All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:20
March 8, 2013, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I know.
I'm just gazing at something here.
Hang on.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, we're ready to go.
Great to have you here, folks.
Welcome back, EIDB Network, El Rushbow, the Limboy Institute, on Friday.
Let's hit it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Live Friday.
One big, exciting, busy broadcast hour remains where when we go to the phones, it's you and what you think and what you care about or what you want to know about.
800-282-2882 is the number.
You want to be on the program.
I think another reason why McCain and the boys are so upset at Rand Paul, you got to remember now, here they are out at dinner at a public restaurant, not in the White House residence, in a public restaurant at dinner with the president, with Obama.
Obama has a 20-vehicle motorcade to get there.
So this is something they wanted everybody to notice.
On the verge of the sequester, and it's all downhill, and bipartisanship is what all these people, all these Republicans, that's what they think everybody wants.
Amazingly, they still think that.
So I want you to imagine that was going to be, it was their big night.
The guys at dinner with Obama was their big night the next day.
Pictures, news stories, accounts on cable news of Republicans dining with Obama.
Big, big bipartisan evening.
That's major progress.
Finally, everything working together, getting things done.
Now, imagine you're sitting at dinner.
You're at that table wherever they were.
And you've got your iPhone.
And you might have your Republican senator or whoever else is a Republican.
You've got your iPad mini, maybe, or your iPhone, your smartphone.
And all of a sudden, they start going nuts.
And you pull out your iPad or you pull out your phone and you look at it.
And you see Rand Paul has the nation captivated back in the Senate chamber with a filibuster while you're sitting there with Obama that nobody's noticing.
And you look at this and you start beating your head against the table because everything that you intended to gain from that dinner, Rand Paul's getting.
And he's a freshman.
And he's a wacko.
Ron Paul's his dad.
He's an absolute nutcase libertarian.
And he's talking about drones.
Nobody wants to drop a drone on the American people.
What the hell is this?
But he has the nation captivated.
And it's done, it's caused a real reversal.
Not a reversal.
The whole structure of things has now been upset.
And it's got a lot of people concerned.
And it has legs.
It does have legs.
So I think it's fascinating to behold.
And once again, it illustrates what these, what these, whoever these guys going to dinner with Obama, they were not challenging him.
They were not.
People think this country is falling apart.
People think that this country is on its last legs.
As they know it, as it was founded.
People in this country are really scared.
There is a despondency among the population, a majority of the population.
This isn't just politics as usual.
And as far as the population of the country is concerned, the opposition party still doesn't get it to the point that they're not even the opposition party.
And Rand Paul appeared to be the opposition.
And he had the guts and the courage to stand up and demand that they explain something to him.
And not only is he alive to tell about it, he's not being called names.
He's a hero to people.
And they're sitting there.
They can't figure it out.
The unemployment news comes out today.
They're highlighting the fact that we had a two-point drop.
I guarantee you, I don't know that it has begun yet.
And I don't know that it will.
But if it does, I'm not going to be surprised.
If the regime tries to say that the stimulus from 2009 finally now kicking in, Obamacare is being implemented, and that's causing the economy to boom, and that's creating jobs, like they said, just took a little longer than expected because of the deeply embedded economic problems Bush left us that we didn't really understand.
It was much worse than anybody told us.
And then there's some people are just going to think, well, this is the way the economy is.
There are always going to be 8%, 9% of the people unemployed.
And that's a danger, too, that this becomes to be seen as the norm.
Thepolitico.com has done some fact-checking.
I'm kind of surprised at this, but they've done some fact-checking on Obama's sequester claims.
And they found six of them.
Six lies, too big and too obvious to escape the attention of even the White House stenographers.
That's how big these are.
I can't really blame Obama for this litany of disaster that he recited.
I can't blame him for telling people all these disasters were going to happen because he hasn't been called out by his buddies in the media for lying about the stimulus or lying about Benghazi or not telling the truth about it.
He hasn't been called out, period.
So why would they start now?
But some of these claims he made are such whoppers that I guess they're concerned about their own credibility.
