All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 7, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
August 7, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And it's that time again, once again, ladies and gentlemen, where another busy broadcast hour begins.
On a highlighted broadcast of the day and week, the month and the year.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
And I think it's safe to say not only is this the most listened to radio talk show in the country, maybe program.
It is the most talked about, too.
It is the most discussed, the most talked about, and the most listened to radio talk show in the country.
Great to have you here, folks, as we uh get started here on the second hour.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
I've got a story here from Buzzfeed on why Russia turned against gays.
And it's actually a pretty fascinating story about uh about Putin.
And this story, as far as it goes, makes the point here that Putin decided in the early stages of his reign, that'd be R-E-I-G-N, for those of you in Rhea Linda, that he would rule with no apparent ideology.
Three months before Russia's parliament unanimously passed a federal law banning the uh propaganda of non-traditional relationships, that is same-sex ones, the Bill's sponsor went on the country's most respected interview show to explain her reasoning.
Quote, analyzing all the circumstances and the particularity of territorial Russia and her survival, I came to the conclusion that if today we want to resolve the demographic crisis, we need to, excuse me, tighten the belt on certain moral values and information, so that giving birth and raising children become fully valued.
This is a Russian female lawmaker by the name of Yelena Mizzulina.
And she told this to our old buddy, Vladimir Posner.
Did you know Vladimir Posner's still alive?
Do you know who Vladimir Posner is?
Oh, Dawn.
Vladimir.
Vladimir Posner is a former KGB agent who became a go-to guy for Ted Koppel and ABC's Nightline.
He and another KGB agent disguised as an ambassador, Vitali Chirkin.
These guys, I loved them.
They were as American as you and me.
Oh, these were guys.
I even interviewed when I went to Sacramento, had my show there.
They sent me to Washington for they were so insistent that I'd do interviews and have guests.
So they sent me to Washington for a week.
And I did the program for the ABC Broadcast Center, which was on DeSales Street, right across the Mayflower Hotel.
And one of the since I had to do this, I wanted to get Vitali Chirkin.
Vitali Chirkin fascinated me.
I mean, I tried to imagine what this guy's childhood had been, when he was first spotted by the KGB, or the Politburo, as somebody with the potential because he uh he lived out with the natives in Arlington or McLean.
I mean, he was as American as anybody, but um I asked him, he got the biggest kick out of this.
I looked at him dead straight in the eye, said or UKGB.
And he just laughed himself crazy.
I thought I was the biggest kook in the world.
Uh he said, uh, not ask the committee for state security, and I don't have anything to do with that.
I'm at uh I'm at the uh M at the embassy.
But Vladimir Posner and Chirkin, they they they were in America at pretty much the same time.
Yeah, yeah, Posner eventually teamed up and co-hosted a show with his communist buddy Phil Donahue.
You remember this now on MSNBC, back when MSNBC actually had an audience.
And when it was I mean, there was a time when MSNBC was worth watching.
It was it was uh 92 to 95 is a legitimate news network.
They did news during the day, they had uh the right kind of uh synergy With NBC News, it was really, I thought they had tremendous potential with what they were trying to do.
And then it all went to hell with.
I know, Snerdly snurly screened a couple radio shows over at MSNBC at that time.
Chris Matthews guest hosted this show.
Before I know, before before he went Looney Tunes on everybody.
Anyway, Posner was a regular guest on American TV, PBS, ABC Nightline.
Vladimir Posner, and he was unabashedly pro-Soviet, anti-U.S.
hated Reagan, loved Gorbachev and all these Soviet leaders.
I look back on these guys now, and I had all kinds of affection for them now looking back, but they were good.
They humanized a despotic regime like nobody ever has.
Vitaly Cherkin and Vladimir Posner were able to make the Soviet Union look like a paradise.
When it of course was the exact opposite, it was a third world country with a superpower military, is uh is what it was.
And I hadn't heard of Vladimir Posner in years.
I thought I thought he was Phil Donahue's major domo up at his estate there in upstate New York with Marlo Thomas.
But apparently he's back home and he's got a TV show now.
So anyway, this is I'm sorry for the distraction.
I just I just had to do this little stream of consciousness about these guys.
I mean, Vitali Chirkin even looked like I mean, Wall Street, Ivy League, uh, you know, blue blood, American elitist, sounded like one too.
They were good.
They were, they were just, they were superb.
And of course, the U.S. media loved them too, and Posner was just everywhere.
I was on, I think I was on the Donahue show with Posner one time when Posner was trying to tell me, I forgot what the subject was, it's too long ago.
