All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:06
June 14, 2013, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There it is.
I just turned it on.
I didn't forget it.
Ditto cam.
Greetings, folks.
Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have because I am doing what I was born to do.
It is Friday and live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
That's right, it's Friday.
You know what that means.
It's Open Line Friday where callers get a chance to ruin this program.
*Pewds whistling*
Just kidding.
I love you all.
You know when I'm kidding.
The Republican establishment doesn't, but you do.
Happy to have your telephone number is 800 282882 and the email address.com.
You know, yesterday we told you that the regime had just named a woman, a White House lawyer to be deputy director CIA, and reminded you it's the deputy directors that roll up their sleeves and actually run these joints.
The CIA director.
I mean, he is the grand poo-baugh.
He is the last word he is the power, but in in many ways, the figurehead does the relationship with Congress gig, appears at the hearings, testifies, tells Congress what's going on, uh, and tells them what they don't know and tells them what they can't know and tells them what there's nothing to see and all that, while the deputy director, same thing at NSA.
The deputy director is who really runs the day-to-day operations.
Get this, the Daily Beast, not the Daily Caller.
Daily Caller is Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s website, the Daily Beast, good liberal website owned by Tina Brown.
New CIA number two pick used to read Ann Rice aloud at her bookstore's erotica night.
Now we had a call earlier today saying that the statistics are that 11% of adults are sending nude photos of themselves in texts to their wives' girlfriends, barmaids, uh madams, you name it.
Sexting.
11% of adults do it, and they send nude photos.
And the caller said, You need to do, Rush, you need to tell those people.
The NSA has their photos.
I said, Yeah, what'll that do?
Well, that'll that'll shut it down.
I mean, these people get mad.
They don't want Obama the government having those pictures.
I said, Are you kidding?
You really think that's gonna turn them against Obama?
My guess is they're gonna send more nude photos once they figure out he's looking at them.
And if you tell them Clinton is looking at them, then the number gonna become 20%.
80% of which will be women.
Half the Washington female press corps would probably well.
Anyway, the deputy director of the CIA, the pick, Avril Haynes, held erotica readings at the Baltimore bookstore and restaurant that she co-owned while she was in her twenties.
Twenty years ago, Haynes opened and co-owned Adrian's Book Cafe in the Baltimore waterfront neighborhood of Fells Point.
The store featured regular erotica nights, including dinner and a series of readings by guests of published work or their own prose.
This, according to a 1995 report in the Baltimore Sun, couples could attend for 30 bucks singles paid seventeen dollars.
That's our new CIA deputy director.
So if you think nude photos are gonna upset them, you have another thing coming.
Uh CNBC.
It's often said that money corrupts, but a new study says that just the thought of getting some hard Cash will do the trick.
The report by University of Utah and Harvard researchers found that individuals who could gain monetarily through unethical behavior were more likely to demonstrate that behavior than those who were not offered a financial gain.
We were interested in why good people would do bad behavior, said Kristen Smith Crow, management professor and co-author of the study released last month.
And you know what we found?
We found that the love of money is corrupting and just the mere exposure to it makes people do bad things.
Now you know what this really is.
What's happening?
We have to put everything in context.
Let's go back to the nineties.
Clinton lying every time he opened his mouth.
What did we get?
Studies.
University studies.
We had think tank studies, and don't they tell us?
That lying is good.
That lying saves people hurt feelings.
Lying promotes good relationships.
Little lies, big lies, they all are actually helpful.
So we had news stories that hey, you know, Bill Clinton is actually ahead of the curve on this.
In the early days of the Obama regime, when unemployment was skyrocketing.
What did we get into news?
We had stories on how wonderful it is to lose your job.
Why?
Because you were able to reconnect with your family and your friends.
It was called fun employment.
The media concocted a name for it.
Fun employment.
It was story after story of the positive impact of losing your job and losing your income.
Because you finally were allowed to devote time to things that really mattered.
Your job and work are nothing other than things of punishment.
They are things that society requires you to do.
And nobody really likes their job.
Nobody really looks forward to it.
It's something that an evil capitalistic society has created to occupy people and keep them busy.
Capitalism created jobs and capitalism sucks.
And so when you lose your job, you've been liberated.
We had those stories.
Now, when nobody has any money, we get a study from Harvard that says it's really good.
And in fact, even when you're around money, it corrupts you.
When you smell money, it corrupts you.