Now, one of the lies, there's six of them here, six sequester claims shot down by fact-checkers.
The first one, you know, those capital janitors, not going to get as much overtime.
I'm sure they think less pay.
Taking home, it does hurt.
People are going to lose jobs.
It didn't happen.
There was nothing in the cards for the janitors.
If the sequester hits, federal prosecutors will have to let criminals go.
Nope, didn't happen.
Federally assisted programs like Meals on Wheels will be able to serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors.
Didn't happen.
All these things have been fact-checked.
None of these things have happened.
There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips because of sequestration.
That was the Education Secretary.
He said that before the sequester.
It hasn't happened.
70,000 young children will be kicked off of head start.
Kathleen Sebelius said that.
It was on a White House fact sheet, but that didn't happen either.
All of those things.
So they went and asked Stenny Hoyer.
There's some concern out there among Democrats that the sky hasn't fallen.
There's concern out there that Obama overshot.
There's concern out there that he painted such a bleak picture, there's no way it can be that bad.
And therefore, the Democrats, the worst thing that can happen for them is for nothing to happen.
There has to be some pain out there or they are in trouble.
Unemployment went down.
It didn't go up.
Obama said it would tick up.
And then Obama had to cover his bets.
Well, it might not happen the first week, two weeks, three.
It might not happen the first month.
And then he said, but from now, for the next six months, anything bad happens, it's going to be because of the sequester.
So on the Fox News channel, Neil Cavuto, Cavuto said to Stenny Hoyer, Democrat, second in command in the House, Stenny, the world has not changed overnight.
None of this really, the bottom hasn't fallen out.
What do you think about that?
This happened, what, a few days ago, Neil?
This is not shutting down government.
This is a slow erosion.
So it will happen.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Just because disaster hasn't hit yet, don't get confident.
It's going to happen.
You're going to suffer.
You are going to feel it.
There will be pain.
There will be blood.
Just maybe not right now.
But it's going to happen.
Why, hell, Neil?
It only happened a few days ago.
This is not a whole government shutdown.
We're not going to do that for another three weeks.
This is a slow erosion before the government shutdown.
Yesterday in Washington, Capitol Hill press conference, press briefing, Nancy Pelosi.
Tax cuts are spending.
Tax expenditures, they are called.
Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets.
They are called tax expenditures, spending money on tax breaks.
And that's the spending that we must curtail now as well.
This is a great, another one, great illustration of how these people think.
Think the only what she's saying is that a tax cut equals government spending.
Meaning anybody who benefits from a tax cut, tax break, tax loophole, is benefiting from government spending.
And that is why, by the way, anytime a tax cut is proposed, they start saying, well, how are we going to pay for it?
Have you ever been struck by how are we going to pay for it?
What do you mean, pay for it?
Well, that's money we're losing.
We're spending money on that tax cut.
How are we going to recoup it?
Where are we going to get that money?
Because the government can never do with less.
Now, the only way that a tax cut is federal spending is if all money is Washington's.
If they think that all money originates in and is controlled by the government, then everything you have is a result of their spending it and allowing you to have it.
They have every dollar.
They own it.
They are in control of every dollar.
And what you earn, you go to your boss, he hires you, you negotiate what your salary is going to be.
The government is actually paying you that because they're not taxing it.
Anything they don't tax is spending.
And that's how they think.
She's being dead serious.
We can argue whether she's an idiot or not, but this is what she really thinks.
And she's not the only one.
This is what Democrats think.
A tax break, a tax loophole, the mortgage interest deduction, that's government spending.
Any dollar that they don't get, any dollar that they don't have, they view it as they are spending it on you for your benefit.
And so when they raise taxes, they're simply taking some of their money back.
They're not taking anything of yours.
The rich haven't been paying their fair share.
The rich have been getting away.
We need to go back and get some of that money from the rich.
This is how they can make the claim that you poor people are really not, I mean, you were rich once and the poor just, the rich came along and took your money when you weren't looking.
The rich got rich on the backs of the poor.
This is how they mean it.
She really does believe.
And she also believes this.
