All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
March 18, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have while doing it.
Hosting this program behind the golden EIB microphone and eventually taking your phone calls.
That's coming up soon in this hour at 800-282-2882.
Rentz Prebis, Chairman Republican National Committee went somewhere.
To announce the Republican Party's new marketing plan, how they're going to start winning elections and make people love them again.
If you just missed it, the first hour today was devoted to explaining to the Republican Party and everybody else why they are where they are.
And it's a neat trick that the Democrats have pulled off, and once again, I in a way feel like I ought to apologize, something I should have figured out 20 years ago.
But I just figured it out.
I mean, in a conscious able to explain it way over the weekend.
Much like the Limbaugh theorem.
I should have figured that out long ago.
But eventually I got it.
And what all that's going on here, gay marriage, illegal aliens, whatever, every issue is simply a vehicle for the Democrat Party to portray itself as the liberators.
The great liberators, the party of freedom, the party that's going to free people from the chains of the no fun party.
And it really isn't any more complicated than that.
Now, of course, the Democrats don't liberate anybody when because as as as these groups ostensibly are granted their freedom, what happens?
Government gets bigger, and we all give up a little freedom, and morality goes to hell.
The virtues that defined a civil society get trampled on and eliminated in the name of freedom, in the name of liberty.
So we end up with freedom without virtue.
We have leadership without character.
We have hedonism substituting for freedom.
And guess who it is that doesn't want you to have freedom and be free?
It's the Republican Party.
So the Democrats come along and what do they do?
They put people in groups as victims.
And all the while I thought this was done to expand the welfare state, which it is.
But there is another purpose.
Once you're a victim, the victim of what?
Discrimination.
What's that?
Anti-freedom.
Discrimination and bigotry.
What's that?
Racism, bigotry, homophobia.
All these things are bias against your freedom.
A bias against your liberty.
Ostensibly, it's what's so Democrats, and they constantly need a group that needs liberating.
They always have to have a group that's oppressed, and that's why homosexual marriage has risen to the top now.
And there's there's a battle going on for primacy between the same-sex marriage crowd and illegal aliens.
They're the next group of oppressed people in this country who need to be liberated.
They're being denied their Americanism.
They're being denied their rights as granted by government is what people think.
It really isn't any more complicated than that.
get right down to it.
Young people have this almost romantic attachment to civil rights, civil liberties, emancipating people from oppression, from liberty.
The idea that such exists in this country offends me, but it's able to be pushed and sold because education in this country is so woefully incompetent.
And inept.
So here just to show you that the Clintons used to be two of the most vocal anti-gay marriage Democrats you could find.
I mean, they and they got votes on it.
They had that position to coalesce voting blocks.
Now, Mrs. Clinton's just done a 180, and nobody's going to call her on it.
Barack Obama, up until last summer, during the campaign, was totally opposed to gay marriage.
And got votes on it.
Campaigned on and secured votes by being anti-gay marriage.
Or maybe I should say pro-traditional marriage.
Let's put it that way.
It's the Republicans who are anti-gay marriage.
The Democrats are pro-traditional marriage.
But all that's out the window, something happened, and every Democrat's now done a 180, and it is the most important issue.
Homosexual marriage.
And as people try to, why?
You go about your daily business, you turn on the news, all of a sudden, you would think we're back in the days of slavery, except today's slaves or homosexuals are not allowed You think, what the hell happened?
Well, I wasn't looking.
What happened?
And what you don't know is that you are being succored as a as a as a victim yourself.
You're being drawn in to some non-existent oppression and tyranny that a bunch of poor Americans need to be liberated from, and there's the Democrat Party to do it.
And who stands in their way?
The Republicans.
And they wonder why they've got a branding problem.
You know, maybe the Republicans ought to say something like we don't have designs on your private property.
We would never just unilaterally confiscate 10% of your bank account, like the Liberals in Cyprus and Italy do.
We would never advance a wealth tax or seize your bank account to pay for government.
We wouldn't put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor.