But I was making a point about something, and posing, you can't say that, and it doesn't work.
That kind of thinking doesn't, and he gave me a supposed logical progression of things that made no sense whatsoever.
And he's smiling at me and laughing all knowingly like I was a you know a Cub student getting D's and Fs, not know what I was talking about.
But I didn't back down from it.
So anyway, Vladimir Posner is interviewing this Russian lawmaker, female, Yelina Mizaluna, and she said that this is again why Russia turned against the gays, analyzing all the circumstances and the particularity of territorial Russia and her survival.
I came to the conclusion that if today we want to resolve the demographic crisis, we need to, excuse me, tighten the belt on certain moral values and information so that giving birth and raising children become fully valued.
Ms. Alina heads the Dumas Committee for Family Women and Children.
She has become the, it says here, the stern face of Russia's campaign against gays.
But she would never call it that.
Russia's new laws, which ban same-sex foreign couples from adopting Russian children, in addition to banning LGBT advocacy, are part of Russia's very search for survival, she says.
On the one hand, there's the physical survival of Russia.
Russia's birth rate plummeted in the wake of the Soviet collapse, and encouraging baby making has been one of Vladimir Putin's hallmarks.
And then there's the moral survival.
If Russia is to survive as Russia, it needs to reject the corrupting influences of the West.
And so this is why there is a ban On homosexuals in the Olympics in Russia next year.
Now, you can say what you want, but I often, when I make speeches, and I've I've brought it up on the program too.
I've I've made uh asked question.
How is it that a country like ours, less than 250 years old, has come to dominate the world in every way, unlike any other nation, including nations and civilizations that have been around thousands of years.
How was that possible?
What made it?
I think it's a great think piece.
And it's fascinating the answers you get back from people once they start thinking about it.
You hear freedom, you hear uh acknowledgement of our creation by God, natural yearning of the human being is created to be free.
Here are the Constitution, founding fathers, all this.
The numbers flow.
You know, one of the keys, folks, is population.
A great country needs a lot of people.
A lot of productive people.
Now, there are exceptions, but not really.
You can go back to Japan in the 80s, and well, they were ruling the roof, but they were not a superpower.
And by the way, Japan cannot, to this day, as to as per the surrender terms of World War II.
The Japanese cannot build an offensive military of any kind.
They are not allowed to.
So the Japanese were never a superpower in that sense.
Now you might say the British Empire.
Yeah, the British Empire was huge, uh, but in order for the British Empire to be huge, the British had to essentially, I don't want to say conquer, because not what they did.
But the colonial era, I mean, the the Brits ruled a number of countries.
We didn't have to do that.
We did it within our contiguous 48 states.
Now, one of the reasons is population.
Our population uh shortly after the founding just, folks, it grew at geometric proportions as the uh as the country spread from east to west, the population just blossomed.
And this is why countries, when you start talking about demographics, are very concerned about the replacement birth level, replacement rate.
Are you, does your country have a birth rate that will maintain the current population or grow it?
Now, the politically correct left has been on an anti-population movement uh, well, for a long time, but I mean the intense portion of the left's anti-population movement began in the late 60s, early 70s.
But coinciding with the modern era of feminism, by the way, and coinciding with a number of uh fundamental leftist precepts that exist today.
The attack on population was too many people and not enough food, not enough water, not enough this, not enough.
All of those predictions have gone by the wayside and have been proven to be totally bogus, totally wrong.
And Putin to now move to Russia, they they had a population dive when the Soviet Union dissolved.
And quite naturally they would.
I mean, they lost a number of satellite countries that made up the Soviet Union, and it became paramount to rebuild Russia and to establish it as a power.
You needed people.
You needed a birth rate that was beyond and above replacement levels.
And that's why, folks, that is whether they would admit it or not, that happens to be in this female lawmaker in Russia, is getting close to admitting it.
That's one of the reasons why there is this move against homosexuality.
does not procreate.
And the Russians need people.
You need people producing and working and inventing and manufacturing and all of these things.
You You need people to do this.
And you need them productive, and you need them free.
You need it's uh it's a key element when discussing the economic growth and the power of any country.
You can take it deeper and get into, okay, well, what percentage of the population is productive?
That's our problem.
More and more of our population is becoming unproductive.
More and more of our population is becoming dependent.
It's a huge, huge problem.
This is why Putin isn't manifestly against abortion.
They need people.
They want people.
They want a growing productive, thriving population.
Putin wants his country to be big again.
