes do run a little bit quickly to blame the Tea Party.
I think there's a kernel of truth, Howie.
And now she said, Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've criticized that.
And that's yeah, yeah, I can understand.
Right.
These guys blow my mind.
Back to the top of the show.
Doers versus I I I the hypocrisy is the least of it, and the hypocrisy's huge.
They don't see it.
They do not see that they're ignoring this guy's left-wing ties.
They don't see that they're making no effort to tie this guy to being inspired by liberalism.
This guy's inspired.
He wants the approval of liberals.
He's seeking their approval.
Meanwhile, there is no relationship to conservatism and all these other crimes that are committed.
Here you have a direct tie, they ignore it.
And when it's thrown up at, well, maybe there's a grin of the truth, but this guy's smart, and there is racism in the LAPD, and he's smart, and we gotta listen to what he's saying, and we gotta consider that because he's smart and there is racism.
The murderers, well, it's not so hot, but uh that's not the main thing to look at here.
Charlie Sheen, one of the actors the guy has called out.
Charlie seen uh Sheen's all excited here.
This is from TMZ.
Christopher Dorner.
This is Charlie Sheen.
You mentioned me in your manifesto, so thank you for your kind words.
I'm urging you to call me.
Let's figure out together how to end this thing.
Call me.
I look forward to talking again.
Oh, that Charlie.
No, no, Charlie Sheen on TMZ, and I guarantee you, Horner saw it.
Guarantees he watches TMZ.
Horner's probably saying how the hell I call you, bud.
You didn't leave your number.
How am I supposed to find you?
I didn't lie to you.
You heard the audio, Charlie Sheen said to Christopher Dorner, thank you for your kind words.
There are two reasons that this Dorner is uh is an acclaimed hero to people.
One the the I kid you not if you read the tweets, this guy is being supported because to some people he's fighting a race war, folks.
He is fight that that's what the Django references mean.
Modern day Django come to life.
Way to kick they ass is a common theme in this is us, by the way.
The population at large, the establishment, the majority.
So and he's he's he's waging a race war.
The Daily Caller has a piece on his support, and it's it's it's shocking.
It's entirely racist.
It's entirely based on racial support for the he's he's waging a race war.
Now, Charlie Sheen, he didn't care about any of that.
Charlie Sheen, this this guy, he's just the latest big celebrity.
And Charlie Sheen is thinking, wow, this guy's calling me out.
Man, this is cool.
Because this guy's the big story.
This guy's big on TMZ right now.
This guy's big on e-entertainment.
This guy's big everywhere.
This Dorner guy.
So as far as Charlie Sheen is concerned, Dorner calling him out, that's a coup, man.
That is big.
That is more publicity.
And that's why it's attractive to uh Charlie Sheen.
Let me go to the phones.
Vinny in Queens.
Vinny, glad you called.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Russ, get this off to you.
Now, Rush, I'm just gonna upbraid you a little here.
Obviously, this whole David Ignatius thing, this is obviously a case of your vast intellect getting in the way of your otherwise superb common sense.
I mean, come on, as far as David Ignatius wanting Obama to actually woo voters to his cause through merit for his position, forget it.
He's worried that if Obama goes after Rubio, the Latino base may turn against him to protect one of their own.
Second, w why the hell would Obama do anything other than to seek and destroy tactics, aka Chicago politics that got him here in the first place.
Wait a second.
Vinny, I don't expect Obama to change.
Okay.
I wait a minute.
You're thinking too much.
Okay.
You you think I don't expect Obama, and I don't expect Obama to change anything just because it in Ignatius said what he said.
I think I think Vinny, Vinny, hang on, I got a break here.
Hang on, hang on.
Um you think I'm thinking too much, and I know you are.
So don't go away.
Okay, we're back now.
We got Vinny from Queens.
Vinny thinks I'm thinking too much.
Um and let me just review.
David Ignatius essentially, when he was on Matthew's Sunday show, said that he hopes in the immigration debate upcoming that Obama does not destroy Marco Rubio in the process, saying that he wishes Obama could rise above this belief that politics is a zero-sum game, which in political terms would mean that for Obama to win, somebody has got to be destroyed.
