All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:46
March 20, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Why is everybody making such a big deal out of Obama?
He get he gets over to Israel and he says, Yeah, it's great to be away from Congress.
What's everybody making such a big deal about that for?
It's like he's committed some sort of blasphemy.
Look, Congress gave Netanyahu a standing ovation.
Of course he wouldn't want to be associated with this over there seeing Netanyahu.
Bad memories.
I guess it might look bad in the sense Obama's got this so-called charm offensive going on.
And in the middle of his charm offensive, he talks about how happy he is to be away from Congress.
But hell, he can't control it.
So he's not interested in it.
Makes total sense to me.
Greetings and welcome back.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Look, I'm not going to spend a whole bunch more time on these stories of women, feminist women discovering motherhood and thinking they've found something new and wanting to stay at home.
Look at the point of it is, folks, is that there's hope culturally there is hope.
There are just certain things that are nature that are instinctive in human beings, and the left has spent God knows how much time and energy trying to alter basic human nature.
In fact, that was one of the primary purposes or objectives of feminism.
And while they can screw up a generation or two, things eventually do self-correct, and that is happening here.
And I think it bodes well in terms of potential that other things that liberals have tried to corrupt can eventually right themselves.
It's not a total cure by any means, and it's just a little speck.
But it's to me it's it's important because this this whole notion of trying to reorient women and the way they live their lives has been a primary objective of liberals since the late 60s and even way back before then.
The late 60s is just the current iteration of it, a current era.
And it's it's it's failing, it's bombing out, and it's liberal women who are admitting it has.
Although not admitting it that in those words, but by virtue of their behavior and their expressed preferences, they are.
So it's it's ultimately just it's it's another opportunity for us to say that we know what we're talking about, and that we're right.
And there's no reason for any of us to be defensive or embarrassed about what we believe.
Now moving back to this football business.
I think they're gonna have to change the name of the league from the National Football League to the Attorney's Football League.
Or maybe change it to the LFL, the lawyers football league, because that's what happens with this rules change.
Running backs outside the tackle box and defensive players cannot lower the helmet.
Now, people are starting to weigh in on this now, because this came as a shock.
As of late this morning at the owners' meetings, this rule was thought to be in such weak shape that they were gonna table it until the next owner's meetings in May, and then out of the blue, it passes nearly unanimously, 31 to 1.
The only team voting against it Cincinnati Bengals.
Mike Mayock, who is a commentator, color commentator for NFL games on the NFL network, and a former defensive back for the New York Giants thinks that they've crossed the line now with this rule.
While I applaud the league for most of what's going on with the safety concerns, and all players and former players applaud that, I look at this rule and I say, at some point we've crossed the line.
To me, a running back has got to be able to drop his pad level.
Shoulder pads, running backs, they lower themselves.
They make themselves smaller targets.
They give themselves more energy, it's gravity.
The lower to the ground you get, the harder it is to stop you.
You want to prevent people from getting underneath you, being able to lift you up.
Now they want the defensive players to lead with their shoulders, the old-fashioned way.
Like I said, go back and if you Ever do maybe there's some of this stuff on YouTube.
If you run into college football from the 1940s and 50s, even the 60s, you'll see what the NFL's going for.
There were no launches by defensive backs with their heads at the heads of other players.
It was basically a game played with the shoulders.
And the proper tackle was below the waist, wrap your arms around and basically stop the leg churn, and you bring them down.
There was no spearing or any of that.
Only the NFL of the 60s was an entirely different story.
The NFL of the 60s forgot meant you think it's bad now.
I mean, those guys were a different breed.
There was clotheslining.
You ought to look up a guy named Hardy Brown.
Hardy Brown played for the San Francisco 49ers.
He was not a big guy at all, but he was by reputation the hardest hitter of his era.
People were afraid to go up against Hardy Brown.
That the NFL game in the 50s and 60s was an entirely different proposition.
It wasn't nearly as sanitized as the as the game is today.
Nevertheless, Mahock says a running back's got to be able to drop his pad level.
When a running back drops his pad level, shoulder pad level, his head goes with it.
It's just the way you play the game.
And from a defensive player's perspective, which I was, I understand and respect that, and I think it's part of the game, and I don't think you can legislate all of this contact and all of the forcible head hits out of this game.