We wouldn't pretend that food stamps and unemployment benefits help the economy.
We wouldn't limit your right to self-defense.
We wouldn't spend all day trying to figure out how to separate you from your guns.
I mean, there it's not hard.
This conservatism, which is real freedom, which is real liberty, is not that hard.
But today's Republicans think everybody so hates it, so opposed to it that they're scared of it.
Defense of Marriage Act, that was Bill Clinton.
You remember, are you the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 was Bill Clinton?
The Democrat Party devised it, proposed it, came up with it.
The Democrat Party, defense of marriage, which said what?
We are going to stand united against anything other than marriage being a man and a woman.
The Democrat Party, Bill Clinton.
Mm-hmm.
And here it is, a little over ten years later, and every Democrat's done a 180, and nobody's calling them on it.
Why have they switched?
Why have they changed their minds?
Well, asked and answered.
Been there done that.
I've I've given you the answer to everything.
It's time to move on to.
Here's Hillary, just to play you the soundbite.
This is today.
It's on the uh human rights campaign website.
They released a video of Mrs. Clinton now.
You know, she and her husband are right in there with DOMA Defense of Marriage Act.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but they're about to tear that law up.
They're about to pretend it doesn't exist.
Obama stopped enforcing it last year.
Here's Mrs. Clinton.
I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being.
LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones.
And they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship.
That includes marriage.
I support it personally and As a matter of policy and law.
But I used to not.
I was really as adamantly opposed to it as anybody ever was, not that long ago.
But I'm a Clinton and I'm a Democrat, and I can change my mind, and it doesn't matter.
On a core belief, on a core principle, like how do you define marriage?
It doesn't matter.
I can go with the wind.
And I know I'll I'll get away with it.
You won't hold me to it.
But you notice here, they are full and equal citizens, as though they're not now.
They're not full and equal citizens if they can't get married.
And they deserve the rights of citizenship.
That's why they're not full citizens, folks.
They're being tyrannized.
You see how it works.
And that includes marriage.
Now, let me run something by Rand Paul put a statement out on gay marriage.
Because uh uh there's a New York Times story here today among GOP voters, little support for same-sex marriage.
I'm just going to repeat something here that I said at the close of the previous hour.
I'm going to help the Republicans here because again, I I'm don't pretend to have how to get votes.
I think I know how, but it's not my business, it's theirs.
Nevertheless, if the Republican Party openly supports amnesty, they are finished simply as a matter of mathematics.
If there are 12 million illegals, nine million of those are going to be automatic Democrats the moment they get the right to vote.
And I don't care what the Republicans do with turnout policy, rebranding, there's no way they can keep up with nine million brand new Democrats on one day.
They just can't.
Second thing is, if they come out as a party for gay marriage, right here you have it.
I mean, the the the polling data on this from the Pew Research Center, there's hardly any support for same-sex marriage among Republican voters.
You know, Bob Portman, Rob Portman, Ohio, came out for it because his son is gay.
And there were a lot of responses in the Republican Party.
I was frankly surprised.
Hey, our policies are not up to personal preference here.
He took a lot of heat from people for this.
On the Republican side.
Our principles are not based on personal preference.
Otherwise, we'd be liberals.
And then there were those who were sympathetic, but his son.
Anyway, Rand Paul said, I tell you what, let's take the word marriage out of the tax code and let's just eliminate any special or different treatment for married couples in a tax code, and that'll end it.
Well, I'm not so sure, because the Democrats don't want it to end.
But many people uh uh gay marriage first got started as a well, I can't get to the hospital to see my loved one, and I can't get the marriage deduction because I can't get marriage.
It did become a matter of benefits.
And the answer to me, the answer to question like that is well, let's not expand the benefits, let's let's get rid of the benefits.
They should not exist as they do anyway, then.
But it just benefit just sends me to the moon anyway.
I uh when I hear Obama in a speech advising people in his audience what how to go about getting their benefits, what the f benefits.
Benefits for what.