This was December 6th in 2012.
People had paid in to an unemployment insurance program, and then they had those benefits, which probably are one of the most important stimuli for the economy.
The economists tell us that dollar for dollar, there's more demand injected into the economy by unemployment insurance than almost anything.
Now, we can debate whether she's an idiot, but she really believes this.
She's not just saying it.
She really thinks that the government paying you unemployment benefits is the equivalent of a giant economic stimulus.
It's money in the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise.
And their economists tell them that unemployment benefits are maybe one of the best ways to stimulate economic growth there's ever been.
And she, yeah, she went on to say that unemployment compensation is one of the greatest job creators that the government has at its disposal.
Now, we can debate whether she's an idiot, but she really believes this.
She does believe it.
Well, we can discuss later whether she's an idiot.
Maybe it doesn't require debate.
You may be right.
We can discuss later whether she's an idiot.
So why should anybody work?
Let's just pay everybody unemployment benefits and get out of the way for all the economic activity that's going to happen.
Brian Williams led the NBC Nightly News last night with the same juxtaposition that I led the show with yesterday.
The American people get to decide for themselves about what it is we have just witnessed.
It seemed to a lot of people to be an example of our political great divide, but within the same party, the so-called old guard Republicans and the new, the event that gathered the most media coverage by far was a made-for-TV filibuster by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
It was over the issue of drones and presidential power.
And at the same time, across town, actual presidential power was being put to work at a restaurant with another group of Republicans and the president.
Now, this was all at the beginning of a report about how, you know, something changed in Washington.
This wasn't supposed to happen.
They were all geared up.
I'm telling you, the drive-byers were all geared up to report this dinner with these Republicans and with Obama.
And this was going to signify a new era of bipartisanship and agreement and government growth.
And oh, it was going to be a panacea.
Rand Paul went and screwed it up.
Now these guys are trying to understand what it all means.
The next Brian Williams went and got F. Chuck Todd, who is their political director, White House correspondent, whatever.
And they turned to him.
F. Chuck had a report here on this thing that happened, this change.
There's something about Washington that seems different.
Suddenly, it's a place where Republicans meet with a Democratic president for dinner.
Suddenly, it's a place where a senator who has an objection channels his inner Mr. Smith from the old Jimmy Stewart movie and actually goes to the floor of the U.S. Senate to filibuster rather than hide behind some sort of congressional mumbo-jumbo.
Is this a brief respite or is there something happening here?
Then they are terribly worried that there's something happening there and that they are being left out of it.
The power supposedly was at that dinner table, but it wasn't.
It was on the floor of the Senate.
Now, listen to this.
I got to go to a break, but listen to this.
Gail King, CBS this morning, speaking with Bob Schieffer.
It's Friday.
She brings Schieffer in to talk about his Sunday show, Slay the Nation.
And Gail King said to Bob Schieffer, hey, Bob, let's talk about the dinner that President Obama had the other day.
Some people, see, I'm sure they had this set up last week.
This segment set up last.
We're going to talk to Schieffer no matter what happens.
Let me take a break.
I've got to make sure that I get my commercial spots in here.
Otherwise, I'm in deep doo-doo.
Don't go away.
Okay, so Gail King to Bob Schieffer.
Let's talk about that dinner, Bob.
President Obama and the other Republicans, some people say that good bonding can come with good conversation and good food.
Bob, it was so exciting.
Good conversation, good food, bonding, Republicans, Democrats.
Do you think that the Obama dinner was effective, Bob?
It was big news yesterday when he invited Chris Von Holland of his own party to come to the White House and have lunch.
So I think it's all good.
You know, I'm suddenly creating a reputation for myself as a hopeless romantic here, but I kind of feel like these are good things.
When you judge where you are, you know, the old saying, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
So here, we are actually seeing people, quote, talk to one another.
And it's romantic.
Oh, my God.
It harkens back to the old days when the Republicans knew their place.
Does he think he's Dan Rather?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Who's one-eyed in there?
Who only had one eye at that dinner?
Who's the Cyclops?
Rush Limbo, a household name in all four corners of the globe.