You just can't do it.
And he he went on to say that he thinks the owners have dramatically altered the sport of football today, and he's right, and I'm going to make you a prediction.
If this rule holds up, what is going to happen is it's going to be just like the NBA.
Teams are going to score every time they get the ball, and the last team that has the ball is going to win.
It's going to be ping-pong back and forth on the football field.
Mayok says, Look, I'm not a fan of this rule at all.
I think it crosses a line.
And then he says the obligatory, we all love safety, but at some point football's got to be football.
If a running back can't drop his pad level, I don't think it's football anymore.
He's right about that, but there's something else going on here.
Now I don't quite know how to say it.
But they're taking manliness out of the game.
And not just football.
They're trying to take, when I say they, I'm talking about the culture warriors, the politically correct, the same type of people, same type of thinking which says that at school we're not letting students form friendships because they will eventually get hurt.
And we're not, we're not letting adults hug any child other than his or her own.
But we are we're taking manliness out of culture and out of society.
Football, the people who play it, forget what these guys in this lawsuit about not knowing about concussions are saying.
Everybody that plays this game at the professional level knows full well what they're getting into.
They love it, by the way.
Nobody is making them play at the NFL level.
They love it.
In many cases, it is the only opportunity these guys are going to have to earn the kind of money that they can earn playing this game.
They're not going to have opportunities to make this kind of money doing other things.
They love it.
This is what they're oriented to.
There is a warrior-type mentality to this game.
By nature, then it can be added to by by coaching.
Starting at the high school level, it can be taught and coached any number of ways.
But it is taught and coached as a manly sport if you suffer a cut or what an injury.
but everybody knows it's part of it.
And you can't sanitize life.
You cannot take.
You can't legislate.
You can't punish, you can't take any of the pain out of life.
You can try to medicate yourself so that you don't feel it, but all you're doing is hiding from it, and you're not living when you do that.
We live in a free society where people are free to choose what they want to do.
It's not a game that sanctions murder.
It's not a game that purposely attempts to inflict damage on people.
It is something that happens as a result.
But these are some of the finest most highly trained and tuned athletes in the country.
And it's what their natural talents and abilities incline them to do.
And they willingly choose to do it.
And they're not nobody plays this game with the idea that how to say this.
I don't want to be misquoted and be blatantly totally misunderstood here.
I'm not I'm not saying the people that play it want to suffer injuries because that's manly.
That's not it at all.
It's just that, you know, life happens.
People choose to climb mountains.
I wouldn't.
I think it's stupid.
But people choose to do it.
If they want to, fine and dandy.
Other people, you know, want to scuba dive.
Go into submarine down 5,000 feet.
I wouldn't do it, but some people do.
But there are people who are attempting to take the risk out of everything in life, and it's not possible.
And the more these people try, and I'll tell you who they are, they're all over the place.
They're at your school, they are in charge trying to determine what you can and can't eat, where you can and can't eat it.
It's none of their business.
If they ever fully prevail, this country's finished.
It's going to be a nation of sissies and wusses and wimps.
And that's not who we are.
And I don't think that's what people are trying to affect here.
I think this is really fear of lawyers.
There's this massive class action lawsuit out there with thousands of former players trying to score money because they're way beyond their earning years.
And they're trying to say that they didn't know that this kind of long-term damage could result from these injuries.
And that's lawyers guiding the procedures and so forth.
Well, the owners have to take that seriously.
They're the ones being sued.
They are the NFL.
If this class action suit actually ever sees a courtroom and there actually is a verdict, or even if there's a settlement, it's going to cost somebody, a lot of people, a lot of money.
So they're trying to eliminate the understanding.
But Mayoc's concern here is in the process, you're changing the game.
It isn't going to be football.
And once it stops being football, it's going to stop having the attraction that it has to people that don't play the game.
It's going to become just another average run-of-the-mill Sunday afternoon professional sport.
It has no particular drama to it.
Because they're going to water it down to the point that it really comes down to nothing more than who is the last team to have the ball.
But if you want to live your life risk-free, you're not living.
You're squandering the only life that you have.
If you want guarantees that every risky thing you do is going to pay off, you're not living.
