All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
January 27, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Greetings, my friends.
Greetings and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program in the EIB network.
I might have a screw loose here on the microphone.
Not me, this is the microphone.
Yeah, there we go.
There we go.
Great to have you here, folks.
Another full week.
Let's see, is it a full week?
Yep, another full week of broadcast excellence.
And we're ready and a loaded here, revved up.
Great to have you.
L Rushbow at 800-282-2882 and the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay.
So I get the audio soundbite roster today from Cookie.
I actually get an email before I get the rosters.
You know you're back.
They're talking about you all weekend long.
And in these sound bites, folks, this is about the president calling me out along with Fox News last week in the New Yorker magazine.
They went to a bunch of these media types in the audio sound bites, and they all say he's justified.
They all say the president is seriously agitated with me.
This is not just talk.
He is really, really agitated.
It is his president's frustration is very real.
The president has accepted reality.
It's amazing.
Four or five of these sound bites.
So we've got we've got that coming up.
Um we also have the State of the Union.
State of the coup.
I think that is what we need to call this.
It's not the state of the union, the state of the coup.
That look that's between you and me, folks.
Shh, don't tell the media.
That is a tweak.
Let me tell you what's going to happen.
I just call it the state of the coup.
Now the media is not listening here.
They never do.
They will hear that I said this on another website.
Take your pick, Daily Cause Media Matters.
They will be outraged.
And then later this afternoon or tonight or tomorrow, they will stay how reprehensible, how horrible.
What does this guy think he is?
It's not a banana republic.
This isn't this is offensive.
President's right to be concerned, get this guy on the radio calling it the state of the coup.
And when that happens, you will know that you are in on the joke.
Just between us.
Because as I say, the media is not listening now.
They never do.
They will not go to my website to find out about this.
They will hear about it third way and be appropriately outraged.
So we'll just stick with it all day here.
We'll just for the fun of it call a state of the coup.
Plus, it has the added benefit of kind of works.
Doesn't it?
And you know what the theme of the state of the coup is?
Inequality.
The president is going to complain and whine and moan about inequality.
Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, poverty is not the result of income or wealth inequality.
Do you Yeah, well.
Now that you may think big rush, that's not anything special.
A lot of people to whom that is going to be a controversial statement, Mr. Snerdley.
There are going to be a lot.
What do you mean inequality isn't due to poverty?
What do you mean poverty doesn't cause inequality?
What do you think does?
And therein lies the answer to the big question.
Here's another one for you.
No, I don't think you should be laughing about this at all.
This is his route.
This is his route to further punish achievement to stigmatize it, to stigmatize the rich.
You hear about this guy, uh one of these big venture capitalist guys from uh California, San Francisco.
Uh name is Peters.
I think it's Peters.
This was going to be at the top of the stack until the rest of the showbiz stuff started rolling in.
This guy wrote a piece, uh, a letter to the editor.
His name is um uh Perkins, Tom Perkins, and he's part of a venture capital firm called Kleiner Perkins.
He's 80.
Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Buyers.
And the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece on uh college speech and censorship, and he wrote an op-ed, uh, a letter to the editor in response to that op ed in which he compared the left's demonizing of the rich to the Nazis demonizing the Jews.
And as you could probably understand, the left is in an absolute tizzy over this.
This guy is the husband of the noted author Daniel Steele.
He's also ticked off about the way she is treated by the San Francisco Chronicle.
He hates the San Francisco Chronicle.
Let me read to you from his letter to the editor.
It ran Saturday.
From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich, embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.
I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful 1%.
There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying tech workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them.
We have outrage over the rising real estate prices, which these techno geeks can pay.
We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the chronicle on our number one celebrity, the author Danielle Steele happens to be his wife, alleging that she is a snob despite the millions that she spent on our city's homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.
This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking.
Crystal Knox was unthinkable in 1930.
Is its descendant progressive radicalism unthinkable now?
So he is comparing the Occupy movement, the demonization of the rich, and the radicalism of inequality.
Exactly what the press is talking about as being the equivalence of the Nazis rousting the Jews from their homes under cover of darkness and taking from them everything they had and then kicking them out of their homes.
Well, I don't need to tell you how this is being reacted to.
Well, he's demented, he's 80.
What do you expect?
He's an old-fashioned guy.