When you hang around and see rich people, when you go to a rich person's house and you see what you don't have, it corrupts you.
So we have the beginnings here of what could be a propaganda movement to diminish the importance and concept of money.
All designed to make you not interested in it.
Well not you, but your kids.
College students.
Don't pursue money.
That's the root of all evil.
Don't go after money.
That's the root of unhappiness.
That's materialism.
That's capitalism.
And what does capitalism do?
It sucks.
And so what is capitalism?
Money.
Capital is money.
Money sucks.
Capitalism sucks.
It corrupts you, don't want it.
There's now virtue in not having money.
There is virtue in raising your nose at money.
There is virtue in not wanting it, not desiring it.
There is virtue in not using it.
There's a quote from Ayn Rand, however you wish to pronounce it.
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good and ask for your own destruction when money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the blood, the whips and guns.
Take your choice, there is no other.
Your time is running out.
Just an excerpt from one of her books.
What in the world is the point of a story about even the smell of money will corrupt you?
The study found that participants who were merely exposed to the concept of a monetary gain were more likely to demonstrate unethical intentions.
The point is they want you to believe that anybody who has any money has cheated or stolen or come by it in an ill gotten way.
Part and parcel of the liberal way of life.
There is no legitimate wealth.
There is no honestly created wealth.
It's all corrupt.
And all you have to do to be corrupted by it is want it.
All you have to do to be corrupted by money is to smell it.
Don't doubt me, folks.
This is exactly what the point of this is.
The next question is how business decisions can be framed so that money won't be corrupting, said one of the study authors.
We're looking into that.
We hope there's a positive story out there.
How business decisions can be framed so that money won't be corrupting.
In other words, we've got to get businesses to stop focusing on money and acquiring money.
Otherwise, they're going to be nothing more than corrupt.
Just like in the 90s, lying was good, Clinton is lying, it's fine.
Here we are in 2013, and the government's taking everybody's money away from them, tax increases Obamacare, you name it.
You don't need it anyway, says Harvard.
You don't need it.
You don't want it anyway.
It's corrupting.
The government should have all the money because when people have it, all it does is cause misery and suffering and jealousy and envy and rage and sickness and corruption and crime.
Nothing good.
So don't even want it.
Another study.
This one from the Pew Research Center.
The new American Father.
The upshot of this survey, study, if you will, is that Americans expect fathers to be more moral teachers and emotional comforters than breadwinners or disciplinarians.
Being a father in this era of changing family structures and converging gender roles means more than bringing home a paycheck or delivering punishment to a misbehaving child.
A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that American Americans expect dad to be more of a moral teacher, an emotional comforter, not a breadwinner or disciplinarian.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans supposedly say that it is extremely important for a father to provide values and morals to his children.
A top ranked paternal role of the four tested in the survey.
Roughly half said it is extremely important for a dad to provide emotional support and discipline.
Only forty one percent of Americans say providing income for his children is one of a father's most important responsibilities.
This according to the nationally representative survey of one thousand four adults conducted June sixth through the ninth.
When the same question was asked about the role of mothers, the survey produced Roughly the same hierarchy of responses, with values and emotional support at the top and income at the bottom.
But there are also some differences in the way the public weighs the roles of mothers and fathers, especially when it comes to being an income provider.
Only 25% of survey respondents say income providing is an important role, extremely important role for mothers, compared with 41% who feel that way about fathers.
That gap is notable in light of a new Pew Research Center report based on U.S. Census Bureau data, which showed that mothers are the sole or primary breadwinner in 40% of households that have a child or children under the age of 18.
You know what it was in 1960?
The percentage of mothers that were the breadwinners of the family in 1960.
What do you think percentage was?
Close, it's 11% in 1960.
Today, 2013, 40% of mothers are the sole primary breadwinner.
So the chickification of the American culture continues.
Forty one percent of Americans say there were four options given here, folks.
Let me put this in an even better perspective.
It's a multiple choice poll.
And there were four options Americans were given.
And the role of providing income for the family was the least important of the four, as important for a father to do.
The most important role for a father provide values and morals to his children.
The least important role for a father providing income for his children.
What do you think that number was in 1960?
I don't have it here.
The number is not contained in the story.
What do you think that number was in 1960?
Probably 90%.
Wouldn't doubt it.
So how do you explain this one, Mr. Limbaugh?
How do you Mr. New Castrati with the question?
It's easy, Mr. New Castrati.
Government is supposed to provide the money for the family, though.
