All Episodes
Previous Next
April 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
April 8, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
Once again, greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It's time for broadcast excellence once again.
Hosted by me, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling all everything, maha rushy.
Happy to have you here, folks, as always.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
As is the case every day, we are loaded here today, folks.
It's simply um impossible to get everything in that I want to talk about in the first segment.
I mean I I could go through everything we've got and do what is known inside broadcast baseball as tease you and say this is coming up and theoretically force you to stay tuned to hold three hours.
But the difference is, and many of the broadcast titans don't understand, I don't have to tease you to get you to listen to all three hours.
You do it habitually anyway.
So knowing that, I am sometimes patient in determining, you know, when to do various things.
But there's there are countless things that I would love to make first today.
For example, remember that call we had from the 13-year-old who had gone to the library in Indiana, gone to the library and found out that global warming was a hoax, he called me to tell me about it.
Very articulate young man, gave him an iPad.
That phone call has the left turned inside out and upside down.
I've got about 20 different websites, blogs, other entries that I have been sent from the left, literally going bat nuts over this.
They had four ingredients that sends them off.
That's the youth future of the country, blah, blah.
It had global warmings of hoax, it had me, and it had an iPad.
And square nerds like me aren't supposed to know about iPads, and I'm not supposed to be giving one away to a kid who could actually use it.
And so they're trying to find this library to find out where this kid found out.
They're trying to find who he is and his parents to find out what one story the parents showed the kid.
It's amazing.
It is it's amazing.
We've got the videotape of an MSNBC hostette, Melissa, what's her name?
Melissa Harris Perry.
She's a professor at Tulane, I believe.
And what we have here, it's an audio of a video promo that they're airing on MSNBC for her show there, the Melissa Harris Perry Show.
It's an eponymous program.
And in it, she the point to be made about this is it's nothing new.
People are reacting to this like, oh my God!
This is sick.
I can't believe this.
She is saying, essentially, that your kids don't belong to you.
Your kids belong to the government.
Your kids belong to the collective.
Your kids belong to the community.
The idea that you own your kids and that that they are your responsibility is outdated, outmoded, and unworkable.
And people are hearing this and going nuts over it.
And my reaction, folks, this is this is nothing new.
This is who these people are.
This is what Marxism is.
It's been out there for hundreds of years now.
Mrs. Clinton wrote a book about it.
It takes a vill well, she was ghostwritten, but she had a book.
It takes a village.
Health care, overtaken by government.
Mrs. Clinton's idea.
And everybody talks about how effective and how great she is.
Mrs. Clinton didn't make half the impact in her efforts to take over the country that Obama is making and this little incidental MSNBC host debt.
But we'll play that audio for you as the program unfolds because it is what it is.
The thing to keep in mind is it's nothing new.
This is why I keep pulling my hair out.
People making, and I'm glad they're making the discovery, don't misunderstand, but it's frustrating at the same time because it's not new.
It's not new that there are people in this country who don't think your kids are yours.
It's not new that there are people in this country who think the government should have your kids and that you are going to do nothing but mess them up.
It's not your right to raise your kids the way you want to.
You don't know the best way to do that.
The state can't leave that up to you.
They have to do it.
And there are programs in place where the state for years has attempted to co-opt child rearing.
It's called head start.
It's called daycare, any number of things.
Now, over the years you you if I point this out.
People accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist and uh, you know, a little nutty and come on, rush, reign it in.
And it is what it is.
All these things happen now.
The left, I think is getting a little bolder because they're becoming more and more confident.
I think the left is of the opinion now that they have saturated the country, that they really don't have any significant opposition, and so there's no need any longer to mask who they are.
They don't have any need to hide it anymore.
They really don't.
And the reason why is that why why do they think do you think that they don't have to mask who they are anymore?
That they don't really have to hide behind liberal.
It's because there isn't any pushback.
Not in corridors of power.
Of course, there's pushback here, and there is pushback in other media realms, but there's not pushback in Washington.
There's not pushback from an opponent party.
So why would they think anything other than they have won, that they are not just winning, but they are dominating, that they have saturated the culture, they are getting everything they want, in many cases sooner than they thought they would get it, because there isn't any pushback.
And in many cases, the Republican Party's been throwing in with them in one degree or another just to avoid any criticism.