He's one of these guys that says to young kids, get off my lawn.
They're portraying that, and then they're asking, why would he do this?
And then they're asking of the journal, why would the journal publish this?
And you know why it stands out?
Excuse me.
One of the reasons it stands out made news is we've talked about it here, the rich do not defend themselves.
When they're under assault, they shut up.
They don't ever complain.
This is viewed as complaining, and it's just, it's it's considered taboo.
Uh socially unacceptable for the rich to complain about anything.
And uh, you know, the tech blogs that I read, they were just all over this, everybody shocked and stunned, because these people that I read all love the Occupy movement.
They think it's real, they think it's genuine.
But should you be concerned about Obama and the theme of the state of the coup address being inequality?
Damn right you should be.
You couple that with Obama's stated desire and willingness to say the heck with Congress, and he's gonna go around them and do whatever.
That was that statement that he made when he said he had a phone, he had a pen, and he doesn't care about Congress, was made during a comment on inequality.
So the fact that it's his theme, he's just ratcheting up the class warfare, and what these guys do is demonize success and demonize achievement.
I've always thought that maybe they should be role models.
They're hard workers.
I mean, the rich in your neighborhood, they're the people you want your kids to emulate.
In fact, if you're pursuing the American dream, they are the ones you want.
They are the ones everybody emulates, whether they admit it or know it or not.
But now we're demonizing them for the advancement of a political party.
So I have an idea.
You know, I'm all about solutions here.
And I uh I want to help the president because the president looks at me as an impediment.
He looks at me as a rival.
I'm the reason.
And it's been substantiated by people in the media.
It has been justified, his feeling about me has been explained and justified by people in the media.
And so I want to help.
I'm the reason that Republicans are not open to his ideas.
I am the reason that the Republican base will not accept Obama's policies, solutions, and ideas.
So in the state of the coup, we are going to hear about the disparities and the inequalities economically from one group to the next.
And how do we fix it?
And I want to use a technique that I have learned and observed over the years about the Democrat Party and the left.
Whenever they see inequality, and don't doubt me on this, you know this is true.
When they see, for example, let's look at education.
You've got A students, and you've got students not doing so well.
How do they solve that?
They bring everybody down.
It's exactly right.
Outcome-based education, and they tell the people that don't know that two plus two is four, that it's whatever they think it is, it's fine.
I'm going to humiliate you.
The people who know that two plus two is four get penalized.
The various gaps in performance or income are always resolved by lowering those at the top, and that is called fairness.
That is called equality.
In the case of education, we eliminate courses and structures for fast learners, advanced students.
We slow them down so that they do not leapfrog so far ahead of those who don't do well.
In the case of income, we raise the taxes of people who do well, and we take more from them, and then we demonize them.
The left, in every circumstance, every disparity where there are haves and have nots, achievers and failures, successful and unsuccessful, the left never attempts to elevate those at the bottom.
Because the left assumes that those at the bottom are there forever and will never be able to escape it.
So the idea is to provide for them as best we can keep them dumb and happy independent, but dependent, not independent, but dumb, happy, and dependent.
And at the same time, we lower those at the top so the gap narrows.
They never ever elevate from the bottom.
They never even talk about elevating from the bottom.
Well, Obama, that's the he will talk about hard work paying off the American dream.
He doesn't mean it.
It's just lip service because he knows that most Americans fervently still believe in that and want to believe that their president believes in it, even though he doesn't.
So my idea, proposed here in advance of the president's stated the coup address.
It's tomorrow night, right?
Okay, here we go.
To ensure equal beginnings for young people just out of high school and just out of college.
Because that's what we're talking about.
Equality, right?
We must eliminate inequality.
We must make sure that the starting point is the same for everybody, correct?
Nobody's going to have an advantage over anybody.
Nobody is going to have a leg up.
Nobody is, and when we get to the outcome end of things, we're going to try to make that as fair and equal as possible, right?
Why else would you want to attack inequality?
I mean, where does inequality rear its head?
The outcome of things.
How do people end up?
That's where a word is.
So my idea to Ensure equal beginnings for 20 somethings in the job market.
All teenagers will be required to get high on the drug of their choice.
They will be required to play video games.
They will be required to remain jobless during summer breaks.
They will not be allowed to do internships at companies which are really nothing more than indoctrination camps, as are high school and college.
