All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 13, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:28
August 13, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, as here we here we are, folks, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbo and the gang of the EIB network and the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You talk about a publicity stunt that might backfire.
Hillary Clinton has just kicked off her tour to restore trusted government.
Hillary, what difference does it make now?
Clinton out on a restore trust and faith in government.
What difference does it make now?
You know what Hillary's really upset about?
The North Carolina, you know, there's some really fascinating, good things happening in North Carolina.
And they have made some significant changes in voting.
And the left is just outraged by it.
And Hillary especially spent a lot of time on the eve of her tour to restore trust in government.
She's upset that a concealed carry permit qualifies as ID, but a student ID doesn't.
It's really bent off.
But one of the things, and they've done a lot, one of the things that they've done in North Carolina is drastically reduce early voting, and they have eliminated voter registration on Election Day.
And it is so telling.
Hillary and the Democrats are fit to be tied.
You would think we have gone back to the Jim Crow days.
You would think that we're back in a civil war.
You would think we're back with poll tests and all kinds of things.
And this early voting and same-day voter registration are nothing more than Democrat Party tricks to aid them in cheating during elections.
What is this early voting anyway?
We already have absentees.
What's the point of early voting?
Pure and simple.
Democrats and get out the vote efforts.
Pure and simple.
There's no reason for early voting.
I have never understood.
I mean, I've understood it politically within the framework of the Democrat Party, but intellectually doesn't make any sense.
Voting happens on the day.
We have absentees.
If you can't be there, go do that way.
This early voting.
Well, I want to vote now to avoid the crush.
I want to avoid the crowds.
And you've seen the crowds at these early voting things.
But why do you need to have early voting 20 days before an election?
Not that many people are going to be out of town.
Not that many people.
It's just, it's absurd.
It is a bastardization.
It's a corruption.
Anyway, in North Carolina, they're fixing it.
And the Democrat Party is fit to be tied.
Now, folks, I want to go back to this thing in Zurich with the Oprah.
And she goes into the store and asks to see, this is her version.
She asks to see a handbag that costs $38,000.
And she gets the impression from the clerk that she can't afford it and is essentially told that.
And that the clerk did not go up to the shelf where the bag was and get it down there for the Oprah to examine.
And the Oprah made clear in the interview on Entertainment Tonight, she asked the question, what could be the reason for this?
Why would somebody tell me that they didn't think I could afford it?
Okay, so factor in that the clerk didn't recognize her.
The Oprah didn't look like the Oprah that day.
So the clerk didn't recognize her.
So Oprah left us to fill in the blank, and that was that the clerk was racist, looked at the Oprah and saw a black woman and immediately concluded she was in the wrong store.
Now, this is the impression the Oprah left.
Here on this program, we added a component to this, and that is that Oprah is a plus-size woman, and there is discrimination against plus-size women.
You don't see a whole lot of really fashionable, wealthy, overweight women.
Most fashionably wealthy women are stick-thin.
They starve themselves, or they're bulimic, or they're anorexic, or whatever they do to maintain their social x-ray status.
But you very seldom see a really wealthy, unless you get into the frumpy, you know, 70s and 80s.
But even then, it's an exception to see a very wealthy, overweight, fat woman.
So the Oprah could have suffered a double whammy when it comes to discrimination.
Now, what is the possibility that the Oprah's version is true?
Well, let's look.
Where did this happen?
It happened in Switzerland.
Where in Switzerland did it happen in Zurich?
What is noteworthy about Zurich, Switzerland?
Who lives there?
A bunch of what?
Far-left extremist liberals who are among the most bigoted and racist people in our culture.
One of the biggest secrets, who is it that judges people by how they look?
Who is it that sees an individual and ah, groups them somehow, either by virtue of race or gender, and if they want to take a wild guess, sexual orientation, and then they group them economically.
But liberals do not look at individuals and see people.
They look at a person and they see a victim.
They see somebody in a group.
Does it make sense to you that in a very highbrow, upscale purse store in Zurich, Switzerland, that somebody like the Oprah would walk in there and one of these liberal checkout people that lives in Switzerland would look at her and immediately think she couldn't afford it because she was black.
Who would make that kind of assessment?
The Oprah may be telling the truth.
She's dealing with liberals.
It is liberals who make these kinds of judgments.
HR was just telling, we were just discussing this.
And HR said, he's white.
He looks like one of the Beavis and Butthead guys sometimes.
And he walks into Tiffany.
So they won't wait on him in there because he looks like he's on MTV.
And if you're on MTV, you can't afford anything in Tiffany.
You know, these kind of things happen.
When I walk into Tiffany, it's entirely different.
Don't want to go into it, experience, but regardless.
Yeah, they open the vault and say, you want to go in.
That's, I'm not the focus of this story.
Well, great example.
Newt Gingrich went into Tiffany and ended up, what did he do?
He bought something expensive in there, right?
And there were a bunch of stories.
What's Newt doing in Tiffany?
Newt didn't have that kind of money, wasn't it?
There were.
You're exactly right.
Newt bought his wife something in Tiffany in the store.
Where does he get that kind of money?
He's got no business being in Tiffany.
That was exactly right.
And where was the Tiffany?
Was it in New York?
I don't know.
I don't know where Newt hangs out, but this kind of judgment made by retail people, you know, it happens.
And it may be that the Oprah's version happens to be the truth.
Because there are a bunch of liberals over there making these assessments, making these judgments.
Okay, let's go to the audio soundbites because what?
Why are you asking me?
I don't shop.
Snirdly's asking me, where are the real places that rich people shop that nobody knows about?
I don't know.
You laugh, but Walmart, Kmart, yeah, depends.
If there's a special on BIC pens or batteries, I'm not, you're laughing.
I'm not kidding.
If you got a special on Gillette Fusion Razors, you'll go there.
I don't know.
I don't shop.
I couldn't tell you where the.
Gingrich had a six-figure line of credit at Tiffany, and he owed them between $250,000 and a five.
That's what it was.
He owed them.
That story got out.
People, what business is Newt doing in Tiffany?
Why does Newt have a credit line at Tiffany anyway?
Remember the story?
I think the answer to your question is that the stores go to the rich.
Do you think, for example, that take your favorite rich person, whoever you're thinking about, do you think they actually go into a clothing store and search the racks?
Or is the stuff brought to them?
Or does the tailor go to where they live and measure them and make it send it to them?
Didn't they actually go to these places?
The barber, the massage therapist.
I mean, I think they probably go to the yeah, I think she just should have called from the hotel and said, I'm here.
Would you bring me a sample, some bags?
I want to buy one.
But she made the mistake of going there.
Anyway, I want to go to the audio sound bites here because I'm in them.
You remember that, and this happens to be about the Oprah.
This was yesterday on NPR Here and Now.
A host over there, Robin Young, speaking to the writer at The Guardian, Heidi Moore.
Now, Heidi Moore had a story yesterday about the Oprah and shopping in which there was fat discrimination in addition to racial discrimination.
And this is something that I had brought up before Heidi Moore had written the story.
And that's what this is about.
Robin Young says, now you were saying that race has been cited, and rightfully so, but you also point to another marker of socioeconomic status, and that's weight.
How so?
There have been numerous studies that show that when people judge our status, how much we're able to spend where we are in the social order, they look at our weight, especially for women.
And black women who are of size tend to be seen as lower in socioeconomic status.
And obviously, all of these status markers are unjust.
They can be wrong, as we saw in Oprah's case.
One of the reasons that women of lower socioeconomic status tend to weigh more is that it's very difficult to get healthy food in many neighborhoods that aren't rich.
You realize what a crock that is.
That myth has been so blown up and destroyed.
That's a Michelle Obama myth.
There's a word for that.
There's a phrase.
Food deserts.
That's right.
They came up with food.
It's a myth that the poor, the fat poor, do not have healthy food stores.
That's another one of these myths that the left has put out there.
It's just absurd, and it's been nuked, folks.
It's been nuked by scientists, political scientists, thinkers, and so forth.
People have studied it.
It's just a total lie that the fat poor do not have stores with.
What is healthy food anyway?
I mean, this is just, try to make it something all there are fast food joints in these neighborhoods that you can't go in there and buy a cantaloupe anywhere, or that you can't go in and buy a banana, which is a crock.
Anyway, after Heidi Moore's NPR sounding-like answer, I mean, she sounded like she could work at NPR.
Did you hear that?
Well, there have been numerous studies that show that when people judge our status, how much we're able to spend, where we are in the social order, they look at our weight, and especially for women and black women who are upsize.
I mean, she sounded like she could work at NPR.
So the host Robin Young then reacted to what Heidi Moore here at Series.
Heidi Moore basically said that there was fat racism that had happened to the Oprah.
Well, and we want to be sure, because apparently Rush Limbaugh is using your column today.
You are not saying that it is not about race.
You are saying it was also about race, but we have to look at some of these other factors as well.
Wait, maybe one.
Yeah, so see what happened here.
After she made exactly the same point that I did, I was first with it.
Then Heidi Moore writes about it, and I cite Heidi Moore.
The NPR host jumps in to make sure nobody thinks she's agreeing with me.
Now, wait a minute, Rush Limbaugh said, but you're not saying like Rush Limbaugh said that this is a pigeon, right?
Heidi Moore said, well, of course not.
I mean, who in the world?
Have to draw the distinction.
Here is Chris Jenner, the mother of the Kardashians.
And she is fit to be tied.
Fires back at Obama for criticizing Kim and Kanye's lifestyle.
This is on her syndicated TV show, Chris.
The Kardashian mother has a show.
It's called Chris.
And she, you know, Obama's remarks, he said something about them, their lifestyle, that was not Flattering.
Kids weren't monitoring every day what Kim Kardashian was wearing or Kanye West was going on vacation to think that somehow that was the mark of success.
Obama was really being critical of how much attention they were all getting.
And this is a portion of what the mom Kardashian said.
Kim Kardashian is the hardest working young lady in the world.
She never sleeps.
She never stops.
She never slows down and works so hard for what she's got.
So I started thinking about her 10,000 square foot house and I thought, wow, her job affords her to live in a 10,000 square foot house.
And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that Mr. President's job affords him to live in a 55,000 square foot house.
And the audience applauded.
Yes, the audience was really into it.
Yes, it's all true.
Does everybody say, what is she talking about?
What is Kim Kardashian's job?
Her job is being famous.
And being famous is a hard job.
It's hard work.
And it's afforded her the opportunity to live in a $10,000 house.
You know, Obama's called Kanye West a jackass three times.
And Obama said that he's, you know, people did when he was growing up, he didn't have time to watch lifestyles of the rich and famous.
They weren't monitoring every day what Kim Kardashian was wearing or where Kanye West was going on vacation and thinking that somehow it was the mark of success.
He really ripped into them.
I mean, this is the kind of thing that I've been speaking of.
Everybody's looking for when is Obama going to step at it and tick off the low-information voters.
And I said he might diss the latest Justin Timberlake CD and really tick off a lot of those people.
Well, he has just dissed the Kardashians.
But I don't think that the Kardashians are universally loved at Orden.
And this may not be an example of Obama stepping in it, but it's something like this that I was referring to.
Michael in Raleigh, North Carolina, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I hope you, Catherine, and your family of pets are well.
Thank you very much, sir.
My question is: why don't the Republicans reverse course and instead of defunding Obamacare, fund it, plus add the CBO estimate and say, we will fund everything, but you have to implement everything July, I mean, January 1st, 2014, and put it on his desk.
I think that goes against the message that the Republicans want to send.
Well, some Republicans want to send the message, whether they succeed or not, that they still profoundly object to this whole thing.
But, you know, sometimes you have to punt.
And this time, put it on his desk.
We will fund it, but you can't delay nothing.
No, no, it already is funded.
Oh, well, they can.
This is the point.
It's already funded, and it's supposed to implement.
That is the law.
He's the one changing it.
So you want them to write another law confirming the first law that he is violating in order to illustrate that he's violating the law.
His voters aren't going to care.
I mean, that's where we are.
He's violating it.
He'll just violate that one.
He'll just sign it and say, okay, and then announce some more delays.
Until somebody opposes him on it.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Hillary Clinton was at the American Bar Association annual meeting in San Francisco yesterday.
Well, last night.
And she botched the name of civil rights icon.
Let's go to the audio soundbites for a Hillary Gaffalert.
Now, remember, Hillary is on a new tour that she says is designed to restore trust in government.
Does anybody find it strange that she's doing this while Barack Obama is in the White House, not a Republican?
She's doing this while the Democrats run the show.
Restore Trust in America to her.
Here's what she said.
In 1963 in Jackson, Mississippi, John stepped between angry protesters and armed police to prevent a potential massacre after the murder of Medgar Evans.
Medgar Evans.
What she meant to say there was Medgar Evers.
It was Medgar Evers.
It's another gaffe, another Obama-type gaffe, where the media doesn't even report it when they talk about it.
And if they do mention it, she knew what, she knows who Medgar Evers is.
She just, let's just mispronounced it.
But it reminded me of one of our all-time favorite, and it's tough to pick a real all-time favorite.
So one of our all-time favorite Hillary bites, March 4th, 2007, in Selma, Alabama, at the First Baptist Church.
Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland's great freedom hymn.
I don't feel no ways tired.
I come too far from where I started from.
Nobody told me that the road would be easy.
I don't believe he brought me this far to leave me.
From the grooveyard of forgotten favorites.
I don't feel no way tired.
I come too far.
She is just horrible at this.
But that's not even the point.
The point is that the way the Democrat Party continues to treat African Americans is though we still live in slavery and they, the Democrats, are their only hope.
Spencer in Hisparia, Michigan.
It's great to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Good morning, Rush.
California, Hisparia, California.
I'm calling from.
I love your show.
I think you're a genius.
And I'm calling to tell you about this mandatory philosophy course that I had to take at the university that I go to out here in California.
Wait, anyway, this is a mandatory philosophy course at what university?
California Baptist University.
California Baptist U.
Okay.
Yes.
And so I had to take this course, and we're covering the section on fallacies, which, you know, is like an actual playbook of how to manipulate and deceive people.
We're covering appeal to force, appeal to pity, straw man, red herring, those things.
And I asked the professor, what kind of fallacy is it when you're arguing with a person that no matter how many facts you knock down and how much evidence you give them to defeat their arguments, they always respond with, well, how do you really know?
And, you know, well, how is this not racism?
And they just come up with question after question.
And he laughed and he said, well, that's simple.
That's skepticism.
And I knew what being skeptical was.
I've heard that before, but I didn't know it was an actual type of reasoning.
And he explained that it's actually the opposite of logic.
It is the exact opposite of evidence and facts and having things that support your conclusion.
And this type of mentality, it's the only weapon of the inexperienced.
And this is the same kind of logic that a three-year-old uses or a punk 15-year-old uses.
And now it's the type of reasoning that an entire political party uses.
Precisely.
Skepticism.
I don't believe you.
Screw you.
Who do you listen to?
Where'd you hear that from?
Oh, well, they're all lying skunks.
I don't believe you.
Yeah, the skepticism is now an accepted intellectual position.
And I think that's the thing.
And by the way, being a skeptic is also the mark of somebody who's open-minded.
I think that you have really found a way to truly defeat this.
And it's through ridicule.
You laugh at them.
You laugh at them no more than you would just laugh at a three-year-old.
You wouldn't engage in a long argument with a three-year-old over their inexperience because they can say why, why, how.
And we have a media, a lamestream media, that is completely content with just furthering that skepticism.
They don't care about actual facts.
You're talking about Hillary Clinton and Obama all day.
Just a couple months ago, the Butch Morgan Jr., who was the committee chairman for raising ballots to get them on the 2008 nomination, he was thrown in prison.
He was found guilty of ballot fraud.
That wasn't even uttered in the lamestream media.
But yet we're just hearing more about 2016, whether you like it or not.
Here we come.
Let me give you a little hint.
Next time you find yourself talking to one of these skeptics and people who have adopted skepticism as a legitimate intellectual position to take, one of the most effective ways of dealing, not just with people like that, but really anybody, is never answer their question.
Always respond with a question which keeps them or puts them on the defensive.
Never, even if the answer is a slam dunk, even if they ask you a question that's a hanging curveball that you could knock out of the park, return it with another question questioning them, questioning their honesty, questioning their intelligence, questioning, because that's what they're doing with their skepticism.
They're really challenging you and your mind and your IQ, your knowledge, your belief system.
It's amazing.
And it's hard to do because most people think that the honorable thing can do.
Somebody asks you a question, answer it.
And it is in most cases, but it's fun.
Just never answer questions.
What your answer is always another question back at them.
And therefore, reverse the skepticism on them.
And you become skeptical of them.
You adopt what they think is the lofty perch.
You take it from them.
You become a skeptic right back at them.
You're skeptical of them.
You're skeptical of their question.
Instead of deigning to answer it.
This is the mistake I made when I was first being interviewed when this program was very young and I'd be interviewed I made the incorrect assumption that they really wanted to know the answer they were asking me.
They really wanted to know what I thought about something.
And I thought it was an opportunity to really have them get to know me.
That wasn't what it was about.
It was about them asking questions, trying to pigeonhole me so that they could structure me to their audience in ways they wanted.
So now just.
I totally agree.
Like.
Like you're saying, you know, if you were to engage, like I have, engaged these people and argued with them, because I thought, well, maybe if I could just explain to them why they're wrong, then they'll understand.
But with every one of these people, it's the exact same thing.
You could waste your breath for hours arguing with them with a sick, skeptical question after question after question, only for when you finally have defeated every one of their arguments, they say, so what?
I don't care.
Okay, now, but see, if you have an audience, if you're in a classroom, that's okay.
And then you've got a larger audience that you're trying to persuade, and not them.
They're just foils.
If you're in a one-on-one conversation with them and there's not an audience, a classroom full of people or whatever, just never answer their question.
Throw it right back at them with another question, questioning them.
I guarantee you, it's fun to do, and it'll give you the upper hand.
It works every time it's tried.
But give up on the idea of persuading them.
Give up on the idea of them acknowledging to you that you persuaded them.
That isn't going to happen.
That's not how it works.
Even if you do change their mind, they're never going to admit to you that you did.
So don't ever make that the test of whether or not you're right or whether or not you're persuasive or whether or not you're winning an argument.
They're never.
Most of these people are closed-minded, emotionally driven, non-thinking people.
You're not going to get to them with logic.
You're not going to get to them with fact.
They live in a world they have constructed so that they don't have to face the facts.
They can instead immerse themselves in this cocoon of emotion that makes them feel good.
They don't want the facts if they contradict what they believe.
So you could have every fact.
You could have God in the room with you.
And it wouldn't matter because they're not going to change their mind about things like this.
Not to you anyway.
They're not going to admit that you are smarter than they are.
They're not going to admit that they didn't know something you did.
They're always going to try to make it look like you're an idiot.
You're an extremist.
You're a kook.
So throw that right back at them.
Every time they pepper you with a question, don't answer it.
Just hit them with another question.
Reverse it.
Back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
While we're on to this, let's go to the audio soundbites.
Gosh, I'm torn here.
No, I'd rather talk to Ray than listen to Larry Ellison.
Larry Ellison's on CBS this morning, and he said, we know what Apple's like without Steve Jobs.
We've been there.
We've done that experiment.
He also was in total favor of the NSA spying system.
It's great.
It's a democracy.
We've got to have it.
And he's a total, total Liberal Democrat.
I want to play this stuff for you, but I've got to get this call.
This guy's been on hold a long time.
Ray in Livermore, California.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you.
Thank you, Rush.
It's great having you for 25 years.
I looked at 25 more years of this wonderful programming.
Thank you, sir.
You were talking earlier about Obamacare and the insurance companies making a lot of money off.
This points right back to your Limbaugh theorem again.
When businesses are forced to lay off employees or cut their hours because of this Obamacare, and insurance companies make more money, as you pointed out, Obama is going to point right to that and say, see, the evil capitalist system has done it again.
It's taking advantage of the small man.
And so, healthcare, what I wanted to shoot at, number one, was healthcare is not about health care.
We have to know who Obama is, and he's an Acorn lawyer.
His whole teaching and philosophy is in social justice.
He shoots every single one of his programs through the prism of social justice, how he can move wealth from one group of people to another group of people.
And so, whether it's health care or anything else, he's student loans or whatever his administration is doing.
It's a sophisticated form of redistribution, almost theft.
You know, you're right.
Obama is about taking other people's money because they don't have it in a fair and just way because it's capitalism, which is unjust and unfair.
And anybody who got their money under wealth of capitalism had to cheat somebody.
So, it's only social justice to go get.
I guarantee you, folks, we spent the first hour on the delay of the implementation of some of these consumer cost protections.
Insurance company premium profits, insurance company profits this year because of this delay, are going to skyrocket and they'll be reported.
And Obama will point to them and he'll talk about how unfair capitalism is and move to get this system in place even faster.
I got to run and take a break.
I'm sorry.
Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront today for a climate change agenda put on by Organizing for Action Obama's group.
Not one environmentalist wacko showed up at a climate change rally in D.C. today.
▲
Export Selection