Ignatius saying, gee, can you just let your ideas triumph?
Now, Vinny thinks that my analysis is all wrong, and I'm thinking too much about this, that my vast intellect is overanalyzing this.
And if I'm right, Vinny, what you think, Ignatius' motivation is he just afraid that if Obama starts attacking Rubio that there's going to be a backlash by Hispanics aimed at Obama, and that that's what Ignatius is afraid of.
If I about I understand you're right.
Well, right.
I I really do think that deep in his heart, that's what David Ignatius fears.
And why would David Ignatius say what he said on an otherwise uh absolutely abysmal program as Chris Matthews on Sunday.
Well, I don't know, but but one thing I do not think, and I don't know why you thought this, I do not think that Obama's gonna modify the way he acts because of what Ignatius said.
No, no, I don't I don't I don't really think you thought that.
I think I was just fleshing out what I was thinking.
I'm trying to say why Ignatius would come on and say something like that.
You know, he was just trying to seem analytical.
Well, that's why you need me to tell you.
The fact that you hear it and are asking yourself is exactly why I decided to take this on in the first place and try to explain it.
Because you will admit, will you not, that it's very strange.
For Ignatius to say what he thinks.
Yeah.
Yeah, it is very strange, but I really think he was just trying to puff himself up is to look, you know, someone you know, look look somewhat analytical in in talking this way, which is kind of high and mighty to what liberals uh really want.
And that's basically political dominance no matter what, and they don't care how they get it.
And I've listened to you for I don't know how many years say Democrats run on fear, not ideas.
Nothing's going to change.
Obama is going to destroy Rubio if he can.
Okay, and and maybe Ignatius is fearful of what I'm saying, that if he does, that Rubio is part of the people.
Okay, he's not a pretender.
He's the real deal, as you've also stated, and I think there would be a backlash for someone like Rubio, who's who's very telegenic, uh very much with what's going on out there, and I think that's what David Ignatius is really worried about.
Well, you could be right.
But I'm I'm I'm I'm telling you, it is to me, and I think the fact that you've chosen to call about it and and saw it yourself, there's something really strange about the comment, regardless what it means, or regardless what his fear is.
Now, on the surface, in a wishful thinking, would have you say that his fear is that Obama is in the process of really blowing it here because people think of Obama as a great unifier and somebody that gets along with people by partisans so forth, and Ignatius is worried that Obama's gonna blow it for everybody here.
And I don't think that.
I I don't think that's what Ignatius' concern is.
But it it's also I think there's more to it than the fact he just fears backlash.
I I do think that there is a a very maybe hard to see at times, but these some of these old time, Ignatius not a new guy, he's been around a while.
I think they are romantically attached to this notion of bipartisanship.
As long as the Republicans lose all the time.
Um the Bob Michael type bipartisanship, where the Republicans are always around, but they always lose, and they're smiling and happy about it.
I think Ignatius is worried that there's going to be a backlash, as you say, but a lot of people, uh in addition to Hispanics are going to be upset if this stuff continues.
Now I'm just I mean, I'm throwing darts in the wall on that, because like you, uh, it it's impossible to truly analyze this, because I'm he's not here.
I don't want to ask him, it's not I'm not care that much about it.
But I don't, just to make sure you understand, I don't think that what Ignatius said is gonna have any effect on Obama's behavior at all.
I hope you didn't think that.
No, no, Rush, it's always listen, it's always an illuminating experience and a learning experience talking to you.
And uh I didn't think you really thought that.
I just I guess I didn't think I didn't want anyone else to actually think that the Chicago style politics were ever going to change, no matter what David Ignatius on the body.
No, in fact.
Well, see, Obama's minions are already in the process of destroying Rubio.
They're already trying to.
Absolutely.
That's right.
They're already trying to, and they got a whole playbook on him since he it was whispered last year that he might be the VP candidate.
Yeah, well already.
The Daily Caller's got a story out there right now.
The headline, Top Democrats plan attack on Rubio ahead of speech.
You know, Rubio's gonna do the response in Spanish.
People are already ripping into him for that.
Well, Rush uh what can I say?
I as I said, I appreciate the time you always give me on your show.
