All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
July 30, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, National Football League is going to be shocked to learn that I am a spokesman.
That's exactly right.
Wait till you hear the audio sound bites coming up.
Greetings, my good friends, and welcome back.
Rushlin Baugh and the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address ilrushbo at eibnet.com.
You know, I was sitting here thinking, I'm doing this.
I did this Greta interview today for Fox.
And I made a mistake.
I told you all when the program started that you've heard it all.
And actually, that's not true.
There are some things that I have not said before that I said in this interview.
In fact, I was just going to talk about one of them.
I said, no, what?
You know, I'm going to hold it until after this interview runs.
I'll give Greta an exclusive.
It's not a big deal, but there are some things that I mentioned to her that I have not said on this program.
And I said some things in the interview in ways I haven't said.
So actually, I gave you the wrong impression.
I didn't want to.
Snurdly said, you just told them they didn't have to watch.
I said, no, I didn't.
He said, yes, you did.
You told them they've heard it all before.
And I was just trying to be honest with you.
But I was thinking about it during the break here at Top of the Hour.
And I've got one thing right I was going to talk about.
And by the way, it's entirely fascinating to me.
And it is about me.
But I'm going to wait.
I'm going to wait for this to be said.
It has to do with the news this week about radio stations and all this public negotiation that's taking place and the political story where they're breathlessly hoping that I'm going to lose stations in New York and so forth.
We've already got another station.
I probably shouldn't say that.
This is all it's all bogus.
But anyway, it's just public negotiations taking place.
But there's something that has happened as a result of it that I was going to talk about.
I'm going to wait.
I'm going to wait.
So that, because I want you all to watch this.
Because I'm told it looked good.
And that's all that matters on TV.
It really is.
At the end of the day, it's another reason I'm not crazy about TV.
I could go on there and be Albert Einstein.
And if people didn't like my shirt, they'd tell me that.
Has always bugged me about TV.
I remember that when I did my TV show, I had some of the greatest monologues.
And I had people say, you know, your tie is too loud.
I said, geez, what's the point?
Anyway, I am apparently a spokesman for the National Football League this afternoon on the House floor.
The American Samoan delegate to the House of Representatives, whose name is Eni Falomavega.
Eni Falioma Vega, Democrat from American Samoa, spoke about me and my comments on the Redskins as the name of the team in Washington.
This is choice.
This is really, this is one of those where I say, I really wish my father were alive to see this.
His son, who didn't finish college, being ripped to shreds in this instance on the floor of the house is two sound bites.
Enifalio Ma Vega, number one.
I rise today on behalf of our Native American community to speak on the subject of great concern, the use of the term Redskins by the National Football League's Washington franchise.
Recently, our nationally recognized commentator, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, attempted to wash away years of pain, suffering, and humiliation endured by our nation's first inhabitants by questioning their motives in seeking to rid of the NFL of this most racist, disparaging, and badly offensive word.
Mr. Limbaugh does not appear to know the violent and abusive history behind this racial epithet.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are human beings.
They are not animals.
The Native American community, which Mr. Limbaugh calls a bunch of PC jerks.
You know, folks, the NFL is going to be really surprised to learn that I am their spokesman.
I don't have anything to do with the name of the Washington franchise.
All I've said about, okay, so some people say they're offended.
We stop everything if all you have to do to affect change is to say you're offended.
I pointed out that Redskins fans don't seem to be bothered by it.
They sell it out every week when the Redskins are.
They've got 100,000 seats in that stadium.
They sell it out every week.
The Redskins have a tremendous television audience.
Now, a bunch of PC jerks.
I'm talking about American leftists, the politically correct censors.
The pain and suffering, humiliation endured by our nation's first inhabitants by questioning their motives in seeking to rid.
I don't know what I have nothing to do with it.
Anyway, here's the second sound bite.
And this is again, Mr. Enie or Emmy, I'm not sure, but Eni Falio Ma Vega, the non-voting, well, maybe he's voting, she's a delegate, probably non-voting, from American Samoa, he's a Democrat.