All four corners of the world, giving you meat to chew on.
This is International Women's Day.
Did you know that?
It is.
And I have here, and I've been holding this in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers for, well, two and a half hours here, from the Wall Street Journal.
Story by Peggy Drexler.
So the author of the story is a woman.
And the title of the story is The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.
And let me give you some pull quotes just to set this story up.
Far from nurturing the growth of younger female talent, female executives put aside possible competitors by chipping away at their self-confidence or undermining their professional standing.
It's a trend thick with irony.
The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own.
Women versus the sisters.
My friends, human nature is human nature.
This is the thing that the feminist movement hated the most.
The militant feminazis were just royally ticked off by human nature, and that was their target.
They were unhappy with the way nature had treated them to begin with.
And so they began their quest to try to alter basic human nature.
And one of the many, by the way, this next statement is actually not mine, but it is a good theory.
I forget.
It was some feminist guy, some man that the feminazis all admired, who said that the big problem that the early militant feminists in the late 70s, late 60s, early 70s made, was that rather than try to build upon the natural differences between men and women, they sought to make women more like men.
The quest for power, the way to dress, the seeking of the CEO seat in the corporation, joining all-male clubs and trying to horn in on that area, rather than using what they naturally had to their advantage.
In fact, the early feminizes resented women using what they naturally had.
The worst thing, the early feminizes, I kid you not, my friends, you may hate me for saying it.
You may resent me for voicing it.
The early feminazis resented attractive women using that aspect to get ahead.
Because not every woman is attractive, and therefore it's unfair.
And it's not something you can really do much about.
I mean, makeovers can do some kind of magic, but let's face it, same thing with guys.
Not everybody is born attractive.
There's some ugly people out there.
But it matters more in our culture for women than it does men.
And that just ticked them off.
That's why I wrote Undeniable Truth Number 24, which, while establishing me as a great thinker, also made me enemy and target number one of the feminists and their early acolytes.
And that is, feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
It's so elegant and simple, and it's truth that I ended up being hated for it.
And human nature is human nature.
And the early feminists did their best to try to change that.
One of you want examples, okay, making little boys play with Barbie and painting their rooms pink.
Hey, making little girls play with G.I. Joe and painting their rooms blue.
You don't think that that happened?
Time magazine had a cover in 1998, I think, or 96, somewhere on there.
A cover story.
Men and women are actually born different.
A cover story.
Now, the men at Time Magazine were every bit the feminazis as the women.
They got caught up in it.
I mean, they did what they had to do to when feminism was a big northeastern urban thing.
They did what they had to do to get female comfort.
So the definition of a real man became Alan Alda, Michael Kinsley.
And they actually ended up believing that men and women are actually the same.
It was the corrupt culture of America that turned women into something different than men.
It wasn't human nature.
So they set out to try to prove this by turning little boys into girls and vice versa.
And it didn't work.
So now what's happened?
Women, many women have acceded, have risen to the pinnacle of power in corporations.
And this story is about how they try to keep other women from getting anywhere near them.
They're not mentoring them.
They're not inspiring them.
They are undermining them in many cases.
Over 40 years of working, this is 40 years of modern feminism.
And there's been no change in basic human nature and behavior.
Women who advance do not help other women.
They didn't in the 70s, and they don't now.
Working women are, I mean, if they have to be BI itches, they are.
They will be.
If they have whatever it takes, they'll do it, just like men will.
They're not part of a sisterhood when they get there.
They're not going to open the doors and welcome the other women in.
It took them too much to get there.
They're not going to share it, just like men don't.
I mean, there may be natural mentoring and so forth, but nobody makes way for their competitor to overtake them.
But the feminazis expected that to happen.
There's a bunch of liberals share everything.
Nobody's better than anybody.
We're all equal.
So if one of you happens to become CEO, all of us are going to be CEO.
But that's not the way it works.
Kelly was a bright woman in her early 30s, whip-smart, well-qualified, ambitious, and confused, even a little frightened.
You see, she worked for a female partner in a big consulting firm.