Anyway.
That's how it got started.
So Rand Paul says, let's take marriage out of it.
Okay, let's hypothetically do that.
Let's okay, no more tax preferences or different special whatever treatment for anybody being married.
There's no more marriage deduction, and you go see anybody in the hospital you want, you don't have to be married.
Do you think that will end the push for same-sex?
No, as John Kerry is saying, no effing way.
Or Biden.
Now both of them, actually.
Quickly, here's Sue in Wichita.
Sue, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Uh hi, Rush.
Thank you.
This is a real honor.
Kind of nerve wracking, but an honor.
Um I just in thinking about young people and why they're so willing to accept gay marriage.
I think a large part of it is because they've been taught their whole life that it is a virtue to tolerate everything.
And so for them, it's not freedom without virtue.
They think it is virtuous.
They're tolerating everything.
Oh no, I agree with you.
I'm I'm saying that actually I'm quoting Oz Guinness, but he's right.
It's it's it's he's saying with freedom without virtue.
I don't think the people practicing this stuff think that at all.
I think you're exactly right.
To them it's an issue of tolerance.
It makes them good people.
Absolutely.
And they think that they've never been told that tolerance has limits.
They've never been told that tolerance needs to be limited when it gets destructive.
They think that tolerance is unlimited and everything should be tolerated, and that's a virtue.
But see, they don't.
Because they don't tolerate everything.
They don't tolerate they don't tolerate conservatives.
True.
True.
That's the great that's the great myth that all these tolerant people are all the great open-minded people.
They're not.
But you're right.
I th I think I think it's an excellent point.
They have been raised, conflict resolution, whatever.
Tolerance.
And it's virtue in tolerance.
There's virtue in understanding.
There's virtue in acceptance.
Well, it's because there is there are no absolutes.
Right.
You can take morality to any extreme, and it doesn't matter because they don't know that that is destructive.
They don't understand it.
And they've never been taught that.
Well, some of them have been raised with it, but I guess it didn't stick.
That's the only way a human being becomes moral, by the way, is having it taught.
Right, and I think it's been taught, but then they get out into the world and everybody rails against them when they aren't able to accept everything, and most of them aren't able to explain why.
They aren't able to say, the reason I am not for gay marriage is because it destroys traditional marriage.
And and they don't have reasons behind, you know, their thinking, and so they just you know fall apart when they're not going to be able to do that.
Well, I know.
No, you're exactly right.
Once even if they say that, I because it destroys traditional marriage.
The next question, well, what's wow, how?
What's so big about traditional marriage?
Well, I don't know.
I just heard that.
They they don't know.
They couldn't answer the question what's so good about traditional marriage.
They couldn't they they you're right.
They're not being taught this stuff.
Anyway, Sue, you're right in the money.
I gotta take a brief time out here, as they all are.
They go by faster than you would believe, as you know.
Back with more in a moment.
Hi.
How are you?
Wonderful to have you back as we kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Here is Rentz Prebis, the chairman of Republican National Committee today at the National Press Club, uh announcing the new marketing plan.
And he he started out with an analysis.
Oh, remind me.
Yeah, these Google glasses, have you seen these?
Remind remind me I have a salient point about this that I've got to make.
Already there are establishments saying we don't want them in here.
There are already bars and restaurants saying we do not want anybody wearing these glasses in here.
You don't understand why.
Oh, good.
If Snurley doesn't get it, then a lot of you probably haven't figured this out or had it occur to you, let's put it that way.
So remind me.
In the meantime, here's Rentz Prebus.
And what what what went on first is an analysis of what went wrong or what is wrong.
Focus groups described our party as narrow-minded, out of touch, and quote, stuffy old men.
The report mints is no words in telling us that we have to be more inclusive.
I agree.
And as President Reagan said, our 80% friend is not our 20% enemy.
What is it?
We can be true to our principles without being disrespectful to those who don't agree with a hundred percent of them.
I'm sorry, but we're not disrespectful to anybody.