So there is uh there's that.
Um the there's more evidence today in the uh in the UK that global warming is a hoax.
Yeah, and and brand new story about it from the uh UK telegraph, which we'll have.
New York Times, Jackie Kalmas, Obama must walk a fine line as Congress takes up agenda.
What that means is Obama must walk a fine line to avoid being blamed, i.e., the limbaugh theorem.
Explained with everything but the name, the limbaugh theorem, right here in the New York Times.
Obama must walk a fine line as Congress takes up agenda.
So we have lots of stuff in the stack of stuff today.
Uh the unemployment news, dropouts discouraged Americans leaving the workforce.
They have a random act of journalism from the AP on this, uh details on what Obama intends to do with your IRA.
The government has determined that you don't need more than 205,000 a year to retire on.
So what Obama's plan is is to tax everybody's IRA above whatever the amount is that would throw off 205,000 in annual income.
Now we mentioned this last week.
The details came out over the weekend and are printed today.
It's everywhere.
Bloomberg AP.
You don't need more than 205 grand a year to retire on.
Anybody with more than that, the government wants to lay claim to it because we've got a revenue problem.
Now, at today's rates, it's three million dollars principal that throws off about 205,000 annually generates, I should say, in uh in income.
So if you've got three million dollars in an IRA, anything above that Obama thinks he can take.
Hello, Cyprus.
And there's no pushback on this that I've seen anywhere.
Three former FCC commissioners.
Claim that Redskins is indecent as it is used, the name of the Washington football team mescot.
Three former FCC.
Do you think they're gonna let this one go to bed before they fix this?
They you you you think you don't you you think Dan Snyder and the Redskins are not in everybody's gun sites?
And you're sitting there, that'll never happen.
They'll never get the Redskins to change their name.
Well, I don't know about that, but I do know that they're never going to stop trying, and that means they'll wear somebody out along the way.
Fascinating piece over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal.
It's an opinion piece, David Fife is the author, and it is about Bodoyn College in Maine.
Fascinating story, the president there, the lead fundraiser, playing golf with uh with a guy.
The president's name is Barry Mills.
He played golf with an investor and a philanthropist by the name of Thomas Klingenstein at a golf course north of the campus trying to raise money.
Klingenstein told the university president, I don't like your school, you're nothing but a liberal hotbed.
The professor didn't like it.
Arguments ensued.
Klingenstein decided to go do a survey.
He actually did a scholarly survey of the curriculum at Bodein and get this.
Not even history majors at Bodoyn College are required to learn anything about American history.
They are not taught about the founding of this country.
It is not required.
Right here in the Wall Street Journal, no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the country are to be found in the history major at Bodoyne.
History majors aren't required to take a single course in American history.
In the history department, no course is devour is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic, or intellectual history.
The only histories that are taught are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender, or sexuality.
Bowdoin College.
People are going to see the whoa, it's unbelievable.
It's not the only place.
You think it's the only college?
John Silber, the former president of Boston University, did the same thing.
He did a survey of high school history textbooks.
I forget how many textbooks he examined.
I think it was nine.
The single longest reference to Abraham Lincoln in the nine high school history textbooks that he examined was one paragraph.
My friends, if you felt like the day before the election and the day of the election, I mean you felt I I know a lot of people thought we were gonna win that election.
Thought the polls were wrong, we're gonna win it.
At least you thought that at least close to half the country had awakened, at least didn't you?
Half the country had realized finally who Obama was and what Democrat Party policies have become.
And it it seems like ever since the day of the election, all of that was an illusion.
Even though Romney got close to what millions, forty some odd million votes.
That seems impossible now.
It seems like the day after the election it became crystal clear that you and I Represent 10% of the thinking of this country.
A lot of people think this.
A lot of people have have tried to explain how they feel this the best I can characterize it as I've heard it.
One day filled with hope, brimming with optimism that we're on the road, at least, to getting the country back on the right track, and then one day the realization, you know what, we may have lost it.
It may be totally gone here.
And people are having trouble getting their arms around.
The explanation is that it didn't happen in one day.
It has been happening every day for tens of years.
Slowly creeping toward the left's utopia.
Anyway, Margaret Thatcher has passed away, and that will be the first thing we get into when we come back with a break.