And you're asking for all kinds of unrealistic things.
But there are people that think it's possible, there are people demanding it, and they're trying to enforce their silly short-sighted beliefs on everybody.
And once they bring the power of the plaintiff's Bar into it, the possibility that the people that administer this game, the owners in the league, could be liable for gazillions of dollars in damages, then they are potentially going to change the very nature and structure of a game.
There's no question.
And I think they are.
I think it's you better enjoy it while you can, because it's on the fast track now to not being the game it's always been.
And I do not say that lightly.
All right, brief time out, my friends, as we continue.
Come back and more of your phone calls.
And I don't know, I've not forgotten the expansion of the Limbaugh theorem to include in part the Republican establishment as well.
All that and more coming up.
So sit tight.
And we're back.
El Rushmore serving humanity.
Simply by showing up to Cincinnati.
Hi, Carolyn.
I'm glad you called.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, it's great to talk to you.
Um actually, while I was on hold, it was interesting because you started talking about football and not hitting with your hat, and I started to think about the rules they have for my kids in school, even without being in Maryland, that you can't have you know, they don't want you to be mean to anybody, and they don't want you to pass out invitations and hurt somebody's feeling, and it's sort of this emasculation of our society as a whole.
It really is.
It's a great way to describe it.
It's you know, and then the government is this paternal figure that's going to shield you from being hurt, and you're gonna have a bunch of emotional cripples as adults because you weren't allowed to be hurt.
You weren't ever allowed to lose.
You had to get a trophy every time.
Um I mean, it's it's really scary.
I think it's already manifesting itself.
I think it's one of the reasons why it's I think it's a contributing factor to the unemployment rate, in addition to the economy.
I I think there are people that are totally unequipped for what life is really like in the everyday hustle and bustle world.
Because we've got this been going on as well.
The reason I called originally was actually talking about the fact that this you can have it all kind of feminist approach is a fraud.
And you know, I've always been as conservative as long as I can remember.
I can remember when President Carter won and I was ten years old and I was horrified.
Right.
Um so my view was never that I was some rabid feminist um when I found out I was gonna have twins, my husband and I talked about it, I quit my job, and I'm an attorney.
Um, but just the cost of things, wanting to send our children a parochial school.
I I am working part-time, and you know, when my kids don't feel good and I'm thinking about missing work and all the choices that you have to make, I mean, it is heartbreaking.
I wish I could stay home.
And uh the sad thing is that I I think a lot of women are starting to realize that they'd rather stay home, and our economy is gonna be in such a mess with costs associated with Obamacare, higher taxes, that there's gonna be a lot more women that are forced to get back into the workplace.
Well, you may have a point on that.
I I since you brought this back up, grab Soundbite number five.
As we've got some bite this, the author of this New Yorker piece, uh, Lisa Miller, is on with Charlie Rose here, who's doing his level best to sound like a good feminist in this interview.
It's funny.
But I want you to listen to l listen to her define feminism.
Feminism today is a woman staying home with her children.
That's feminists.
It's well, yeah, and it's always been that is what the point is.
Says Charlie Rose and actually Gail King, and she said, Lisa, in your article, The Feminist Housewife, you you focus on a woman who has a job, and she decided that we're gonna take less money, but I'm gonna stay home.
The house may be a mess.
Everything may not go perfectly, but this is the decision I've made.
Now, what is the response that you've been getting to your article from other women?
It's been really crazy, and the main thrust of it is, you know, who's a feminist?
Is Kelly McKino actually a feminist because she decides to stay home with her family and bake cakes and teach her kids manners and values and read to them?
Or do you have to be, you know, in the workplace striving hard to be a feminist?
And you know, I was looking at the comments yesterday and one of them said, you know, I'm writing the pellet brief and I'm waiting for my three children to come home and you know describing this overmuch full life.
She was calling herself a real feminist.
So I mean, my opinion is we we shouldn't be pointing fingers.
Shouldn't be pointing fingers.
The feminist movement has been doing nothing but pointing fingers ever since I can remember.
And they've been pointing fingers at stay-at-home moms who have been laughed at, impugned and made fun of as homeschoolers and as crazy wacko Christian babes, and any other insult that can be left.