Look at what these focus groups have got these poor guys believing.
Look at this.
Our party is narrow-minded.
All that Republicans, not narrow-minded.
I know that's the impression, but it it's it's it's the wide that people think that that is the secret to rebutting this.
It's not accepting that as true because it isn't.
But Rush perceptions are reality.
You've said it yourself.
Well, that's true.
So but out of touch, not out of touch.
We are in touch with the founding of this country.
We are in touch with the greatness of this country and its people.
Narrow-minded, that's see, that's the we are press people.
We're not open, we're not tolerant.
See?
We're not inclusive.
So we gotta go more tolerant.
That means cash in our chips on our core principles.
We gotta be more uh inclusive.
And then he says he agrees with this.
We can be true to our principles without being disrespectful to those who don't agree with us.
When are we disrespectful?
Was it us who ran ads accusing Obama of not caring if some guy's wife died with cancer?
Was it us who ran ads about who Obama doesn't care about his dog?
Was it us who ran ads accusing Obama of hiding money in the uh in the Cape?
Was it us that did all this?
Democrats get away with it.
Anyway, I gotta take a now where are we on time?
Have we missed a break?
There you are watching the Bible on the History Channel.
Are you watching it?
It is setting, let me tell you some things about setting records.
It is setting ratings records for a cable production.
12 to 14 million viewers.
Now this show has a budget.
It's it's a I think a 10-hour, maybe 12-hour, I forget which, doesn't matter.
It's one of the two.
12-hour miniseries, $22 million.
HBO will spend that much on a couple of episodes for one of their average series, like Boardwalk Empire or something.
So $22 million for all of these episodes, just incredible.
It's no money.
They have not one recognizable actor except for the actress playing Mary, and that's because the one they cast didn't show up.
Roma Downey is playing Mary.
Roma Downey was in um uh touched by an angel or some such thing.
She's married to the guy producing.
They're both producing it.
Mark Burnett, who produces the apprentice and survivor.
He's a reality show guy.
And the reason that there's not one recognizable actor is also on purpose.
They didn't want any one face or name.
A, they have to pay these people very much, but B, they don't want to face or name cop co-opting all the attention.
Plus, they didn't have the money to go out and hire somebody huge and big.
Anyway, it is just going through the roof ratings.
And it last night, Satan shows up for the first time, and the actor that plays Satan is a dead ringer for Barack Obama.
Folks, it is uncanny.
And the picture of this actor who is playing the devil, El Diablo, is not it's all over the internet now.
It's it's all over, it's on the Drudge Report.
I mean, I could I could hold this up for you and zero in on a ditto cam, but you can find it.
He wearing a hoodie.
Bobby looks just like Obama.
So of course everybody's asking, whoa, what is this on purpose?
Or was this just coincidental?
Who are these people producing this series?
Who are these people?
And they're both, they're both recognized as, I don't know, but devout, but but they're they're they're they're Christians.
Everybody knows Roma Downey is.
Mark Burnett, the produces Survivor and Trump's show.
Um anyway, it is taking Hollywood by storm.
This is not the formula, it's not costing any money, it's getting record ratings, it doesn't have any big stars.
And people in Hollywood are making a point.
Don't worry, we're not gonna copycat this.
You know, Hollywood copycats everything.
No, they're not gonna copycat this specifically because of the subject matter.
They're making a point to say Hollywood Big, no, no, no, we're not gonna do our own version.
No, no, no.
We wouldn't do.
They're all saying, hell, it's been done, everybody's done it.
Cecil B. DeMille did it, everybody's done it, and now this is just a rehash, we don't need to do it.
The producer are saying that the similarity in their actor for Satan, the similarity to Obama is ridiculous.
It's utter nonsense.
Well, if you look at it, I mean that there are there are people out there who are very much enjoying it.
Have you not seen the picture, Snerdly?
Are you just now looking it up?
Well, when you see it, have you seen it, Don?
You guys haven't seen this?
Well, maybe I better zero in here on the dental.