I've got some audio sun bites from Lady Thatcher.
Lady Thatcher, I was very fortunate because of some friends of mine here who knew her.
I was often invited to social occasions with her.
I must have spent quality time with Lady Thatcher ten to fifteen different occasions, all in the 1990s.
And I've regaled you with some of the stories.
In every one of those instances, every one, she was identically the same.
She was purely formal and sophisticated.
And I don't mean boring and dull and old fashioned.
She carried herself with a dignity and a self-respect and a seriousness that led no one to question who she really was.
If you ever had the chance to be around her, you would know that she was in person as you saw her on television.
She was committed, she was serious, she was formal, she was a great woman, a great human being.
Some people call it a coincidence.
I think it's more than that.
At the same time in the world, we had Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher.
And during those years, the only time in my lifetime where the left was actually turned back, not just stopped, but defeated and turned back.
The only time in my life.
Poland, Berlin, Moscow, United States, wherever.
Those three leaders on the political stage, the world stage at the same time, did more for freedom and liberty for people all over this world than any three people since the founding of this country.
And they all served at the same time, overlapping.
And uh Lady Thatcher's the only one of the three that I met, and I got to know her very well.
But I must take a brief time out here, sets up what comes next, don't go away, El Rushbaugh and the EIB network after this.
A little trivia question.
Anyone out there know who it was that decided to call Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady.
Any idea who it was?
It was not Neil Kinnock, and therefore not Joe Biden.
It was not a British politician.
It was not an American politician.
It was no one in the media, at least in the Western media.
It was the Soviet news agency Tass that called her, that dubbed Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady, and the West's drive-by media gleefully picked up on that.
Task did not mean it to be a compliment.
Neither did the American drive-by media, but of course it turned out to be one.
Margaret Thatcher was she reminded me of my grandfather.
My grandfather was serious all the time.
Wore a jacket and tie every day of the year.
Saturday, Sunday, no matter what, because he worked every day.
Lady Thatcher was serious.
She was funny, but she was serious.
Everything mattered.
One of the many things she said that I've never forgotten, and there were a lot of them, but this one has always stuck with me.
Consensus is the absence of leadership.
Consensus is now the objective in this country.
To her, it meant no leadership.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, and another full week of broadcast excellence emanating from right here.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't misunderstand when I when I say that Lady Thatcher was serious.
I don't mean that she was boring and constantly talking about weighty things that only a few people were interested.
It's quite the opposite.
I mean she was she was filled with self-respect and dignity.
And she knew who she was.
I mean she's the former prime minister of the United Kingdom.
This during the time I knew her.
She was the she was of course very proud of that, but that meant something.
That that had requirements that she was never ever going to lapse.
She was always going to fulfill them.
She had a great sense of humor, and it was a very dry wit.
The friends of mine who made it possible for me to know her great people here in Palm Beach, Gay and Stanley Gaines, and they'd known her for many, many years, and Lady Thatcher was entirely willing to attend dinner parties with their friends.
Many people would beg off something like that.
Please, I don't want to have to hang around a bunch of people I don't know.
Please, gay, I came to see you.
No, it'd be dinner parties with ten people, twenty-five, thirty people.
And whatever was asked of her, she attempted to comply.
Every question, everybody that wanted to ask her about something was given her full attention.
I remember one particular evening, it'd been it was the end of the week, it'd been a long week for me, and I showed up, cocktail party period at dinner, sit down at dinner, and gay immediately says, Okay, Rush, well, what's what's the latest in?
I say, Gay, I'm you know, I'm tired.
I I really I just don't want to talk about politics right now.
And of course, the table looked you don't want to talk politics.
Would you understand who's sitting here?
She was seated next to me.
And I said, No, I just at the time I just didn't want to be on stage.
I just, I was I was exhausted, I was worn out, and I just wanted to listen.
And Gay kept trying to urge me, and Lady Thatcher said, Gay, he doesn't wish to speak about politics.
So let's talk of the rule of law.
And bam, there we are, off on a discussion of the rule of law.
And she loved the founders.
She absolutely thought they were the most brilliant people, because they were Brits, don't forget.
Our founders were British.
She loved them.
She loved Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson was it.
But she loved them all.
She knew the history of this country better than most people in this country do, and she she revered it.