Mr. Limbaugh also states, so the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people.
Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not a popularity contest.
It is not even about sports.
This is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans are not only considered outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government.
The only sporting involved was the game of hunting and killing Indians like animals for money.
Mr. Limbaugh, to Mr. Snyder, to Mr. Goodell, and all NFL club voters, I ask, haven't American Indians suffered enough?
You know, Roger Goodell and Dan Snyder are going to be shocked to learn that I am part of the NFL and responsible for this.
But you know, this guy is pretty smart.
Why think he is sound like he's crying?
He does sound like he's crying.
But Native Americans, not only concerned outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government.
I'm telling you, folks, these people are people who do not like this country as founded.
They think it's unjust and immoral, and they are all part of the Obama coalition to transform this country to something that it wasn't.
But what is this guy doing?
This guy, I've got nothing to do with the NFL.
I literally nothing to do with the name of the Washington team.
Dan Snyder doesn't even like me.
I'm not even part of it.
And this guy invokes my name.
Now, Snerdley, why do you think this guy is invoking my name in this squabble over the name of the Washington franchise?
Well, but he did say Dan Snyder and Goodell.
He used my name.
He used my name to try to get action out of Goodell and the Redskins.
The game plan is what they're supposed to do now.
Oh, my God.
Oh, geez.
This Limbaugh guy, he didn't have anything to do with us.
He's still killing us.
We got to get rid of the name.
That's what this guy's thinking is that the NFL will want so little to do with me, but I've got nothing to do with it.
This, by the way, this story dovetails with the story I'm withholding from telling you about until after you hear me discuss it on Greta.
This goes part and parcel with this.
And I'm not even going to give you a hint about it because if I start giving you a hint, I'll end up telling you the whole thing.
I'm not going to do that.
I want to grab a call.
This guy's been on hold for a long time, and I want to get to him.
And I want to go back to the Democrat there from American Samoa.
Here's Doug in Chesapeake, Virginia.
Doug, thanks for waiting.
Really appreciate it.
Hey, Brother Rush, mega dittos to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, listen, I wanted to, I'm going to disagree with you here.
I do not believe Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2016.
And history, at least recent history, the last 50 years or so, is on my side.
The Democrats do not do retreads in their presidential politics.
The Republicans, on the other hand, do nothing but.
If you look back again to the 60 election, in most cases, with a few exceptions like George W. Bush and Barry Goldwater, whoever came in second in the nomination process always ends up the presidential nominee.
The Democrats are just the opposite.
And Hillary was handed that what supposedly was anointed in 2008, and she couldn't close the deal with her own party.
She couldn't sell it.
Doug, one of the reasons why I asked Snerdley to have you hold on is to tell you that you do not disagree with me.
I am on record back in 2008, well, 2007, as telling the popular conventional wisdom was that Hillary was going to be not just the nominee, but the president.
I had executives at Fox News tell me in dire tones that there was an 80% chance this is 2006, 2006, Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president.
And I never bought it.
I did.
And I misunderstood you yesterday, then.
No, no, you didn't.
I don't think she's going to be the nominee in 2012.
I think, in fact, I'm on record as saying the Democrat nominee in 20, whatever it is, 2016.
16 is going to be Chris Christie.
Well, that might be, but it's not.
I don't think it's going to be Hillary.
I've never thought because I've always said she is not this brainiac that her conventional wisdom says she messed up so much of what the Clinton administration gave her.
Health care, the bimbo eruptions.
She's not the smartest woman in the world.
I have never drank that Kool-Aid on Hillary.
I did not think she was going to be the nominee in 2008, and I didn't think she was going to be elected president.
I was a lone wolf saying so.
It was I who did Operation Chaos to keep her candidacy alive in 2008.
Well, I stand corrected and asked for your forgiveness then on well.
What did you hear me?
What did you think you were saying?
When you were saying about basically, it just sounded like you thought the conventional, or at least you were commenting on, maybe that's what I caught, you were reporting on the conventional wisdom that she's going to be the nominee.