Here, Lang on, maybe maybe people haven't seen this.
I'm gonna I'm gonna turn the dental cam off.
I'm gonna zoom in here.
I can't believe, I mean, here we have the most listened to radio talk show country.
I gotta zoom tighter.
Come on, zoom, come on, zoom.
I'll get as tight as I can on this, folks.
Okay, here we go.
There it is.
That's Satan as portrayed in the History Channel's movie or miniseries on the Bible.
There you go, a little bit better view of it.
It does look very, very, very much like a figure that we see daily in uh in Washington, D.C. Now, let me what I'm thinking about it, let me tell you this Google Glass business.
First off, what what do you think it is, Snerdley?
What do you think Google Glass is?
Right.
Right.
You can you can you can read your email on it, you can send a text message, you can watch videos on it and so forth and do all kinds of stuff on it.
Really cool.
You look like a nerd, but so what?
We'll have to be tolerant of people wearing Google Glass.
But already there are bars and restaurants, one bar in Seattle, which apparently is a bar specifically for reprobates and reprobate behavior.
Do not want anybody because they record.
There is a camera.
Google Glass can record everything it sees.
Now, my friends, I want to tell you something.
That to me is a huge red flag, and I'll tell you why.
Imagine, if you will, wherever you are right now, as is, whatever is happening wherever you are right now, is by definition normal.
Now I want you to imagine a news crew showing up where you are, and then imagine what would happen.
Everybody aware of a camera starts acting.
Everybody who is aware of a camera tries to get in its way.
Everybody who is aware of a camera stops behaving as they normally would, and they become immediately self-conscious.
And I'm gonna tell you, a nation filled of robots walking around wearing Google Glass is going to take every wherever somebody shows up with those things, you're gonna have normal behavior cease.
It's gonna be like bringing a newscreator.
Once people learn that whoever's wearing the Google Glass can record everything you do.
Everything.
Yeah, but well, but but they if they see you recording, if they see you aiming it, in this, they're not gonna have to see you.
It's gonna be aimed at you all the time.
And you you may not know if it's recording or not, but once the word gets out that that's what it does, people are going to assume that everybody wearing Google Glass is recording what they're doing because everybody does take video on their cell phone now and then.
So this is different than holding up a phone.
And I I think it it could have consequences for affecting the way people behave.
I do.
I do.
You know me, I've I've uh this is not this is nothing new to me either.
I I've commented often on the presence of a camera changes the way everybody acts.
A news crew or you know, they happen to stumble across Well, a new uh a camera that could record you, not a camera that's recording like if they're recording an episode of uh Law and Order SVU in some sewer.
Uh or any other show.
But if a camera is there and recording you, it totally changes what happens at that scene.
And people start playing to it.
Or they act afraid of it, one one of the two.
But it does affect by definition impossible for it not to.
Quick phone call, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
This is Dave, great to have you on the EIB network.
Of course, thanks for taking my call.
I've got to tell you, Reince Priebus couldn't be more wrong about having to rebrand the party.
They...
He's right about they need to reach out to minorities, but the way to do that is to get people like Robert that called you last Thursday and Representative West to be the be the ones to help do that.
I was so inspired by that guy's call last week.
I I he was he first of all he had the guts to apologize to you.
That in itself is unbelievable.
Uh once you can admit you're wrong about something, which is what I think the half the problem is with people that vote Democrat, things can change quick.
But the biggest thing that can scare them right now, the Democrat Party, is if blacks start turning out for Republicans.
You know, that's a good point.
What he's talking about, folks, we had a caller last week from uh what was it, South Carolina or somewhere.
His name is Robert, and he was black guy.
And he'd voted for Obama.
And he's done a 180.
And he um he called to apologize because he was apologizing for believing what everybody had always said about me and that he always believed before he started listening.
And then, like we hear over and over, he started listening, he heard something entirely different, and what he heard was very appealing.
And what he heard, obviously, when he tuned to this program was conservatism.