If we're going to equalize things, we we cannot using the Democrat method.
Some people get jobs in the summer, some people do internships.
Some people don't play video games, some people stay sober.
That's not fair.
Those people get ahead of the others.
We must make sure everybody starts the same.
And using the president's own philosophy, we start everybody at the same by defining as normal the least successful among us.
So every 20-something, starting out, gets high, plays video games, doesn't work.
This is equal.
This is equality.
And it doesn't humiliate those who are high, because everybody will be.
It doesn't humiliate those who don't have a job, because no one will have one.
It doesn't humiliate anybody playing video games, because everybody will be.
It doesn't humiliate anyone from having an internship, because no one will.
That's the starting point, because equal outcomes require and begin with equal preparation.
Because equality is so important, and because the Democrat Party never, ever seeks to elevate people into the higher levels, the higher reaches of success and achievement.
So they lower those at the top.
We will do, in my program, what the Democrats do every day.
We will punish the achievers.
We will punish the responsible.
We will make it harder on those who do not get high, who do not play video games all day, who do not watch television all day.
And we will make them do exactly what everybody else is doing, i.e.
nothing.
So that we have an equal starting point.
Does this sound fair?
Forget, forget, folks, forget the substance.
I just, does this sound fair?
Does this sound equal?
Most definitely does.
And besides, it fills the bill, because it punishes those with a head start.
And those with a head start are those who got good grades.
That's not fair.
It punishes those who want to go out and get summer jobs.
That's not fair, because not everybody can.
It punishes those who do not waste their time getting high or doing video games.
We're going to make sure everybody starts at the same point.
And, of course, those who are getting high, playing video games, and not working, that's the Democrat base.
And the president wants everybody to become a member of the Democrat base.
That's how we're going to do it.
My offer to help here.
Taking what I've learned about the Democrat Party and how they fix problems like this.
And this is this is what's great about socialism communism.
Opportunity is for the ruling class, not the slubs.
Obama's kids, they will have a free road to success.
And so will Schumer's kids.
Equal outcomes begin with equal preparation.
Because equality is so important.
Something else we will do.
We have the data.
We know that marriage, not always, but but generally way more than not, predicts better outcomes for kids than those from single households.
And that's a biggie.
Kids from two-parent households statistically achieve more, go further.
They just do.
I mean, it's in the data.
I'm not making it up.
I'm not biased about it.
It's and at the same time, it's not fair because not everybody has a two-parent family.
Some people come from single parent homes.
Is it fair?
Is it equal?
And so we might want to look at, if we're going to remember now that equal outcomes begin with equal preparation.
And the Democrat way is to make sure everybody starts at the same level, which is in the gutter.
So maybe parents, kids with two parents will have to lose one of the parents.
As part of the deal.
No, no, ladies and gentlemen, all I'm trying to point out is that the Democrat Party's America is defined by our lowest common denominator.
Because you see, the lowest common denominator, the people that are in the lowest common denominator group, they're victims.
They're only there because the achieved and the successful and the wealthy have prevented them from ever becoming something.
It's not that they don't try.
It's not that they don't make any effort.
It's not that they don't study.
It's not that they are industrious.
They just they're victims.
And that's why we're going to define America.
This is what the Democrat Party's done for years.
The Democrat Party doesn't look at the successful and point to them as role models.
They are suspects.
The real America, look at you know this as well as I'm saying, if you just have the courage to admit it, the real America is the dregs.
The real America are all of the disadvantaged, and they're disadvantaged for nothing they've done.
No reason.
They have no responsibility for it whatsoever.
They're all victims.
This is how the Democrat Party justifies its existence in its policies.
The Democrat Party wouldn't be needed if they ever stood for people elevating themselves from current circumstances.
The Democrat Party has shown they can't do it.
People have been voting Democrat for years are no better off for it than they've ever been.
We've spent trillions trying, and all it's done is destroy people and their ambition and their lives and their families.
What was the number I saw?
What was the real it's 20 trillion since the Great Society of 1964 that we've redistributed?
Stop and think about it.
This is what really issue by issue, day by day.
When you look at the Democrats, you listen to them, you hear their policies, hear the president talk about inequality.
Isn't it the case?
You know it.
It's undeniable.
To them.
America is not exceptional, A. It's not special.
It's unfair.
It's filled with injustice.