And I'm just thinking that evidence is against that based on history, and Biden is Obama's guy.
Biden is the one Obama's going to want to see succeed him.
Yeah, there was a caller yesterday who went off on a conspiratorial, it was fascinating to listen to, but it was a conspiratorial rant just based on a Hillary Obama lunch.
They had lunch yesterday, and this guy called and said what was happening here is that I forget now what he said, but it was that this lunch was to set up Hillary in 2016 or what have you.
I just, I have never swallowed that Kool-Aid, that conventional wisdom.
Certain elements of the Democrat Party and the media think that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world.
They now think she is dramatically owed.
She is owed.
I've been through this.
She's owed for helping sustain Clinton's career.
She's owed for giving up her own life and moving to Arkansas.
She is owed for tolerating the bimbo eruptions and staying with Clinton, which enabled his career to continue.
And she's a pathetic figure in that sense, that she's looked at as a nominee because they owe it to her.
Well, you're right.
That's what we do.
Bob Dole, your turn.
Mitt Romney, your turn.
You didn't get it in 2008 because McCain and Huckabee played some games, so it's your turn.
We, on the Republican side, do that.
I think the contest in 2016, the Democrat side, is going to be between Rah Emanuel and Andrew Kumo and Chris Christie.
Well, I think Cuomo certainly is going to be a name mixed up in there.
But like I said, Hillary, they already tried to reward her for being history's biggest doormat.
And since then, she's got more baggage being the doormat for Obama, taking the bullets for him, or that's the narrative anyway.
Well, I know.
And it's just not going to work.
Like, there's got to be, besides Cuomo, there are some other fresh faces in the Democrats who are going to make it.
I remember what it was.
This guy yesterday, Doug, called and said his theory, the only way Hillary had a chance of being an ex-president was if Obama screwed up because a successful Obama second term would not lead to her.
It'll lead to a Republican.
He's got to screw up in order for her to win the presidency.
Not get the nomination, but get the presidency.
And this guy said that Hillary was in there trying to strike a deal to get Obama to screw up in the last two years to pave the way for her.
That was his out of this world theory and so forth.
I told him I hadn't even gone one step in that direction.
I just can't, you know, Hillary goes to the White House, lunch with Obama, says, okay, pal, look, I've taken every bullet for you.
Benghazi, you name it, you got to screw up your last two years so that I have a chance.
And Obama says, you know what?
You're exactly right.
It just doesn't happen.
I'm sorry.
I don't see it.
And I don't, I think there's a lot of fear about Hillary, both on the Republican side, well, in the Republican side.
And that's why I think that everybody thinks that she's a lock.
She was a lock in 2008.
And the first chance the Democrats had to throw her overboard, they took it.
And for what?
Somebody inexperienced, had no track record, nothing, wasn't owed anything.
All they'd done is give a speech at the 04 Democrat Convention.
That was it.
They threw her.
I remember taking up her cause in Operation Chaos.
I was the one making a case of how mean the Democrats have been to her and how they mistreated her, all that she's done for them.
And they throw her overboard for a guy.
I said, so much for feminism.
Anyway, Doug, I appreciate the call.
Folks, it turns out on this Redskins business, it turns out, I didn't know this.
I was just now informed that the Washington Post did a pretty long article on me and the Redskins on July 2nd.
I did not know it.
July 2nd was right before the July 4th.
I don't know.
I do not have Rush alerts on Google.
I'm not obsessed with seeing my name in the media, so I don't get those.
And I don't read the Washington Post anymore.
And I only read the New York Times when people send me stuff from it.
I don't waste my time.
I know what it's going to be.
I know what the Washington Post is going to be.
Same thing with the New York Times.
So I don't go there.
I didn't see it.
And nobody sent it to me.
But most of this article, I'm told, I still haven't clicked on the link.
Most of this July 2nd, Washington Post article on the Redskins is quotes from me.