Started with uh Clinton in earnest.
It actually predates Clinton, but the whole soccer mom phenomena, what was that?
You remember the soccer mom phenomenon.
The soccer mom actually was a cover story for Time magazine.
They found a woman with a half-baked SUV beat up with a bunch of kids in a soccer uniforms plowed in the back.
The soccer mom phenomenon was a created phenomenon, a politically created phenomenon by pollsters and consultants.
The soccer mom was the average supposed American mother who husband didn't care about her, husband was a brute, husband was off getting drunk or doing whatever the mother had to raise the kids.
The mother had to get up early and fix breakfast, take them to school, go to the PTA meetings, do whatever during the day, pick them up after school, take them to soccer practice, bring them home, kick dinner, or cook dinner, didn't get them to bed, do whatever.
An exhausting day that never ended.
And Bill Clinton cared more about these women than their own husbands.
That was the key to it.
The soccer mom was a voting block, we were told the soccer mom, demographic, overwhelmingly voted Democrat, because the Democrats cared more about her than her own husband did.
So now the Pew Research Center says that the role of fathers, in the view of Americans, only 41% say that providing for the family economically is important.
So money corrupts, wanting it Corrupts, having it corrupts, fathers aren't even supposed to earn it anymore.
It's okay if the mothers do, though.
The government's supposed to provide that.
Dad is supposed to inculcate values.
If you can get him sober.
Squeeze a phone call in here, right?
Yeah, Kansas City.
Betty, hi.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, Raj.
Um, I was reading the um website, and I think that someone said this yesterday, but I was driving down the road, and you were saying you were just missing something on the amnesty bill.
Why in the world are Republicans support something that will cause their party to lose in the future?
And I was just thinking, well, they'll just become the Democrats.
Now, I'm probably being reactionary, but I'm thinking they'll probably just become the Democrats that they already are.
Are you there?
Yeah, I uh here's a thing.
You're saying I am so disappointed in my party.
I expect to disagree with Democrat Party, but I disagree with my party.
I'm a Republican, or at least I think I was.
Hold it just a second.
I I I'm serious.
I uh uh I don't understand.
I there's gotta be something I'm missing.
The question is real.
Why do all of these Republicans, you know the names, why are they supporting something that's going to eliminate their party?
Why are they supporting something that's gonna render them an ineffective minority for as far as the eye can see?
If they want to be Democrats, quit the Republican Party and join the Democrat Party.
Why do they want it's almost as though I just I don't I can't answer it.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
You know what tomorrow is?
You don't, but I do.
Tomorrow is a two-year anniversary of two if by T. And of course, we're not going to be here to commemorate it tomorrow, but next week we have another huge, major big, eagerly anticipated, gosh, everybody waits for them.
Two F by T sweepstakes coming up next week.
But uh our second anniversary of our little tea company tomorrow.
So why are the Republicans so eager to render themselves permanent minority status by agreeing to amnesty, immigration reform, which is going to result in millions more instant new Democrats, against which the Republicans will be hopelessly uncompetitive.
Why would they do it?
You want to take a stab?
You gonna okay, what is it?
What is your snurdly?
Mm-hmm.
Snerdley says they see that they're going to be permanently defeated anyway by a rising Hispanic population if they don't do this.
It's what they fear.
Maybe.
There's a theory, there's an answer to the question that you know and I know.
And it revolves around their hatred.
Too strong a word.
The Republican Party is embarrassed of its base.
How many times have I sat here and reminded you of this?
The Republican Party...
I've told you stories.
I'll repeat one.
Hamptons, 1992, 1993.
My first ever trip to the Hamptons, dinner party at the home of a famous American, Republican.
After dinner, out on the deck.
Guy comes up to me and start and a name you know, not gonna tell you who, punches me with his finger in the chest.
What are you gonna do about the Christians?
Remember now, I'm this is my first trip there.
I'm I'm I'm with these people for the first time in my life, and I'm I'm I'm really sizing it all up and wondering why I'm really there.
And I mean, these are very wealthy powerful Republicans.
This guy's pounding me in the chest.
What are you gonna do about the Christians?
So what are you talking about?
Abortion!
They're killing us.
The pro-wifers are killing us and they listen to you, you've got to.
You've got same some of the same people have done the same thing to me on gun control.
You have got to tell these people to back off on guns.
You've got to tell these pro-lifers to just quiet down.