She was one of the greatest Americans, quote unquote, that I've ever met.
Let's go to some audio sound bites.
First up, we have her appearing with William Buckley on Firing Line, 1977.
And the uh at the time she's a member of Parliament, Conservative Party leader.
She's not the Prime Minister yet.
Buckley said, what is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism?
Now this is important.
At the time, British Socialism was in the process of crumbling, 1977.
Of course, today it's back with a vengeance with its tentacles more deeply hooked than ever.
But in 1977, it was collapsing, was on the way, and she finished the job.
What is there to be learned from the failure of British socialism and what in fact has been learned from the failure of British socialism?
In a recent speech, Mrs. Thatcher said we observe what happens elsewhere.
We draw lessons from it.
But we are aware that different national traditions, experience, and religious values affect the total political and economic situation.
Question, Miss Thatcher.
Does the failure of British socialism have the same meaning for the United States as, say, for Venezuela?
There are two ways in which any government can proceed.
One is a way based on what you and I would call a free society, which is enshrined right at the heart of the American Constitution.
The other one is a way which allows only one view, both of economics and politics, in which almost everything is either owned or controlled by the state, including the media, including the ideas, including freedom of discussion and everything.
There is no freedom of discussion.
Now, between those two ways, the free society and the totally controlled society, there are, of course, variations.
I think what we've learned in Britain is that we've gradually, over the last certainly twelve or thirteen years, with perhaps a little interruption, gone slowly further and further away from the free society towards something else.
So she was in a in a way disagreeing with with Buckley, who was asking about the the failure of Brit, not really disagreeing.
He was starting with the failure, but not not the demise that yet had yet to happen.
And it didn't begin to happen until she became prime minister.
So after pointing out that that Britain had moved further away from a free society in 1977, she continued with this.
At the same time we found, I don't find it strange, but some other people do, that we have stopped creating wealth.
We've had a large number of increasing restrictions, and you've been finding two things.
First, that we are more and more concentrating on redistributing the wealth we've got rather than creating any more.
To create more, you need a slightly freer society, and you need an incentive society.
Naturally, when I see that happening, I look with very great alarm to societies which have gone even further left.
That is, they've tried to redistribute even more and haven't had the incentives for people working hard on their own account, doing well for their families, and often then being able to create jobs for others, they've produced a much more prosperous society than we have.
But by and large, you've got the two broad different economic and political approaches.
1977, and again the the value here, not just an illustration of who Lady Thatcher was, for those who don't know, but rather in 1977 it was known what is known today.
And it was being executed then as it's being executed now.
And in 1977 it failed, i.e.
the redistribution of wealth, the the stoppage and the creation of wealth, which happens at the same time.
The moment a society becomes redistributive, it stops creating wealth.
She was cataloging current circumstances in Britain in 1977.
And this was, of course, to set up her eventual triumph as Prime Minister.
But you see, It serves to illustrate that the left is always what it is.
There's nothing new about it.
Its failure is commonplace.
It has never worked, it has never succeeded.
The left, after destroying one free society after another, has to keep finding another to run their experiments on because each time they try, they destroy.
They destroy the creation of wealth.
They they disincentivize the creation of wealth with the redistribution of wealth by creating more and more recipients for having done nothing.
And so they create a vicious cycle spinning in onto itself, which is self-destructive.
And it's it's happening here now.
It's happened throughout the world.
This is the thing that the most difficult for me to understand is it's never succeeded.
And yet people turn to it still with as much hope as they ever have.
So what's the allure?
It's never worked.
It never will work.
But in the short term, it does work for those who don't wish to work.
That's the problem.
It does work temporarily for those who are the beneficiaries of all this.
In America today, ninety million people aren't working.
Ninety million.
Last month, folks, talked about this on Friday, six hundred and thirty-three thousand people stopped looking for work.
The labor force participation rate grew by over half million people in one month.
Those are jobs that have vanished.
Every one of those people is eating.
And pretty much what they want to eat.
And every one of them has a cell phone, and every one of them has no trouble getting around.
And they all live somewhere.
And so to them, you say, What's not working?
What is for me?
I don't have a job and I'm doing well.
It's working fine for me.
And this is how they sell it, catalog its success.
They're never around when the total implosion takes place.