Her boss was so solicitous that Kelly hoped the woman might become her mentor.
But she began to feel that something was wrong.
In meetings, her boss would dismiss her ideas without discussion, would even cut her off in mid-sentence.
Kelly started to hear about meetings to which she wasn't invited, but felt she should have been.
She was excluded from her female boss's small circle of confidants.
What confused Kelly was that she was otherwise doing well at her firm.
She felt respected and supported by the other senior partners.
She had just one problem.
It was a big one.
One of the male partners pulled her aside and confirmed her suspicions.
Her boss, female boss, had been suggesting to others that Kelly might be happier in a different job, one more in line with her skills.
What was happening was Kelly actually posed a threat to her boss.
So her boss wanted to move her into some other place.
Now, Ms. Drexler, writing the piece, says, I met Kelly while I was conducting research on women in the workplace.
And she was trying to puzzle through what she had done wrong and how to deal with it.
To protect the privacy of Kelly and others in the study, I refer to them here by first names only.
I wasn't sure Kelly had done anything wrong, and I said so.
And I told her, you might have met a queen bee here.
Queen Bee, what's a queen bee?
I had to tell her what a queen bee is.
Having spent decades working in psychology, a field heavily populated by highly competitive women, I had certainly seen the queen bee before.
The female boss who not only has zero interest in fostering the careers of other women who want to follow in her footsteps, but who might even actively attempt to cut them off at the pass.
Now, the term queen bee syndrome was coined in the 70s following a study led by researchers at the University of Michigan, Graham Stains, Toby Epstein-Geronette, and Carol Teveris, who examined promotion rates and the impact of the women's movement in the workplace.
A 1974 article in Psychology Today, they presented their findings based on more than 20,000 responses to reader surveys in Red Book magazine.
They found that women who achieved success in male-dominated environments were at times likely to oppose the rise of other women.
This occurred, they argued, largely because the patriarchal culture of work encouraged the few women who rose to the top to become obsessed with maintaining their authority.
And 40 years later, the syndrome still thrives, given new life by the mass ascent of women to management positions.
And here it is again, the pool quote: Far from nurturing the growth of younger female talent, they push aside possible competitors by chipping away at their self-confidence or undermining their professional standing.
It is a trend thick with irony.
The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their sisters.
This again is in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Drexler.
And let me tell you who she is.
It'll say here at the end, she's an assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry at the Weill Cornell Medical College.
It's in New York.
And the author, most recently, of Our Fathers, Ourselves, Daughters, Fathers, The Changing American Family.
Mr. Lumball, why are you spending so much time on this?
Wife, can we get back to the filibuster or talk about the sequestered?
Well, because, Mr. Neil Castrati, we've also talked this week about efforts to corrupt our culture that have taken place.
Efforts that have been underway to undermine the institutions and traditions that led to this nation's greatness.
And I firmly believe that militant feminism is like every other ism in liberalism.
You have at the top the really motivated, malcontent, committed, radical, extreme leaders.
And then you've got the rank and file who may not have the slightest idea that there's any politics at all in what's going on.
To them, feminism is simply equal pay for equal work.
Feminism is maternity leave.
Feminism is, you know, being treated nicely.
Feminism is a chance to succeed.
Feminism is not having to read Playboy or see Playboy at the desk.
But they don't equate politics with it at all.
And as such, they're used.
So not all women are these militant radicals.
That's why I've always said there's only ever, only, anyone talking about seven real feminazis.
That the women thought I was that every feminist was.
Gloria Steinem still hasn't gotten over it.
When this subject comes up on TV, my name comes out of her mouth.
Don't try to visualize that.
Every time she's on TV, and they have no sense of humor.
None.
I mean, none.
I once told a feminist that I had no problem at all with the women's movement, especially when walking behind it.
And they didn't think that was funny.
Hey, folks, I have a charity golf tournament Monday.
I'm not going to be here.
Who we got on Monday?
Mark Stein will be here as the guest host on Monday, as I, ladies and gentlemen, am out donating my time and whatever else to a charitable endeavor.
▲
Export Selection