Now all of a sudden it's really fulfilling to stay home and raise a child and have a job.
That's the new feminism.
We should stop pointing fingers.
Now listen, this is Joanna Coles, and she is the uh editor in chief at Cosmo, and she wants to weigh in on this.
Feminism is really about having choices and understanding when you make those choices what the repercussions and what the consequences of the choices are.
So the character in your story is sort of fascinating.
Feminism is more certain about, and you might have more insight because you spent time with her, is whether or not she knows that in giving up her job, it's going to be harder for her to get back on track if she decides that she wants to.
And I think the issue is there's so much judgment.
So much judgment.
Too much judgment of women's choices who've been judging women for forty years if it hadn't been cosmo.
But feminism is about having choices and understanding that there are repercussions of kind.
It's not feminism.
It's called maturity.
For crying out loud.
It's called life.
It's called accepting responsibility.
And we are back, El Rushball, with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Here's Charlie Rose.
Listen to Charlie.
He he had to wrap up the interview with the uh with with the the women on his show today with Gail King, and they were talking about the new feminism, and here's what Charlie Rose said that men have to do.
It is a comment on men uh to appreciate more and to do more and have the same responsibilities that women do.
I just sit here uh uh my mouth just just falls open.
Will you play that again?
Would you it is up to men to understand more, to do more, to do more, to explain more, to say more, to feel more, to touch more, to be more um that uh women do, to be fully respected and understood and uh so that women will go to bed with us is what he means.
It is a comment on men uh to appreciate more and to do more and have the same responsibilities that women do.
Appreciate more and to do more and understand absolute hell women's lives are because if we don't, we'll never get them in the sack.
Yes, dear, yes, dear, yes, dear, yes, dear.
Can we go to bed now?
Anyway, Robert Lynchburg, Virginia, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're up next.
Hi.
Conservative action pack is just what people need.
Problem is Republican slash conservative brand has been redefined by the Democrats.
President Obama, when he first started running, said he wanted to be as effective as Reagan was at changing our political culture.
And unfortunately, they've done that.
They've done to us what Reagan did to the word liberal in the eighties.
Everybody had to run away from liberal and say, you know, I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive, I'm a something else, anything.
It was liberal with a dirty word.
And now, like you said the last hour, people love the ideas, but as soon as you say the word republican, it's like saying the word liberal in in 85.
Right.
It's not so much.
Now I haven't seen the research.
I haven't seen that people run away from the word conservative or conservatism.
It's it's republican that they run away from.
But regardless, you're right, they have demonized our label.
Exactly.
When you get a guy like Mitt Romney is evil, bad, wicked, horrible.
I mean, he's not a conservative, but they call one and then, you know, he's got the nicest guy in the world.
Who they're demonization machine, we're gonna need a new word other than Republican.
What would you suggest?
Lapdog?
Well, I mean, to me, conservatism, I would just use the word normal.
I mean, getting back to your discussion of families and uh feminism.
I mean, you know, conservative ideas are timeless because they're just not radical.
They're just normal.
I mean, not spending money that's a good thing.
You know what?
Now that's this is very interesting.
I can tell you from experience.
I have in describing certain liberal behaviors, I have used the term normal as a way of explaining my opposition.
And I have been descended on as though I have uttered the biggest obscenity on the face of the earth.
You must tell you no, let me let me tell you because here you you've really hit on something.
What much of liberalism is a recognition by many that they aren't normal and they don't like it, and they don't want to become normal, so what they want to do is change the definition of normal so that it encompasses what they do and who they are and how they go about it.
Exactly.
All kinds of liberal behavior.
Administration, it's exactly the same.
Don't say you're wrong.
If you do something wrong, then you've got to redefine right and wrong so that I'm okay.
Well, it's a touchy thing.
Because I've, you know, i I agree with you.
If you just it it's like what what's happening with with this newly discovered quote unquote feminism.
I just I I still have to laugh, folks.
I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but it works here.
These women who were hell bent on becoming like men, career track to hell with relationships, to hell with marriage, to hell with kids.
That's a prison.
I'm going to work, I'm on a I'm not gonna let anybody dictate to me, and I'm not gonna have I'm gonna have some relationship be the reason I'm happy, blah, blah.