And I've got nothing to do with it.
I have zero zilch nada to do with the Redskins.
And that's why this guy from American Samoa goes to the House floor today and rips me because he's probably read these out of context.
There've got to be quotes in the Washington Post.
But I would just say to the delegate here from American Samoa, who said this is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans are not only considered outcasts, but deemed enemies by the colonial government.
I think Mr. Faleo Mavega, as a Samoan, may not know that Native Americans went to war with each other.
It wasn't just the colonials.
Native Americans, the Indians, were at war with each other before the colonials got here.
And many of the wars between Native Americans were over slaves.
Slavery.
We even had a member of Comanches call here and say, Rush, you're exactly right about that.
It's talk about his great-great-grandmother or some such thing.
But apparently the culprit for this is this Washington Post story on July 2nd.
I don't even want to read it.
I'm just telling you it's out there.
Okay, now I remember.
I didn't see these stories, but I remember saying this.
I remember all this, July 2nd.
And there's two of these.
One of these is a Washington Post story.
The other is USA Today.
And you all will probably remember this.
There was something that happened in the whole controversy over the name change of the Redskins.
And it was a media story advocating for the change.
And the story, like all things liberal, was demanding that the government come in here and make the Redskins change their name.
So I commented upon that and reacted to it.
And that's what this Washington Post story is.
And the quotes are accurate.
And there is also a USA Today story on this.
And get this headline.
Rush Limbaugh made some fine points about Redskins' name change, the subhead, and he made some other points too.
Let me start with the USA Today story first.
When one of the most polarizing men in the country takes one of the most polarizing issues in sports, you'd think it'd all be fireworks.
But Rush Limbaugh's defense of the Redskins team name is relatively tame and quite reasonable, focusing more on the role of the federal government than the merits of the team's nickname.
Parentheses, I say relatively tame because this is still Rush Limbaugh, and it wouldn't make for good radio if he couldn't shoehorn phrases like jack-booted thugs and PC jerks into a segment.
You know, I am, honest to God, folks, I am blown away by this hatred for me that's out there.
I mean, I can understand people disagreeing with me, but the hatred these people have, all based on the fact that I'm polarizing.
I'm not polarized.
Everybody listening to this program agrees with me.
There isn't even any controversy on this program.
And there isn't any polarization.
The polarization is imagined by these people on the left who, for whatever personal reasons they've got, harbor animosity toward me.
And part of it, I mean, it's justified because I've told the world what a bunch of creeps they are, the way they do their jobs, and how they're biased and they pretend to be one thing when they're not and so forth and so on.
I understand them taking shots.
But polarizing?
So the guy quotes me and thinks it's fine nuance.
It actually makes a lot of sense.
The whole story, except for the last paragraph, this is classic.
He quotes me accurately, and I'll share the quotes in just a second.
Listen to this last paragraph.
Oh, well, it's not like it was going to remain a nuanced discussion about the dangers of government overreach for long before devolving into name-calling and taunts.
This is talk radio, after all.
But it was a good run while it lasted.
And this is Chris Chase, writing it.
So most of the story praises me and then says, but we know before it's over with, Limbaugh is going to end up being a creep.
But I wasn't a creep on this.
All I did, let me share with you some of the quotes.
You'll remember this.
The Washington Post piece is by a guy named Dan Steinberg.
Rush Limbaugh and the Redskins name.
Now, Steinberg starts his piece by saying, you can use the Redskins issue to argue anything, I wrote Monday morning.
And that was prophetic, as it turns out, because Monday afternoon, Rush Limbaugh chimed in on the issue.
It happened after Limbaugh began discussing the federal government's potential involvement in student loan rates and the creeping loss of freedom he believes this could cause.
Now, there's another example of this kind of change, Limbaugh said.
The pressure on the Washington Redskins, talking about the NFL, pressure on the Redskins to change the name from Redskins to something else.
And of course, the modernists among us say you just can't, you can't keep calling them the Redskins.