And Russia's birth rate plummeted in the uh in the wake of the Soviet collapse.
Then there's the she said the moral component here is that if Russia is to survive as Russia, it needs to reject the corrupting influences of the West.
Now that's actually non-new as a belief system.
The Soviet leaders throughout their existence.
They had as an objective to make sure that no evidence of life in the West would ever be seen by their population.
They were telling lies about life in America.
They were telling lies about the way people in this country lived.
And it must be said that one of the elements that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union was the VHS recorder and tape, the cassette, which allowed people to see TV shows like Dallas.
It allowed Soviet citizens to see commercials for things like blue jeans.
And it allowed for Soviet citizens to see what life in America was really all about.
And it illustrated their leaders have been lying to them.
So it's not new that the Russians would want to suppress the cultural influences of the West.
But in this case, the morality being looked at is something that is different and unique from what the suppression of old was.
So this is why, in a sh in a short little burst here, why there is this ban.
Not only is there a ban on homosexuality in the Olympics in Russia, you can't even talk about it in a positive way there.
You can't propagandize it.
You can't promote it.
And Russians do not permit Russian babies to be adopted by gay couples around the world.
They're very serious about it.
There's more to this, but I've got to take a break.
Sit tight.
Don't go away.
And looky here, what I happen to be holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
It is a story from the UK guardian.
And the um the date is today.
Should we care that smart women are not having kids?
It's not should we care that stupid women are not having kids.
It's should we care that smart women aren't having kids.
It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies.
Research emerging from the London scruble of economics, examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women, claims that more of the former means less of the latter.
Means more intelligence in the woman, the less maternal she is.
In the ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices.
But instead, it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who do not have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers, but dumb ones as well.
So it is true that that in the UK, more and more women are deciding not to have babies, which I think is true here too, and they're writing about it.
And it is related to feminism, and it's being associated with intelligence.
Now, I'm folks, I'm here to tell you I have made a career out of this.
People on the left have got a problem with birth.
There's they've there's something about that sends them off the rails.
And they are constantly writing and theorizing and talking about the beauties and the uh the liberating aspects of abortion, and how now it's very, very, very hip and cool for smart women not to be sucked into this motherhood thing.
Barefoot pregnant in the kitchen trap.
Hey, you talk about cutting edge societal evolution.
Right now, Fox is doing a topic.
Having it all without having kids.
And three women are discussing it.
Having it all without having kids.
That happens to be the uh title of the most recent issue cover story, Time magazine.
I'm telling you, folks, the elite feminist movement's got a problem with birth.
Obviously, abortion they promote it is the sacrament.
Abortion is the sacrament.
If liberalism is a religion, abortion's the sacrament.
And then this story, Time magazine story, the story from the UK Guardian.
Smart women are the ones not having kids.
Well, of course.
Of course, dumb, stupid women are.
What else they got?
They're not have the money or whatever to abort, but the smart women know that a kid is just nothing but an albatross.
And this has been one of the teachings of modern feminism.
Families, relationships, kids, that's a trap laid for women by men.
To keep them home, to keep them subservient, to keep them as servants, uh, barefoot pregnant in the kitchen, uh, keep them in their place, if you will.
Purpose of a kid is to occupy a woman so that the husband can run around and do whatever he wants.
And the feminist movement rose up against that in the modern era beginning in the late 60s and 70s.
And so now, by the way, the U.S. birth rate is near a well, it's it's low.
I don't know if it's an all-time low or near a record low, but it's it's terribly low.
And our birth rate may be below replacement levels now.
And I don't think when you couple the number of abortions, I read there were nearly 400,000 abortions last year.
There have been uh statistically, the best approximation is about 1.5 million abortions, probably more now since 1973.
And the birth rate may not be, it's an all-time low.
And of course it's a good thing.
Time magazine, yeah, it's a good thing that women aren't having kids.
It's a liberating thing that women aren't having damn straight it is.
And it's it's just other sock in the face to men.
You know, you've had it your way ever since Adam and Eve.
Well, it's our turn now.
We're not gonna bear your kids, and we're not gonna stay home and raise them.
And we're not gonna just sit here at home while you get to go do whatever you do.
We're gonna do all kinds of things here to liberate ourselves.
We're not gonna give birth, and if an accident happens, we're gonna abort it, and it's the smart women doing all this.
That's that's what is becoming.
Well, that's what is made to appear is happening, both in the Time Magazine story and in this UK guardian story.
Now, the UK Guardian, a little bit more guarded.
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?