And he totally abandoned Obama, and he totally abandoned the Democrat Party.
And he came to understand exactly what Obama poses.
The the the um the the danger that Obama poses, and what got him, what he he didn't put it in these words, but what woke him up was the limbaugh theorem, was the the uh observation that Obama never does anything other than campaign and oppose.
He's always running for something, apparently, uh uh according to appearances.
He he doesn't govern.
He's always he's always trying to fix something.
Anyway, the light went off for him.
And and his point was that what got him was not a marketing package, and it wasn't Republican Party outreach.
It wasn't that somebody from the GOP got hold of him and uh sat him down in a focus group and and and asked him, you know, what he wants the party to be.
He just heard conservatism.
He heard conservatism explained.
You don't expect me to repeat that line, do you?
You don't expect me to repeat that line.
I We were speaking earlier about this Satan picture.
Yeah, this uh this actor and the History Channel miniseries on the Bible, the actor portraying Satan is a dead ringer for Obama.
And so the question they're dying for me to ask is in light of that picture.
And only in light of that picture.
Can we be clear about this in light of that picture?
Given that that picture's out that we had nothing to do with distributing, by the way, nor did we cast the actor in that show.
We're just like you.
We saw that picture just like you did.
Came over to trans him out of the blue.
And the question that sprang to everybody's mind is if if Satan had a son, would he look like the guy in the Okay, I patiently waited.
Nobody here had the answer.
We don't have a caller up there.
Let me check.
Two, three, four.
Nope, nobody, uh, nobody, nobody, nobody up there.
Okay.
I mentioned earlier Rand Paul had an idea.
The way to deal, or the way for the Republican Party to announce its dealing with the with gay marriage.
It's by the way, it was a germ of an idea.
It's not an official proposal.
He said, just take marriage out of the tax code.
And they take all the special treatment for marriage out of the tax code, and then there's no benefit financially.
And so therefore, homosexuals don't have to get married in order to qualify for certain tax deductions, treatment, what have you.
And I've been waiting for somebody to send me an email, slap me upside the head, do something with the obvious retort to that.
Sadly, no one has.
So as always, it's up to me.
So the question is, well, why are there why is there special treatment for married couples in the tax code?
I mean, who wrote it in there?
Members of Congress over the years have put special treatment for married people in the tax code.
Why is it?
Why is it is it because we're trying to encourage people to get married?
Well, then why are we doing that?
Is it because we're biased for marriage over single people?
Why why don't that's right, Snerdley gets it?
All right.
The reason why, ladies and gentlemen, all the different treatment tax-wise for married couples is the assumption that there are children.
And so there is the what I I don't have kids, so I don't take advantage of these benefits, but you who are know full well what you get per kid and what deductions there are.
It's it's not, in other words, the the financial benefits are not there to discriminate against the unmarried.
The financial benefits are there to cut married people with kids some slack because we as a society have deemed population growth to be a good thing.
Without it, there isn't a country.
And there isn't going to be population growth in gay marriage.
Sorry, unless they invent a womb to go in a guy.
Well, yes, well, but yeah, but you gotta eventually you you're sure you can get a surrogate, but I need to take this out to its obvious conclusion.
I'm so I'm not gonna go there.
I'm I'm not I'm the the I'm already being argued with on this.
but this the whole point of of special tax treatment for married people is not because of bias for married people, it's not because governments wants to shower or punish less married people, it's because of the acknowledgement of kids.
Procreation, new child growth, population growth, new workers, quote unquote, new taxpayers.
Except now it's it's it's new recipients of unemployment compensation and new new recipients of food stamps.
Even promoting work anymore.
What the man, oh man, this is incr to me.
This is incredible.
Cheryl Atkison, CBS is tweeting that the White House will not comment on the Eurozone's actions confiscating bank deposits in Cyprus.
They will not comment on it.
The president of the United States will not defend the concept of private property rights.
No comment on governments and banks seizing ten percent of everybody's money in Cyprus.
And maybe Italy next.
▲
Export Selection