I mean, you wouldn't run around in real life saying, hey, look at you're a Redskin.
You wouldn't say that to somebody's face, and so a team shouldn't be named that.
And then the people who oppose it might posit an argument.
Well, you know, if you do that, where are you going to stop?
You're going to start saying you can't name teams after animals next?
Where's it going to stop?
And then the change advocates say, see, see, you just construct this straw man where you manufacture disaster as a result of change.
It's not the point.
In the case of the Redskins name, who is everybody advocating change looking to make it happen?
The federal government.
And that's the problem.
And this is me.
This is me being quoted accurately.
Look, change is unavoidable.
Change is constant.
And it does need to be embraced.
But I'll tell you, all of the change being advocated now, at least from the change advocates, the people who think they're hip and modern, all they're actually doing is advocating the government take more control of things.
This isn't change, I said.
This is imposition.
It's a major difference.
This is not evolution.
This is a bunch of people dissatisfied, claiming they're infinite, wanting the government to do things their way.
Then they hide behind the fact that that's change.
Okay, so the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people.
Let the NFL figure it out.
Why does the government have to get involved?
Why does Obama or Congress or anybody else need to get involved?
We don't need McCain and boys involved in this.
Why would they be?
But the advocates, those people who are now just fit to be tied over the name Redskins, what they really want is to empower the federal government some more.
They're willing to turn over all kinds of powers to the federal government in order to bring about what they want.
So these change advocates are nothing but a bunch of liberals who are in truth seeking to empower the federal government with more power over everybody.
It's incremental.
Sometimes it's tiny, sometimes it's considered insignificant.
Come on, Rush, what harm could there be in getting rid of the name Redskins?
It offends some people.
Okay, fine.
But why do you want the iron fist of the government involved in this?
It's an NFL thing.
Let them deal with it.
The NFL and the owners deal with the Redskins.
And the fans, if it were really that upsetting of the fans, nobody'd be going to FedEx Stadium.
FedEx Stadium sold out every week.
It obviously isn't upsetting too many people.
And yet you want the federal government to come in here with their jack-booted thugs or iron fist people and do what?
Now look, I'm not one of these people routinely, uniformly, formulaically against change because you can't stop it.
But the change advocates are a bunch of leftists who simply want to empower the government to impose what they believe under the name of change.
What they want you to believe is that this is simply societal change.
In the case of the Redskins name, what they want you to believe is that our country and our society is maturing, understanding that it's just reprehensible and unfair and mean to have a team named Redskins.
Well, the fact of the matter is our society is not that offended by it and doesn't think that it's that big a deal, as evidenced by the Redskin sellouts and high TV ratings.
So, the advocates, the people who don't like the Redskins' name, just a bunch of PC jerks.
They're politically correct liberals who want the federal government to come in and impose on people.
There isn't a groundswell to change it.
So, they want the federal government to.
Same thing here with the student alone program, or it's the same thing in so many other areas of life.
Change must have change.
You want federal government to do it.
You're not talking about change.
You're talking about imposition.
So, all of that is what led to the American Samoan guy going to the floor of the House today to rip me as somebody defending the name Redskins because the Redskins deserve to be called the Redskins, or whatever it was he said.
And the USA Today, again, quoted me accurately, but the last paragraph said that he doesn't really mean it.
He's really a mean-spirited racist creep, and he's going to get back to normal soon, is the essence of what they said.
It's just and while all this is going on, these same people-well, not the same people, but these same types of people in the media are writing stories even today about how I'm irrelevant now.
I've diminished.
I has been.
My time is past 25 years.
I have any power anymore.
I can't stop anything from happening, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks.
So we come back and get to more of your phone calls after this.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting.
Somebody tell me what is the difference in San Diego Mayor Bob Filner and Jerry Sandusky, Penn State University, other than the age group of the victim.
I mean, you got similar behavior patterns.
I don't know.
I just thought I'd throw it out there because it offends me.
Filner offends me.
Filner ought to be done something because he offends me.
See how easy that is?