Now, that's a bit elitist because of course the question means well, if it's just stupid women having kids, what what are the kids gonna be?
do we just want nothing but stupid idiots?
Maybe some smart women ought to be having kids, so we have some smart kids.
Feminists are starting to lose themselves in these philosophical discussions, which of course are rooted in self-absorption and maybe tinges of guilt.
Because what's going on here isn't is a full, it's continued full frontal assault on what has always been considered normalcy.
And so the Russians, just to close the loop on this, the Russians and Putin are putting their foot down.
And it's all right, enough of it.
We're we're not we're not gonna have that here.
We need a growing population.
We need a country that's growing.
We need more people, we need more people working, we need more productivity, and we're not gonna we're not gonna we're gonna sign up for all this new age so-called elitist brilliance.
So, Ergo, the reason why the ban on gay athletes at the Olympics.
Okay, back to the phones now.
Seth in uh Castle Ford, Idaho.
I'm glad you called.
Thank you for waiting too.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Calling from God's country where we're harvesting the amber waves of grain.
I like that.
Harvesting the amber waves of grain.
I like that.
Thank you for the call.
Hey, uh, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Um to talk to somebody like you who's created so much uh logical critical thought in our society, you know, it's really a pleasure.
Um I really, you know, I don't get to talk to people like me uh like you do, unless I talk to myself, and I don't do that.
So I appreciate, I understand how how important that is to you.
All right.
Well, my uh my point is to the embassy closing, and my interpretation of what the Democrats are doing is, and many of our lawmakers, they're more concerned about job security rather than national security.
I think that uh this embassy closing is a way for them to re establish the narrative that they lost during Benghazi by creating credibility for taking they're taking credibility for nothing happening and ignoring when something actually happened.
Wayne, I'm not sure I follow you.
I think you're on the cusp here of a of a good point, but I'm not sure I f how how how is it they're creating credibility or taking credit for nothing happening in Benghazi?
Something clearly did happen in Benghazi, and it's not good.
No, I think I think that they're tak what they're gonna end up doing with this embassy closing if nothing happens, they will take credit for nothing happening like they protected us from this this problem that they've created rather than at the same time calling Benghazi a phony scandal that something actually did happen and they're trying to completely ignore it.
I think that they were losing the narrative between you know, people hammering it like you and Glenn Beck and some of those people were hammering the narrative that it that it actually was a tragedy in our society, and by them creating this problem and taking credibility for nothing happening.
Okay, so here we have folks thank that uh Seth, thanks.
I really appreciate it.
Here we have more cynicism.
Here's a guy who thinks this shutdown of twenty-one embassies is simply so that when nothing happens, they can all claim credit for shutting down a major threat.
Because they've told us this is a bigger threat, certainly as big the chatter is as big as what we got before 9-11.
Well, that was the worst one.
9-11.
We haven't had anything like that in this country uh uh 48 states ever before.
And so right, right.
So here we have uh this this massive possibility.
And we close the embassies, and the Obama regime rolls up its sleeves and gets busy working on it.
And then if nothing happens, they see see how good we were.
We are confident you can rely on us.
You know, you remember how the drive by media used to claim that George W. Bush used terrorist threats to distract us from other problems.
Do you remember how the mainstream media do drive bys used to accuse Bush of making up terror events in order to make himself look tough?
In order to make himself look smart, in order to make himself and his administration look competent.
Remember how the media used to accuse Bush of fabricating terror events as a distraction.
And it's basically what Seth is saying here that the Obama is doing.
And that what they're really aiming at being able to say is that when this all ends up, if nothing happens, they can say they prevented another Benghazi.
Except that Benghazi was a phony scandal.
I have a another view about this.
If that's true, if if this is all just political and propaganda and optics, which if I were to learn that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised.
I think this bunch politicizes everything.
I think everything's a photo up.
I think everything is part of an agenda to strengthen Obama and his hold, his reputation, everything.
I don't think.
And this is, by the way, intelligence guided by experience.
I don't think Obama takes all this stuff seriously anyway.
Or Benghazi wouldn't happen the way it did.
I think, and by the way, do you uh remember, well, I haven't talked about it yet, but there's a story that hit yesterday that the first criminal charges have been filed against a terrorist or two responsible for Benghazi.
So the regime is treating this as a criminal act, not an act of war.
File charges, criminal charges against the Benghazi terrorist leader.
And this is always the way the left has preferred to look at terrorism.
It's a criminal act.
It isn't an act of war.
I just, I don't think they take it that seriously.