Well, Vinny, I'll tell you you and I this is the first talk show in history where both the callers and the host are accused of thinking too much.
Well, thanks a lot, Rush.
I gotta go back.
I live in the East here, so I gotta go back outside and shovel the global uh global warming away from my driveway.
Just be careful you could get a heart attack and die, Vinny, and you survived you survived the weekend, which makes us all happy, so don't blow it.
Yes, sir.
Don't die.
Whatever you do.
Have you heard about what Pelosi said since we're we're talking about the Democrats?
This is this is uh y Yeah, and I I think I've got this in a sound.
Let me see if I do.
Hang on here just a second.
I know I saw this.
Yeah.
We got it here.
Number fourteen.
Folks, there's and I've got a companion story to go along with this sound bite.
Let me tell you the companion story first.
And I guess this comes under the umbrella of surreal Twilight Zone, living in two different worlds.
We're not even on the planet.
I think these Democrats are on that asteroid that might be getting close to Earth because of global warming.
It's just Laurie Montgomery.
This is not a blog.
This is the Washington Post headline.
Obama job of debt reduction is nearly done.
The the The job, the effort to reduce our debt, it's nearly done.
Did you know that?
One thing you won't hear in Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday is an ambitious new plan to rein in the debt, because it's already done.
By the administration's math, Washington needs to enact only another one and a half trillion dollars over ten years, and they will have hit the four trillion dollars in debt reduction.
White House economic advisor Jason Furman said this to reporters last week.
At 1.2 trillion, the automatic cuts known as the sequester will nearly fit the bill.
So when the sequester hits, we'll have nearly $4 trillion in debt reduction, and that's it, jobs done.
Did you know that?
Now they're going to say this.
They are saying it.
Pelosi, as far as the low information voters are concerned, okay, Obama's fixed that now.
We don't have a debt problem now, folks.
We're no longer spending too much.
We're no longer spending more than we have because Obama's fixed it.
I just this is how how does this get written?
How does somebody that you just you assume somebody journalists has got to be somewhat smart, and that's the mistake we make.
We overestimate what they know.
We overestimate their innate intelligence.
In recent days, the White House has pressed the message that if policymakers can agree on a strategy for replacing across the board spending cut set to hit next month, the president pretty much have achieved his debt reduction goals.
And the job's done.
Okay, so check that off.
That one's done a major achievement.
Here's Pelosi.
Sunday morning, Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace said, you know, you have a lot of friends in Hollywood.
Why don't you go to them and publicly say, I challenge you.
Wait a second.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, wrong bite.
That's that's that's that's the the question he asked was you talk about growth.
Even Christina Romer, the former head of the Council of Economic Advisors for the President says that you increase taxes, that's also going to hurt growth.
Well, it's about timing.
It's about timing, and it's about timing as to when you make cuts.
We have to recognize that.
Which cuts really help us and which cuts hurt our future.
And cuts in education, scientific research, and the rest are harmful, and they are what are affected uh by the sequestration.
So it it is uh almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem.
We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.
We was speaking, we do not have a spending problem.
It's a false argument to say we have a spending problem.
What we have is a budget deficit problem.
Yeah, the deficit.
We we we uh we're we're not collecting enough money.
We're not taxing enough.
We don't have a spending problem.
Here's her full statement.
Oh, I think that sequestration is a bad idea all around.
The fact is we've had plenty of spending cuts.
What we need is growth.
We need growth with jobs.
So again, we have to make a judgment about how do we get growth with jobs.
That's where the real revenue comes from.
No, wait a minute.
I thought it came from unemployment benefits.
She's also said that.
Nancy Pelosi's the author of the statement that you get more job creation with unemployment benefits than any other program.
She has said that.
Now she's saying we need growth with jobs.
That's where the real revenue comes from.
Now, folks, that statement taken by itself happens to be true.
You get growth with jobs.
The way it happens is more people working Equals more people paying taxes, equals economic growth.
I mean, the more people are working, the more output GDP goes up, growth happens, and more taxes are collected because there are more people paying them.
Now, I I don't know if she means it that way, but I mean this is entirely true.
Growth with jobs is where real revenue comes from.