Except conservatives are not allowed to be offended.
No, that's right.
Because conservatives are the ones doing all the offending.
Oh, by the way, folks, AP, a poll May 2nd this year, quote, poll reveals overwhelming support for Redskins' name.
A new AP GFK poll shows that nationally, Redskins still enjoys wide support.
Nearly 80% of Americans don't think the team should change its name.
Only 11% think that it should be changed.
This is my point.
There is not a groundswell to change the name of the Washington franchise.
A groundswell is being made to appear to be taking place by the media.
The media is running around acting all offended and then demanding that somebody do something.
80% of the American people are not offended by it and are not bothered by it.
My only point here is that there's not a groundswell, and I have nothing to do with it.
The commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, Has said that the term Redskins stands for strength and hard work.
Anyway, Angela in Dallas.
It's great to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
So good to talk to you.
Thanks for taking the call.
You bet.
I just about choked on my coffee this morning when I heard the recommendation by the Black caucus for Sheila Jackson Lee to be the head of DHS from Texas, and this woman is a colossal embarrassment to the majority of the citizens of Texas.
Like we panic when we see the camera panned to her and the thought of someone handing her a microphone because she is so far from representing any of us.
And so on the surface, it was hysterical to think about her in this position.
But when I think about the things that I thought were hysterical that could never happen that have happened in the last four years, it's positively frightening.
You know, I was a woman in this position.
I was just emailing with a friend of mine who sent me a note, excuse me here a second, that Bradley Manning, the initial report, Bradley Manning was found not guilty in the trial of this is the guy that gave tens of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.
And the first reports were that he was found not guilty.
It turns out he has been found guilty of certain things.
It's still unfolding.
At any rate, I get this note from a friend of mine.
I just can't believe this.
This guy is very active in national security issues and is very much a supporter of the NSA data mining program.
In fact, I'm reading a novel right now that makes a very persuasive case for what the NSA is trying to do with the monitoring of phone calls and stuff.
At any rate, my friend in the email says he just, he can't believe.
He said, you know, I just heard you say, Rush, the country's changing.
He said, you're right.
It has changed.
It's not in the process.
And I wrote him back and I said, stop and think.
And I'm honest here, folks.
I do not, given what has happened in this country in the last four years and given where we are with pop culture and the entire low information voter population and the ease, I mean, the relative ease with which Obama is escaping any accountability.
I wrote him back.
I said, how in the world did George W. Bush ever get elected twice?
How did he get elected, period?
How in the world?
Because otherwise, we're to believe that this massive change, which is a cultural decay and deterioration and a rising, the celebration, the rise to triumph of the low information American.
And I'm sitting here, and I'm sure you are too.
This seemingly has happened overnight where nothing makes any sense anymore.
And I'm saying that things just don't happen this fast.
Not in a country this big.
If this change that is happening now is real, it would have been percolating for years.
I don't know how Bush ever got elected.
I don't know how we ever got a resolution to use force in Iraq, Given the way we are told, and we have to believe it because of election returns, the way the country is.
And the Limbaugh theorem does not totally answer this.
But it seems like this country has gone from a constitutional representative republic to a banana republic overnight while none of us were looking.
All it took was the election of a Democrat.
How did John Kerry lose?
And it's something that still perplexes me.
You know, and there's a part of me hoping that it really hasn't changed.
The country really hasn't changed as it appears to have.
But I don't want to lie to myself about it.
What could constitute media reporting and pop culture reporting that creates this impression of massive change?
And you can't ignore that Democrats are winning elections, the Republicans did hold the House, but there's no pushback from the Republicans on anything that's happening.
There's total capitulation and acquiescence, be it Obamacare or amnesty, budget item.
It just seems like so the Republicans believe the country's changed.
They believe that they are a distinct, infinitesimal minority.
Something is not making sense in all this.
It ridiculously is fastest three hours in media.
We got a brief time out here at the top of the hour, my friends, but much more is lurking around the top of the hour corner.
▲
Export Selection