And I I say that only because of the way they dealt with Benghazi and attempted to use Benghazi as a I mean, what four Americans died.
This is a this is a reprehensible thing that happened because it was unnecessary.
It could have been prevented, or we could have at least engaged and limited some of the damage.
We didn't do anything.
For whatever reasons, and we've gone through all those possibilities.
The bottom line is I just I I get the sense that this bunch really doesn't take it all that seriously.
Terrorism is really not a bit.
It's just it's something they don't think they're ever going to be able to defeat.
It's random pockets of lunatics here and lunatics there, and just treat them as criminals and so forth.
In the meantime, we'll use it to spy on Americans and ramp up whatever they need to with the uh NSA and whatever, use it to expand their powers.
But treating it seriously in a way to actually deal with it, I just don't get that sense.
So I understand the cynicism that uh caller like Seth has about this.
Brief time out, folks, much more when we get back.
I mentioned back on the 1st of August, a 25th anniversary program that having done this 25 years, I'm starting to see now repetition in issue after issue after issue.
And ladies and gentlemen, an illustration of that is this Time magazine cover, having it all without having children.
You go talk to a woman today, if you know a woman who is in her mid 50s, late 50s, maybe even early 50s, who was paying attention during the feminist era days when this all began in the late 60s or 70s and into the 80s.
You talk to women who bought into it back then.
You ask them if they've heard this before.
And if they're honest with you, they will tell you, yeah, been there, done that.
It's the same thing.
Back in the 60s and 70s, at the early days of the modern era of feminism, it was the same argument.
Do not have kids.
That's a route to prison.
That is how our patriarchal culture suppresses you.
You have the kid, you give birth, you ruin your life for nine months, then you are in prison until the kid leaves home.
You're the one raising the kid, you're cooking, you're doing all these traditionally female things.
You're the one in prison.
You're the one being held back.
That's what you must change.
That's what those women back then were told.
No relationship, no marriage, no kids, otherwise you're betraying the movement.
It's repeating.
Almost word for word.
And certainly the issue is the same, whether they're using the identical words.
They are.
It's it's almost word for word how this is now happening.
Time magazine cover, having it all by not having kids.
Having it all without having kids.
It's it's just the late 60s and early 70s and into the 80s being replayed for a new generation of women.
It's almost like at Time Magazine in these drive-by media places.
They put these things on their calendars 25 years ahead.
And it and when the day arrives, 25 years in the future, time to start recycling.
Liberalism, recycling, global warming, all of these leftist political issues.
Recycle them every other generation or so.
And it's happening around the world, hence this story from the UK Guardian.
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?
Modern feminism.
Anyway, Kate, Medford, Oregon, hi.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor.
Thank you much.
I would like to suggest an alternative to Riant's previous challenge to CNN and NBC regarding the Hillary miniseries.
I think uh Fox version of a miniseries would have an uh honest account that includes intrigue, drama, uh immorality, and um who done it, with uh the stories highlighting Hillary's call college anti-U.
Being fired for lying and unethical behavior during the Watergate hearing.
Of course, there's Hillary Grigate, Vince Foster, misrepresenting her on dangerous trip to Bosnia, and perhaps her major role in uh cover-up of the Benghazi terror and murder, uh, and who actually gave the order to stand down, and her part in not stopping to stand down and then further covering the matter up.
I think it would be a wonderful mini-series.
Um do you uh think this is something that Fox, as you know it today, would do?
You know, I would hope they do it.
You know, they're um there are only chance of honest media.
They do have drama series.
I um I don't I don't want to let the take the air out of your sails.
And I I don't want to burst your balloon, but I have to tell you I don't think that's something Fox would do.
Do you think that possibly some conservative Hollywood producer could do something?
Oh, yeah, it'd be plenty of those that do it.
The problem is finding a place that would air it.
You don't think Fox would air it.
Um I have my doubts.
Not even for ratings.
Pardon?
Not even for ratings.
Oh, no, wouldn't it?
No, no, no, no, it wouldn't no, it it's there's um there's too much.
I'm not getting trouble here.
There's Too much uh affection for and loyalty to Hillary in that boardroom.
And I don't mean the Fox boardroom, but the corporate umbrella boardroom.
We're talking 20th century Fox movies, dude.
We're talking News Corp here.
We're not just talking Fox News.
I think it'd be problematic.
We found a YouTube video of me with Vladimir Posner on the Donahue show from um I think 1990, I forget when.
It's about 10 minutes long.
It's too long to play, but you know, we're arguing about global warming.
▲
Export Selection