It's filled with inequality.
And the guilty are the responsible.
The guilty are those who've taken life seriously.
The guilty are those who've worked hard.
The guilty are those who have tried.
To the Democrats, they haven't done that.
They have benefited from tricks, chicanery, inheritance.
Game is rigged.
Life's lottery.
They were the lucky ones.
They won in life's lottery.
They have no responsibility, or very little for their own success.
You look at this is who they are.
If you get down to nitty gritty, this is what bugs you about Democrats when you listen to it.
Forget individual policies.
It's this overall view of the country that they have and then the policies that flow from that.
So I'm simply trying to illustrate here and help the president.
He's going to stated a coup address tomorrow night, and he's going to talk about inequality.
And in his view, the inequality is owing to the people at the upper levels Of whatever money, achievement, success, grades, you name it.
They have to be penalized.
They have to be lowered.
They have to be brought down.
I'm simply saying, let's, and they talk about level playing field, my idea is it.
Did you watch a Grammys last night?
Snerdley, you missed it.
I have to, folks, I gotta tell you something.
I'm beginning to think this is a quick Grammy takeaway.
I ended up having to watch the Grammy opening a little bit.
I have, you know, this weekend, I had tech problems in everything except my iPhone and iPads.
Well, no, I had one of my iPad.
Printers here all screwed up, printers at home are all screwed up.
Every remote control for my audio video system at home, blown, not working.
It's just a total mess.
It's a total breakdown, total melt.
So I had to find workarounds.
And the only way I had no work around uh took me 15 minutes just to turn on my TV last night.
It took me 15 minutes to turn on the TV and to have audio for it.
Now, I don't really have a TV, but for all intents and purposes, it it takes 30 seconds, normally.
It took 15 minutes last night, and a bunch of trips to the projection room and back the equipment rack and back and forth, and it was a mess.
And the projection room, the projector is, yeah, to the projector where the projector is.
I've got it's it's a it's a rear screen projector, it's in its own room back anyway.
Yet's the room behind the screen, where anybody's everybody's got a projector's got a projection room unless they hang it on the ceiling, and you don't want to do that.
That's that's crap.
I mean, that's that's not the optimal, not optimal.
Anyway, when I finally got it on, it came on to CBS.
Uh, and the Grammys were on.
And we were doing some things at the same time.
But I was watching the Grammys in a corner of my eye, and something hit me about the Grammys.
Say whatever you want about them.
And I, you know, they did the mock, gay marriage, mass gay marriage ceremony, and they did all that.
But but nevertheless, and and make nomas look, I know what the Grammys are.
All of these award shows, you know what they really are?
I find this fascinating.
These award shows, be it the Oscars, be it the Golden Globes, be it to People's Choice, be it the only thing that's not the CMAs, the CMAs are real.
The country musical, but this, the Grammys.
What this basically is these people in these industries getting together to make fun of their audience.
They basically try to shock and impugn people in flyover country.
They make fun of them.
That's half of what those shows are.
The risque, the uh, you know, just crossing the line.
They're just they're they're trying to offend the straight laced in their audiences, so that they can all be part of the joke at the after party.
I think I've got this down pat.
This is really about making fun of their audience.
Really about jamming their audiences.
But despite all of that, at least these award shows have some substance.
They do showcase individuals who have become popular genuinely.
Their popularity stems from selling something people wanted and liked.
Their popularity comes from offering content that mass numbers of people are willing to buy or obtain.
And that is a stark contrast to politics.
There is far more, even though we make fun of it here, and even though we laugh at it and take our shots at it, there is far more substance in showbiz than politics.
As you know, as I've always said, politics is showbiz For the ugly.
And their Academy Awards is the White House Correspondence Dinner every May in the Grand Ballroom, the Hilton Hotel.
And I think they ought to take a page from the Grammys and the Academy Awards and the People's Choice Awards and the Golden Globes and totally change the format of the White House Correspondence Dinner.
Because what they're doing, the White House Correspondence Dinner is totally phony.
There's no substance to it at all.
It's a bunch of people who don't like each other getting together in a room one night a year, acting like they do like each other.
There's no substance in the White House Correspondence Dinner.
The things that are real, they're dividing the country, the things that separate people, not even discussed or talked about except maybe by the comedian in the entertainment of the night.
But it's phony.
