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 just gazing at something here.
Hang on.
What?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, we're ready to go.
Great to have you here, folks.
Welcome back, EIDB Network, El Rushball, the Limboy Institute on Friday.
Let's hit it.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
One big exciting busy broadcast hour remains where when we go to the phones.
It's you.
And what do you think?
And what do 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 gotta 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.
This is something they wanted everybody to notice.
And 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 that was gonna be there 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 was a Republican.
You've got your iPad mini, maybe, or your 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 it's caused a real reversal, not a reversal.
It's it's there the whole the the whole structure of things has has now been upset.
And it's it's got a lot of people concerned.
And it has legs.
It does it does have legs.
So I think it's a it's it's fascinating to behold.
And once again, it it illustrates what these what these whoever these guys going to dinner with with Obama, they were not challenging him.
They were not.
People think this country is falling apart.
People think that this country's 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 I don't know that it has begun yet, and I'm not I don't know that it will, but if it does, I'm not gonna be surprised.
If the regime tries to say that the stimulus from 2009 finally now kicking in.
Obamacare's 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 gonna think, well, this is the way the economy is.
There are always gonna be eight, nine percent of the people unemployed.
And that's that's a danger too, that this becomes to be seen as the uh as as as the norm.
The Politico.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 resided, recited.
I can't blame him for telling people all these disasters were gonna 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 he hasn't been called out, period.
So why would they start now?
But some of these claims he made are such whoppers that that I guess they're concerned about their own credibility.
And 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 gonna get as much overtime.
I'm sure they think less pay taking home, it does hurt.
People are gonna lose jobs.
It didn't happen.
There was 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 four 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.
Seventy thousand young children will be kicked off of head start.
Kathleen Sabilia 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.
And 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, 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 uh a few days ago, Neil.
This is not shutting down government.
This is a slow erosion.
Uh so it will happen.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Just because disaster hasn't hit yet.
Don't get confident.
It's gonna happen.
You're gonna suffer.
You are gonna feel it.
There will be pain.
There will be blood.
Just maybe not right now.
But it's gonna happen.
Why, hell, Neil.
It only happened a few days ago.
This is not a whole government shutdown.
We're not gonna 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 send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for uh corporate jets.
They are called tax expenditures, spending money on tax breaks.
And that's the spending that we must curtail as well.
This is a great uh another one, great illustration of how these people think the only way 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, any time 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 that's money we're losing.
We're we're spending money on that tax cut.
How are we gonna recoup it?
Where are we where are we gonna 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's gonna 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 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 them.
The rich.
This is how they can make the claim that you poor people are really not I mean, you were rich ones, 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 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 have 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 and 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 could 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.
But she – so.
So why should anybody work?
Let's just pay everybody unemployment benefits and get out of the way for all the economic activity it'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 the 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 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 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.
So I gotta go to a break, but listen to this.
Gail King, CBS this morning, speaking with Bob Schiefers.
It's Friday.
She brings Schiefer in to talk about his Sunday show, Slay the Nation.
And Gail King said to Bob Schaefer, hey Bob, let's talk about the dinner that President Obama had the other day.
Some people see this I'm sure they had this set up last week.
This segment set up last week to talk to Schiefer, no matter what happens.
Let me take a break.
I 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 Schiefer.
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 uh he invited Chris Van Holland of his own party to come to the White House and have lunch.
So I think it's all good, you know.
Uh 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.
Is he thinking he's Dan Rather in the land of the blind, a one-eyed man is king?
Who's one eyed in there?
Who 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 uh you know that it is.
And I have here, and I've been holding this in my former 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 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 feminazis resented women using what they naturally had.
The worst thing, the early feminazis, 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 it's let's face it, same thing with guys.
Not everybody's born attractive.
There's some ugly people out there.
But it matters more in our culture for women than it does men.
It just 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 accolites.
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.
Well, 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 around there.
A cover story, men and women are actually born different.
and A cover story.
Now, the men at Time Magazine were every bit the feminizes as the women.
They got caught up in it.
I mean, they did what they had to do to 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 Olda, 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 didn't work.
So now what's happened?
Women, many women have a seated, 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 not they're not mentoring them, they're not inspiring them.
They are undermining them in many cases.
Over forty years of working, this is 40 years of modern feminism, and there's been no change in basic human nature and behavior.
Women who advanced do not help other women.
They didn't in the 70s, and they don't now.
Working women, I mean, if they have to be B.I. 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.
Thank you.
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 confidence.
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 Miss 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'd done wrong, 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 B syndrome was coined in the 70s, following a study led by researchers at the University of Michigan.
Graham Staines, Toby Epstein Jarinette, and Carol Tavris, 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 achieve 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 forty years later, the syndrome still thrives, given new life by the mass ascent of women to management positions.
And here it is again the pull 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.
Devery 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. Lumbaugh, why are you spending so much time on this?
What can we get back to the filibuster or talk about the sequester?
Well, because Mr. New Castradi.
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 is that 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 like the feminism is not having to read Playboy or see Playboy at the desk now.
But they don't equate politics with it at all.
And in such 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 at any one time about seven real feminizes.
That the women thought I was the 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.
Is it who we got on Monday?
Is the uh 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