All that goes by the wayside.
And what is happening is is that nature is simply asserting itself, but there again, you run into big problems.
Because nature is natural, and that means other things aren't, and that's an insult.
So nature, normal, I've I've I've tried both these things.
Uh but what is happening?
I mean, there they're you say tradition, standards.
Uh I know exactly what you mean by say look at we're not conservative, we're just normal.
I'm telling you, people on the left know full-fledged they're not, and that's what this is all about.
It really is.
In in in practically every liberal pursuit.
Uh it's it's a it's about the fact that they're they want to expand the definition or acceptance of of what is normal.
Because they know they're not.
In the traditional sense.
And who who wants I mean, you almost see how they feel.
Who wants to be abnormal?
Who wants to be thought of as abnormal.
But I still get your overall point.
The label is the turnoff.
So a new label is needed.
Or a new branding or marketing campaign to overcome the objection to the uh to the label.
But here again, it it boils down to something else.
Why is conservative or republican a bad name?
It's not because of who the conservative or Republicans are, it's because of what is said about them.
And I think that's a crucially important distinction.
And particularly when Republicans start thinking they have to adjust who they are and what they believe, and watering down their principles, so that those who are saying things about them which aren't true will stop saying them.
They're defeating their own purpose.
If Republicans in some were were genuinely falling off the uh the right path, then they could be maybe blamed for some of these things.
But people who aren't, who are just falsely accused, falsely impugned, mischaracterized make the mistake assuming it's who they are that's the problem, and what they believe that's the problem when it isn't at all the problem.
The problem is what is said about them that is lies and untruths and goes unrefuted.
Brief time out.
Don't go away.
Let me take a stab at something here.
You know, Limbaugh theorem.
Um I think it could be expanded to the Republican establishment in parts.
In this sense, the Republican establishment sometimes acts as if they've never managed anything.
They act as if they don't control the Republican Party today.
They they rail against strawmen of their own creation.
So Andy Card today was on Martha McCallum show in Fox this morning.
And is talking about Republican Party has to be inclusive, not exclusive.
Well, who's who's who've been running the Republican Party?
It certainly isn't conservatives.
I mean, who's excluding who?
He didn't name names.
She didn't ask him, well, who's being excluded.
But all I know is it's not conservatives excluding anybody.
If anybody's being excluded, it is the conservatives.
And yet these guys are coming along, these establishment guys, and trying to act like whatever this party has become, they haven't been running it.
Just like whatever's happening to the country, Obama's not running it.
It's an amazing phenomenon.
These guys attack policies that they have contributed to.
Amnesty, debt, growth of government.
I mean, let's just admit it.
The Republicans have done their own big spending.
They don't seem to be pushing much of spending cuts.
They let Obama have what he wants here, but they claim all the while to oppose all of this.
Now, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying these guys are the same as Democrats.
They're not the same as the radical left.
But I am saying that in many parts they're not taking responsibility for what's happened.
They go out, they lose elections, and they blame everybody else.
They're running the party.
We're not.
Safe to say.
I mean, they're getting the nominees they want, and they're losing, and somehow it's our fault for being exclusive.
We're not excluding anybody.
Now the Republican elites are the same as the Democrat elites, and they they they set up these straw men, and they try to act like everything they're doing is not their doing and not their responsibility.
So when we as conservatives say enough is enough, that there has to be at least one political party that represents liberty and property rights and the rule of law.
The establishment in the party lashes out and calls us extremists and then starts complaining that the party isn't a big tent, and all we're talking about is constitutionalism.
Now don't misunderstand.
I'm not accusing them of being Obama, but I mean there's similar traits here as applicable to the limbaugh theorem.
Snerdley, you think I ought to expand on this?
Are you?
Okay, well, I will expand on this tomorrow.
I'll expand on them.
Thinking of a new a new tea flavor, uh, Mr. Snerdley, new uh two of my tea iced tea flavor, curry.
And we'll call it Maha Rush tea.
I'm just kidding.
Folks, I hope you have a um a wonderful rest of the day out there.
Rest assured, we will be getting ready for tomorrow pretty soon after this ends.
That's just what we do here.
Constantly trying to exceed your expectations.
▲
Export Selection