You don't get it by cutting into education, cutting back on investments in science, food safety, you name it.
So it isn't as much of a spending problem as it is a priorities.
And that's what a budget is is setting priorities.
Nothing brings more money to the treasury than investments in education of the American people.
Okay, so she's again wandering aimlessly here in vain search of a thought.
So if you recognize that, which cuts really help us and which cuts hurt us, and cuts in education, scientific research and the rest are harmful.
And they are what are affected by the sequestration.
So it is almost a false argument to say that we have a spending problem.
We have a budget deficit problem.
So we she's she's saying we've had plenty of spending cuts.
So we don't have a spending problem.
We've got a budget deficit problem.
And this woman was Speaker of the House for I don't know how many years.
This woman is the leader of the Democrats in the in the House even now.
But it's a false argument to say we have a spending problem.
We have a budget debt.
So Obama has fixed the debt.
Once the sequestration happens, that the job of debt reduction is done.
He's reduced the debt.
Now, in truth, the debt has grown seven trillion since he took office, and it's going to keep growing, but doesn't matter.
They fixed it.
The debt problem's been fixed, and we don't have a spending problem.
We have a deficit problem.
And this makes total sense to the low information voters.
It just does.
Yeah, it's impossible to follow this Pelosi stuff.
I mean, it's just insane.
It's it's like Harry Reid.
She's she's lying, just like Reed did uh last weekend said that there have been two point six trillion dollars in non-defense spending cuts.
There's already been two point six.
That's see, with one point four trillion more, we're up to four trillion, and the spending problem is not well, the debt problem's taken care of.
And they're just making it up.
I don't know what to do about it.
I folks, I you can't negotiate with it.
There's no common ground.
And I mean, it it all you can do is laugh at it.
I mean, it is what it is.
They won.
They get to sink or swim on their own with this.
Here's uh here's John Chester, Connecticut.
Thank you for the call, sir.
It's great to have you here.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, thanks for having me.
Um look, uh, you know, one of the things I always wonder about with these reporters a little bit is that they're maybe a little bit fearful.
I mean, every once in a while you see, you know, Jake Tapper raise his head or one of those guys and they dare to ask a question, or uh and you know, something comes up and they kind of get put back in their place.
And I always wonder if these guys uh see a little bit of the monster that they've, you know, helped to create, certainly.
And and you know, one of the questions I always ask my liberal liberal friends is, you know, what their limit is.
Um, you know, we kind of always push the envelope always to the left.
You know, the issue of you know gay marriage, multiple marriage, you had the pedophilia justification a few weeks ago, uh, the issue of confiscating people's 401ks.
I I like to ask my liberal friends, you know, what are your limits?
And because you'll reach those limits eventually, and that becomes the mainstream of liberal think at that point.
And then once you resist it, then you in fact become the enemy.
And and that's what I wonder a little bit with these reporters, every once in a while, you know, questioning uh the great one.
What are your liberal friends tell you when you ask them about their limits?
Uh most you know what?
Most of the time they really try to avoid the question.
Yeah, because there aren't any.
That's right.
I really try to.
Because they're never happy with what they get.
They always want more.
They're never satisfied with it.
No, because what it comes down to for me is once I reach that conclusion with them and they don't answer the question, I look them in the eye and I say to them, then it's religion for you.
That's what it is.
It's it's religion.
It's not you're not thinking, you know, here's the fact of the matter is you and I, everybody else looking at it, not quite correctly when you ask them what their limit is, because the truth of the matter is.
They aren't going to stop until they have no more opposition, until they can do whatever they want to do without anybody standing up and saying, no, you can't.
And until that happens, they will never be happy.
And as such, they need opposition in order to feel energized, and they'll create it if they have to.
But the answer to your question, there aren't any limits.
Whatever they want to do is morally superior and fine, and the problem is anybody opposing them or saying, No, that's too far.
You can't do that.
And they're not going to be happy until there isn't any of that.
You know, the question that the guy asks his liberal friends, what are your limits?
Well, look at Obama's upcoming State of the Union address.
Who would have ever thought that the things he's going to talk about would be the goals of the Democrat Party and the country even thirty years ago?
▲
Export Selection