And while a society is crumbling and imploding, an implosion and crumbling that they are causing, the people on the left, they succeed in blaming their opponents for it.
Which is where we are now.
Republicans are responsible for everything rotten happening in the country.
It's all part of the left's tactics.
The thing is, my friends, the people on the left know it's going to fail always too.
They are not.
I mean, you've got maybe some young leftists coming out of college with rosy scenarios of their future rose-colored glasses, and they think they've onto something here utopia.
But the left, the adults know it isn't going to work.
Never has worked.
It's not that's not its purpose.
Its purpose is to enshrine them as elites.
Its purpose is to gain them power.
But in terms of a workable way of governing a country fails.
Every time it's tried, brief timeout, more Margaret Thatcher sound bites, so we come back, don't go away.
And we are back, Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Distinguished EIB Network.
Great to have you, folks.
November 22nd, 1990, House of Commons in London.
Margaret Thatcher delivering her final speech as Prime Minister.
During the speech, she yielded time to a member of Parliament, Mr. Simon Hughes, who said there is no doubt the Prime Minister has in many ways achieved substantial success.
But there is one statistic that I understand is not, however, challenged you, and that is that over her eleven years the gap between the richest ten percent and the poorest 10% in this country has widened substantially.
How can she say at the end of her chapter of British policies that she can justify many people in the constituency, such as mine, being relatively poorer, much less well housed, much less well provided than it was in 1979.
Surely the gentle lady accepts that it is not a record that she or any prime minister can be proud of.
And of course, there were the hoots and hollers, and this is what she said, again, delivering her final speech as PM.
He would rather have the poor poorer, provided the ritual left.
That is the liberal policy.
Yes, it came out.
He didn't intend it to, but he did.
I give way to the honorable gentleman.
The Prime Minister is aware that uh I detest every single one of her domestic policies and never had.
And I think that the honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who have experienced it, have it for that.
I think I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out that the logic of those policies are they'd rather have the poor poorer.
Once they start to talk about the gap, they'd rather the gap was that.
Down here.
That so long as the gap is smaller, so long as the gap is smaller, they'd rather have the poor poorer.
You do not create wealth and opportunity that way.
You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's called pushback.
That's called standing up for what you believe.
It's called standing up for your principles.
That's called not being shouted down, not being a coward, not being afraid, not worrying about what is said about you.
Which, by the way, she also detested people who were consumed with what other people thought about them.
So they will never amount to anything, and we will never know who they truly are.
But she called these people out.
The same argument here.
Under your policies, the rich are getting rich and the poor are getting poor.
No, under your policy, the poor are getting poorer, and everybody's getting poorer, and that's all you care about.
If the poor get poorer, that's fine with you as long as the rich do.
That's what she was shouting back at this liberal.
One woman against all these liberals in the House of Commons.
There is no such leader in America today.
There is no such pushback.
There is no one defending the founding, conservatism, whatever.
The concept of private property, wealth creation.
Not publicly, not defiantly, not pushing back.
It doesn't happen.
Here is her tribute to Ronald Reagan, February 3rd, 1994, Simi Valley, California.
You strode into our midst at a time when America needed you most.
This great country had been through a period of national malaise, bereft of any sense of moral direction.
Through it all, throughout eight of the fastest moving years in memory, you were unflappable and unyielding.
You are not only America's president, important as that is, you were a great leader.
In a time of average men, you stood taller than anyone else.
Margaret Thatcher, Simi Valley, California, February 3rd, 1994.
This was at um Memorial for Reagan, and here she wraps it up, praising Reagan's toughness.
With a toughness unseen for the long time, you stood face to face with the evil empire.
And with an unexpected diplomacy, which confused your foes and even some of your friends.
Perhaps no longer evil, but still formidable.
You met its leaders on their turf, but on your terms.
It's actually Reagan's 83rd birthday gala in Simi Valley, California.
Quick time out.
We'll be back, much more straight ahead, folks.
Do not go away.
Lady Thatcher really was transformative in the truest sense of the word.
She transformed the UK during her time from socialist left to a free market, wealth-creating, free society.
And she is hated and reviled today.
In her own country by the media, much as conservatives in this country are.
But there's no denying what she accomplished, what she achieved, and how she did it.
And we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection