All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
December 19, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time, looks like I'm going to finish the year at 99.7%, almost always.
It's been that way the whole year.
Well, I think it might have gone up one point this year, 99.6.
So we've been at 99.7 for the whole year.
And I've really nailed some really important stuff, but it hasn't moved it up.
At least according to the Sullivan Group, the official opinion auditing firm that I exclusively use here.
Happy to be with you, folks.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Just one more thing on this Phil Robertson business.
There's a piece at Time magazine today by an admittedly homosexual writer by the name of Brandon Ambrosino.
And the headline of the piece is, the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil's.
And he talks about the kind of things he's looking at on Twitter.
And he says a lot of conservatives are making a point about irony.
On the one hand, here's Pope Francis Il Papa, who believes the same stuff Phil Robertson believes, and he's been named man of the year.
And Phil Robertson goes out and says it, and he's got to be dispatched, fired, suspended, destroyed, done away with.
Now, the writer thinks that the comparison doesn't quite hold up because the Pope is not out talking about it the way Phil Robertson was, but can't deny that the belief is there.
But the money quote here that makes the headline is at the end of the piece.
G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry, this is a great definition of bigotry, by the way.
Here it is.
Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.
Now, if G.K. Chesterton is right, and he usually is, then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about gay bigotry than Phil's.
Those are the words of the writer.
They're not my words, Glad.
I just got to make that point.
I'm just reading from the piece.
I changed the tense a little bit, but still, these are the words of Mr. Ambrosino.
Wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
Wait a second.
What do you mean I don't support boycotts?
What are you talking?
Is there a boycott planned?
I don't.
I don't – look, if people want to boycott something, fire away.
I'm just not going to lead one.
I think the people that lead boycotts are showboats and are trying to draw attention to themselves.
That's my problem with boycotts.
They're going to happen or not.
I don't know.
I believe in the free market, the unfettered trickle-down of the free market.
But really, this definition of bigotry is pretty good.
An incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.
Closed-mindedness.
Closed-mindedness, rigidity, bigotry.
And this guy's saying, this knee-jerk, predictable, slapjacket result in the gay community.
I mean, he even asks earlier in the piece, let me see if it's a poll quote.
The point is worth considering.
Even though Phil used crass juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual desire is unnatural and inherently disordered.
This opinion isn't unique to him.
It's actually shared by a majority of his fans, including shared by the Pope.
But then the question is, he asks it somewhere in this piece.
Why does every time this happen, why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them?
Why do we dismiss rather than engage them?
This is, again, the words of the writer.
That's the subheadline, in fact.
And that was the question I was asking in the first hour, specifically the first half hour.
Look at, if you don't believe in God because there isn't one, if you don't believe in morality or sin because you don't believe it exists, why get so worked up about it?
But more to the point, why you have to shut people up?
That's what the left does.
Not just militant gays, the entire left.
I don't care where they come from, the unions, from the White House, the feminists.
I don't care who they are.
That's the whole point.
They don't want a level playing field.
They want to eliminate all opposition.
And the reason is real simple.
Human nature, opposition threatens them.
I firmly believe that most of these people on the left construct an artificial world that's made up in their minds of the way they want it.
Utopia.
And anything that reminds them there isn't utopia, got to shut it up.
Got to get rid of whoever's talking about it.
Got to embarrass and humiliate and discredit anybody because they're living in their little cocoons and they concoct this little utopian dream and desire.
And then when reality gets anywhere near it, whoever is articulating the reality has got to go.
They simply cannot handle opposition.
That's why I say over and over, they can't beat us in the arena of ideas and they know it.
They're not even interested in the arena of ideas.
They just want to eliminate opposition.
That's what Obama's.
What the hell do you think it is when a guy like John Podesta, who is heralded as one of the greatest leftist political strategists and operatives ever, when he likens the House Republicans to the Jonestown cult?
And whenever a Democrat says what he really thinks, everybody on the left, well, you know, that's just a gaff.
That was just a flub.
No, it isn't.
They tell us what they really think.
And that's what he, that's, that's the way they look at the House Republicans.
And they don't want to engage them.
They don't want to negotiate byparts.
They want to eliminate them.
That is their strategy, Mr. Ambrosino.
I'll be glad to answer your question for you in your subhead.
Now, Podesta says, well, yeah, look, and I made that comment in a magazine interview.
That was a few weeks ago.
So it really doesn't matter.
So somebody should get to Phil Robertson and say, hey, you know, I made my comment.
I was in a magazine last week.
And that was last week.
I did that interview months ago.
I don't even know.
Try it and see if he gets away with it.
Phil Robertson could no more use every technique the left uses to absolve themselves of any responsibility for what they do or say and get away with it than I could.
But they give themselves an album.
They eventually will always tell us who they really are.
Podesta just did it here.
Well, no, no, come on.
You really believe that.
Nobody really thinks that Podesta really believes Australia GOP's Jonestown Coat.
Yes, he does.
I firmly believe because he reacts to Republicans with hate.
Bigotry, you name it.
I think that's all on the left.
I think there's any question about it.
Latest Fox News poll gives Obama a 41% approval rating among registered voters.
But how about this?
Only 37% of voters under 30 approve of the job the president's doing.
That's a 17-point decline, folks, in one year among voters who represent what was once the core of the Obama coalition.
These are the people to whom the president's making an increasingly frantic plea to enroll in Obamacare with that sick, sorry, yes, sick pajama boy ad.
Do you know where you can get that?
Somebody says, somebody's going through the Target, well, you can actually buy that onesie, that Target that the Pajama Boy's wearing in that ad.
You actually buy it.
It's a one-piece pajama thing that the Pajama Boy's wearing.
That, you say, what, man?
You have to understand something.
It's like I told you yesterday, the Julia ad was a home run for them, for the people it was aimed at.
That Julia was who single American women think of themselves as.
I guarantee you, they did this Pajama Boy ad because in their minds, that's who their male supporters are.
And I guarantee you, that is who is posting at Democrat Underground.
These little kids in their pajamas, they're the ones that are all fed up and outraged and angry and sitting there posting all these comments at all these left-wing websites.
That's who they are.
Well, daunting.
I think they're cute.
I like them, but not for boys.
Well, a boy was wearing one.
And I'm telling you, that's how the regime sees their male supporters.
You think I once had somebody ask me, young person who was looking at some old automobiles, Model T's, Model A's, and some of the Bonnie and Clyde era type cars.
Why did they make them so ugly?
They weren't ugly.
They thought back then that that was the pinnacle of style.
They did.
Yeah.
Just like you today go out the latest new model car.
You think that's the one you like?
I mean, that's it.
That's rad.
That is great.
That's great styling.
That's what they thought back then.
I'm telling you, that's what Obama thinks.
The people that run the Obama campaign and Moochiell and everybody else trying to get young people to sign up, that's how they see young American male population.
That's who they are.
That's who they want them to be, and that's who they're trying to reach.
That's exactly.
And by the way, those guys exist.
They are all over the place.
You can sit there snirdly and think, my God, These people are idiots who they think.
There are a lot of those guys out there.
There are a lot of them.
You think they're going to run an ad that relates to two people?
They've done their market research.
That pajama boy is who they want to reach.
That's the kind of guy they think exists.
That's the kind of guy they want to be leading the charge for Obamacare.
That's the kind of man that they see as their male support population.
I guarantee you.
You think they're designing an ad for one or two people?
Do you think they're trying to insult people?
No, I don't think we could have won World War II with Pajambo.
That's...
But that's a good point.
But are you missing what I'm saying?
I don't you let me tell you something.
Okay, well, who are we talking about here?
We're talking about the Democrat Party.
They have some of the most adept pollsters, focus groupers, advertising wizards, and so forth.
Do you think, just serious question, just looking at Pajambo, but do you think that they are purposely going to concoct an image of an American man that they know is only two, five, what, eight percent of the population, 10%, whatever the number is.
They think that they are reaching a majority of the men open to their message with that ad.
You look at that ad and you think, oh my God, if that's America, we're screwed.
Oh my God, how could we ever win World War II if that's the American man today?
The answer is: I've always told you, advertising will tell you where the country is.
The people who are in charge of separating people from their money will tell you.
I mean, the good ones at it.
They identify where we are culturally and they are able to put together spots, advertise, whatever, to relate to it.
But my only point, the Democrat Party and the Obama regime, they're not going to concoct an ad that represents a tiny majority of people.
They're out to get people signing up for Obamacare.
They think they're reaching gazillions with that ad, just like they thought they were with the Julia cartoon.
That's who they want the American male population to be.
That's what that ad means.
It also means that's who they think the American male population is.
It's both.
They think they're relating to the majority of young men with that ad.
In addition, they want the majority of young men to relate to that ad, to feel like they could be in that ad.
Why else run it?
They're trying to get people to sign up.
That's who they are.
That's what they want the world to look like.
That's what they want American manhood to be.
What?
Panic if you want.
I'm just telling you, that's you look at it.
I made the mistake that you're making with the Julie ad.
I looked at that and I said, people are going to laugh at this ad left and right.
And what I missed was that every single woman that saw that ad related to it and felt like somebody understood her situation and how to improve it.
Well, Pajama Boy, I guarantee you, some of these little freckle-faced, whatever they are in their basements, wearing these onesies, posting all that hate, Democrat websites, they're going to see that, and they're going to think Obama knows me.
Obama gets me.
Obama knows who I am.
They're trying to get him.
They're not running that ad to offend people.
They're not running that ad to laugh at people.
They think that ad is going to encourage the people they want, young men, to sign up for Obamacare.
All right, take a break, folks.
Sit tight.
We'll be back.
Back to the phones we go.
El Rushbo to Somerset, Wisconsin.
Hello, Dave.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Honored to speak to you, sir.
Thank you very much.
Just a quick, quick vlog for 2FIT.
I, like you, wasn't a tea drinker until I discovered 2FIT, and now every time I buy it, I can't keep enough in the house.
I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you so much.
It is.
It's the best iced tea in the country.
There's no question.
I'm happy to have your endorsement.
Very tasteful.
I just wanted to say that I think Phil Robertson knew what he was doing.
I know you said you didn't watch the show, so a quick overview on it.
The end of every show, the family gets together for a big sit-down meal.
They give a couple of life lessons, and then Phil does a prayer.
And about a year ago, I think it was, AE and I suppose part of the liberals tried to shut him down from doing the prayer every day at the end of the show.
Yes, I've since learned that.
You're right.
Every show ends in a prayer before family dinner said by Phil.
And then Willie, who is the CEO of the Duck Commander outfit, gives a little homily that's reflected in the entertainment portion of the show.
And AE has been trying to get him to stop that.
AE has been asking him not to mention Jesus and not to pray.
You're right.
And he told them that if he didn't mention Jesus and pray, they were going to take the show elsewhere.
And AE decided that the show was more important at that point.
So you'd be curious to see what happens now.
Yeah, I'm not one of these people, folks, that think Phil got, what's the word?
I'm having a mental block on the way.
He didn't get tricked by Jeek.
I guess it's possible he didn't know who they are, but somebody had to tell him.
Somebody said, Phil, why are you doing this?
Anyway, but this, just one final thing on this Pajama Boy, folks, you have to understand here, the regime is living in a bubble.
The regime is full of men who are Pajama Boy.
That's who they are, folks.
They think that is America.
They think America looks like them, but it doesn't.
So what they're really doing is marketing to themselves, and that's why it isn't working.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbos, serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Okay, just a couple of more things on Pajama Boy because I've opened up a loop here that I want to close.
This ad, the Julia cartoon ad and the Pajama Boy ad, you have to understand that is who the regime is.
This administration is filled with guys who used to be Pajama Boy.
They think they are America.
Certainly, not one of them has worked in the private sector.
Not one of them.
They're all academicians, theorists, professors.
They're all people that congregate at the academy.
They sit around and theorize, and they're filled with resentment for everybody.
Actually, it does something.
They're smarter than everybody else.
If only they had a chance to run it, they would show everybody.
They could do health care better than the people doing it.
They could run the car companies better than the people doing it.
They could run energy better than the people in the oil business.
They could run drugs better than it.
They could do everything better.
They're smarter than everybody, but nobody would ever hire them because they've never done anything.
So they congregate in universities in the faculty lounge and they end up getting to know each other and they have all these networks where they congregate and become like-minded people.
And I guarantee you, they run that ad.
They think they are mass marketing.
They are arrogant enough to believe that they are America.
I mean, there should be no question about it.
Look how when somebody in the media goes to Texas or anywhere in flyover country, they look out of place.
They don't understand.
Remember, John Kerry, when he was running for president in 2004, tried to come off as he thinks hunters are.
So he was in either Indiana or Ohio, and he walked into a place to get a hunting license.
And this was so peckly obvious.
John Kerry walks into this place, and I'm sure that he thinks going in there there's nothing but a bunch of stupid hicks, backwoods, tobacco chewing just idiots in there.
He walks in and he says, Is this where I get me a hunting license?
Because that's what he thinks.
That's how he thinks they are.
So he was trying to pass himself off as one.
And in his mind, it was, I'm sure, a huge come down.
But I mean, is this where I get me a hunting license?
He was trying to relate to the people he thinks are inferior.
But on election day, it matters that they exist because they vote.
So he's out there trying to relate.
That's who these people are.
They're academicians.
They're theoreticians.
They sit around.
They're arrogant.
They think they're smarter and better than everybody else.
And if only they had the chance to prove it, they could show everybody.
And so they've had the chance for five years.
And where are we?
They don't have anybody with any practical experience, but they run this ad, they put this ad together.
They think they are America, but they're wrong.
They think America looks like them.
They think they look like America.
That's why Obamacare is a disastrous rollout.
They do not know how to market to people.
They know how, as leftists, to get their votes, but they don't know how to make them part with their money happily.
I'm just, I don't, I know I'm making a bigger deal out of this than many really think it deserves time-wise, but I just, this pajama ad guy, that's who they are, and that's who they think you are.
There is no other conclusion.
They're not purposely targeting to what they think is a minority of people.
They're trying to get gazillions of young people to sign up to Obamacare.
I mean, Michelle Obama's out there suggesting that everybody's New Year's resolution ought to be to sign up.
Grab it.
I've got the soundbite.
It's the last one, or the second, the last one I just got.
I don't know the number.
I can't keep track of this.
So number 24.
Soundbite number 24.
This is, she's on a radio show this morning, and this is what she said about it.
This act provides a safety net for millions and millions of Americans.
But we have to take the next step to go check it out, check it out, sign up, and make sure that we're covered.
That should be our new year's resolution.
Okay, so they run an ad.
What are you doing in this cold December day?
You're drinking hot chocolate, thinking about Obamacare.
Now it's got to be your New Year's resolution.
You think, you know, we sit here and laugh at it, but I'm telling you, they're dead serious.
That's how they think they can relate to and motivate and move a bunch of people.
And the reason Obamacare, one of the many reasons that it's a disaster, is because they don't know who America is and they don't know how to market it and they don't know that people don't want it.
They want it, so they think everybody should want it.
If they were really smart, they would have the Duck Dynasty guys helping them enroll people for Obamacare.
And if Obama was really a unifier, he would intercede here on behalf of AE and Phil Robertson and try to broker and put it all back together to convey and illustrate his skills and unity.
But it didn't happen because Obama is happy the guy got canned.
Just like every other leftist is.
Okay, changing directions, switching gears, as they say, ladies and gentlemen.
James Dellingpole, writing in I Don't Know What did not print out, but I've heard the name Dellingpole, and I know he's got credibility.
The bottom line is that passive smoking, i.e., for those of you in Riolinda, secondhand smoke, does not give you lung cancer.
Now, this is something that I, El Rushbo, have known instinctively my whole life.
Ever since the anti-smoking zealots got geared up, they have tried to pass off this silly idea that secondhand smoke can cause cancer as well.
And it's always been laughable.
Just the tiniest bit of common sense will tell you it couldn't.
But there were enough people made to be scared enough about it that believed it.
But there's a new report publicized by Are You Ready? The American Cancer Institute, which will come as no surprise to anyone with a shred of integrity or decency, intelligence who's looked into the origins of the environmental tobacco smoke crisis.
It was 10 years ago, the British Medical Journal published the results of a massive long-term survey into the effects of secondhand smoke.
Do you remember we had that survey and it got buried?
We publicized it.
UN any number, there was no danger whatsoever attached to secondhand smoke.
Might not like it.
It might make you uncomfortable.
It was not and did not and could not make you sick.
And it got buried.
Between 1959 and 1989, two American researchers surveyed no fewer than 118,000 Californians.
They were anti-smoking campaigners themselves.
They began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a socially damaging habit smoking was.
Their names are Jeffrey Cabat and James Enstrom.
Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the Anti-Smoking Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program.
At least it was at first.
But then something rather embarrassing happened.
Much to their surprise, Cabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, no matter how intense or prolonged, created zero, significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.
Now, again, important to remember, the two guys that started this research were fervent anti-smoking zealots, and they were able to prove that second-hand smoke killed.
And it didn't take them long to find out.
Not only did it not kill anybody, it didn't matter.
It didn't make anybody sick.
And then similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organization, which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between secondhand smoking and lung cancer was not statistically significant.
That got buried, but we have always kept it available.
We can bring it back to life anytime we want at rushlimbaugh.com.
So now we've got three different studies now proving that there is no cancer risk, no heart disease risk to secondhand smoke.
Now you might be saying, so what, Rush, if people still don't like it, what are you trying to tell us to bring back smoking in public?
No, no, I'm not that unrealistic.
Again, the lesson here is that you were lied to by a bunch of leftist busybodies, lied to in order to be forced to live your life the way they wanted to.
You were being denied freedom.
You were being lied to and manipulated into believing something that wasn't true so as to impact the way you and everybody else lives.
And you were converted into a member of the army of the anti-smoking who would go out and harass anybody else who smoked.
You were lied to to further the lies of a bunch of zealots.
That's the important point here.
And who are these people?
they're leftists.
I don't care whether you're Phil Robertson or whoever, if they will try.
They will do whatever.
They will lie to you, but their attempt, their effort is to control the way you live and what you think.
Now there's medical news today that I kid you not, an apple is more effective than statins on whatever statins do.
What was it?
What are statins?
Cholesterol?
What are statins for?
Cholesterol and an apple.
Medical research.
I got the news.
It's a news story.
An apple a day, far more effective than whatever prescription medicine you're taking.
But apples don't come with prescriptions and doctors can't be paid to tell you to eat one.
Well, I guess they could, but who's going to do it?
And you can't eat apples because Meryl Streeps are putting LR on them, which is killing our kids.
Big story on 60 Minutes.
This stuff just, I don't know.
It's a boogaboo with me, folks, because the left is made up of busybodies or worse who do you realize how many people are going through life believing things that aren't true and it's affecting their enjoyment of life.
It's affecting the way they raise their kids.
It's affecting the way they live themselves.
It's so unnecessary.
That's what bugs me about it.
I'll take a break.
Yeah, because it does.
Well, that's for another day.
I was going to talk about cigars and cigar smoking, but I'm not going to make this personal.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones.
This is Rich in Lansing, Michigan.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's real honor.
And also Merry Christmas to you and Catherine.
Thank you so much.
I wanted to weigh on in a Phil Robertson thing.
In my experience, I have found that if somebody has an opinion and they truly believe it in their heart of hearts, whether it's with the mainstream or against it, they're going to hang on to it.
They'll discuss it with people, maybe try to convert someone to their way of thinking.
But in the end, if it's not affecting them directly, they're going to live and let live.
If, on the other hand, if conversely, a person is espousing an opinion that they really don't believe in, but it's because it's the party line, it's politically incorrect or whatever, they've got to shut people up because every time they hear the dissenting idea, it reminds them that they're lying to themselves.
And so the more people they can recruit to their side, then it makes it easier for them to believe that what they're saying is true when they really don't believe it.
I think you're on to something.
It's akin to the point I made earlier that these people concoct a world that is a dream.
It's a utopia.
Only they have a combination of thinking it exists and hoping for it to exist.
And they construct their lives in the belief that it does exist.
And then it doesn't.
So they see evidence of that and it just upsets their world.
And they can't handle that.
And so whoever is responsible for upsetting the dream has got to be shut up or dispatched or what have you.
I mean, the left, liberals do not believe in live and let live on any subject.
They are not tolerant.
They don't have any.
They don't practice it.
There is no tolerance on the left whatsoever.
It has got to comport and conform to what they think or whoever is in trouble.
But I know what you're saying.
Their little belief system is made up of things they know that aren't true, but they want them to be.
And eventually they convince themselves that it is a utopia out there, at least in their little, you know, and something comes along and happens and the imperfection of man ends up being illustrated and it just disappoints them and shocks them and angers them.
And don't want to have to face that reality.
So start calling whoever it is that upset their worldview names and destroy their character and reputation to get rid of them so that nobody else will believe them.
So I get what you say.
These are people who basically cannot face the truth.
And in the process, they construct a little dream world.
Now, by the way, this is not the leaders of the left.
Obama and these guys, they're not.
I'm talking about their brainwashed voters and followers.
There are many different degrees of leftists.
And I'm not talking about the leaders.
I'm talking about the pajama guys.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Let me give you an illustration of what I'm talking about.
The LA Times has just banned all comments on their website that even question global warming.
They just don't want to hear it anymore.
If you don't think global warming is happening, you don't exist.
They're going to let you upset their worldview.
Same thing at Reddit.
Reddit has just implemented a ban on all comments that even question the validity of man-made global warming.
▲
Export Selection