I've heard them say they get embarrassed going to Republican conventions with the pro-life crowd that's also there.
My first experience of that was in Houston in 1992.
Pro-life contingent there was huge, and uh I remember the way I was treated by that group, making other Republicans nervous.
The bottom line is that the Republican Party is embarrassed by its own base.
The Republican Party is ashamed of its base.
They accept the Democrat caricature of the Republican base.
Southern Hayseed Hicks, pro-lifers pick up truck driving, gun rack in the back window people chewing tobacco and going to church and talking about God all the time.
But they really see them as a bunch of zealots when it comes to abortion.
And all these guys I'm talking about have wives who nag them about it, don't want any part of the pro-life crowd embarrassed to be with them in the conventions.
So the theory goes that this is a way to get rid of the Republican base.
This supporting amnesty and having the Democrats win big time elections after this is a way for the party to finally get rid of its base.
Now you say, well, replace it with what?
Don't ask me, but I'm guessing, I assume that some Republicans think that there's a new group of people that would become their base.
If they just got rid of these pro-lifers, they've just got rid of this religious crowd, if it just got rid of the Christians, if you just get rid of these gun nuts, the bitter clingers, as Obama does.
If the Republicans just got rid of those people, a lot more people would like Republicans, and maybe some of the people voting Democrat would then vote Republican.
Because some of the people voting Democrat would love to vote Republican and said they also don't like the Hicks.
And they also don't like the Hayseeds and the religious people.
There you have a possible theory.
But even when you drill that down, when you drill deep down into that one, you still ask how in the world the Republican base is 24 million votes.
The Republicans aren't going to win anything without them.
That was demonstrated in 2008.
It was demonstrated in 2012.
It was demonstrated in 1992 and it was demonstrated in 1996.
You don't win without them.
So what do they think is going to replace if if they and what's what what if they if they drive their current base away, what is the current base going to do?
Just sit there and not participate anymore.
How is voting for amnesty going to cause the base to leave the party?
Isn't it gonna maybe inspire the base to want to finally take it over?
Now there will be some third party advocates, but if that happens, the Republicans are dead double dead politically, if a third party forms.
But it is believable and understandable that the Republican establishment, their consultants and all that, really don't like a lot of the base.
They don't like conservatives.
Be they Christians, be they pro-lifers, be they so-called gun nuts, It's just conservative.
They didn't like Reagan, as you know.
Gotta take a break, sit tight, we'll be back and continue after this.
I suspect, ladies and gentlemen, the answer to my question.
Aside from the brilliant uh expose I just provided.
Answer to my question is all about money.
And so the answer to why would these people sit by and allow this party to become permanent minority status and be insignificant and effective.
To answer that question, find out how in that arrangement a bunch of people get rich, and you will get the answer to your question.
And if you want, we'll explore that next week.
I'll be more than happy to uh take a tour down that theory.
See where it takes us.
Bill in Cleveland, Ohio.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Mega Diddos.
Just wanted to tell you that uh on this Father's Day weekend, I would ask you to talk about your dad.
My father uh knew him.
He was a lawyer in Southeast Missouri, and he always reminded me that your dad was a P-51 pilot, particularly in China, Burma, and my dad uh felt there was no more honorable person than a pilot who flew B-51s in World War II.
And I was wondering if you could talk about him a little bit.
And you you mentioned it last week, I think, about him, and uh I would like you to kind of articulate just exactly who your dad was.
You know what I'll tell you what, I'm I'm out of time, but that is a great um suggestion, and I'll be more than happy.
I'm gonna make myself a reminder on my iPhone.
I'll I'll answer your question at some point during the pro I promise in the first hour on Monday.
I can tell you this.
He did fly P-51s in the China Burma uh theater of World War II, but you know, he would never talk about it with me and my brother, other than describing the airplane and how much he loved the airplane.
But he nor any of his friends who served would tell us about their experiences.
You know, we're kids.
Dad, how many of the enemy you kill wouldn't tell us?
Would not talk about it.
Got no combat details whatsoever.
But there's still a lot to tell about other aspects.
I appreciate the question, Bill, and uh remind myself, certainly you remind me too on Monday.
We'll be back, folks.
Thanks so much for being with us today, folks.
And we got a lot to look forward to on Monday.
We'll walk through the theory that money is behind the Republicans wanting amnesty.
Certain Republicans and uh father reminisces whatever happens else over the weekend and what to think about it on Monday.
▲
Export Selection