You know the uh the partisanship, the rancor, the disagreements.
It's never on display when the people in politics do their Academy Awards.
So I think what they ought to do is totally change the format for the White House Correspondence Dinner.
I would love to see, and I would watch this.
I might even attend this one.
I haven't been since the early 90s.
I think there ought to be actual awards, trophies in various categories.
Biggest fraud of the year.
Best recovery from a scandal in the past year.
Largest secret donor contributions learned and uncovered in the past year.
Biggest successful under the pay under the table payoff.
Most insincere apology of the past year.
Wouldn't you would you not like if the White House Correspondence Dinner was made up like your average Grammys or Academy Awards, wouldn't you watch this?
Best excuse for failure by a politician of the past year.
You know, and the and the award goes to whoever the judges, the panel, the experts vote.
The most outrageous smear of the year that worked.
The most outrageous smear of the year that failed.
The most unforgivable sellout.
The best successful hoax.
The best lie.
The best lie that failed.
Yeah, they've already given that ward out.
Obama won the best lie by some outfit called Politifect.
Most useful lie told in the past year.
Best editing to remove substance from a piece of video award.
NBC would win it every year.
Best supporting lie to further the best hoax of the year.
The most undeserved puff piece in the Washington Post style section of the year.
I mean, it's limitless.
And in that way, we could turn the White House correspondence dinner and politics into the same kind of real substance that the Grammys were last night.
I mean.
Stop and think of this for just a second.
The White House Correspondence Dinner every year, there's the phoniest night in the world.
People that don't like each other get together for one night, acting like they do.
They shelve all the disagreements, except for the comedian and the entertainer and the president with his remarks, depending on who the president is.
It's phony.
It's just like the rest of politics.
I want to bring some reality to, just like I'm offering to help Obama in his actual policy.
He's going to announce in his inequality problem, the state of the coup tomorrow night.
I am offering now a way to bring real substance to Washington politics in a genuine White House Correspondence Center Award show.
I'm sure maybe you think you could come up with the topics yourself.
could be limitless.
I mean, we'd have to get this done inside of three hours to keep it up.
Because this would be telecast on a network, not C SPAN.
This, and this would be a tough ticket to get into.
Now, my friends, a brief timeout.
See, this is me being helpful.
This is me being cooperative, bipartisan, attempting to help people.
I've tried to help my president with his state of the coup theme.
And now the White House Correspondent Center based on just some casual observance of the Grammys last night.
And uh, let's see.
I guess we'll get the audio sumbites so we get back and then uh to your phone call.
So sit tight, El Rush Ball, serving humanity.
Back after this.
Oh, yeah, look at the phones.
The people love my idea of of how to how to totally rework the White House correspondence center and turn it into real substance.
And have it have it have it reaches out and actually connects with the American voter as he understands politics.
And is how he actually sees it rather than his phony baloney plastic banana, good time rock and roller, backslapping, handshaking, hey, we love each other, hey, everything's cool, hey, we're in it together, hey, we they hate each other.
They're trying to destroy each other.
We need to give them awards for who's doing that better than anybody else.
To the audio soundbites.
As you recall, it was revealed in the New Yorker magazine, the president blames me and Fox News apparently, apparently now blames me more than Fox News for his inability to convince a majority of Americans to agree with him policy wise.
Friday night in New York City, New York ones inside City Hall.
The host Errol Lewis interviewed Chuck Yu Schumer.
And Errol Lewis said, Do you expect Tea Party and other conservative politicians to try and fight with you for those issues of income inequality?
They'd have to break with the wealthy people who have funded the Tea Party, created the Tea Party, and sort of captured this mass of people and the power of the Tea.
And look, let's not forget, they have a message machine.
They have Fox News, they have Rush Limbaugh.
They somehow you listen to those news shows and they find one small government faily, and that's all they show.
And when government does something good, never mentioned.
They've sort of brainwashed people.
All right, so you, ladies and gentlemen, brainwashed by me.
You are the mind-numbed robots who do not appreciate the benevolence and the greatness of your government because of me.
And of course, the Tea Party.
See?
Tea Party?
Well, what was the stupid question?
Do you expect the Tea Party and other conservatives to fight with you on these issues of income inequality?
See, there they this is the soap opera.
The soap opera script writers of the income inequality is the next theme.
That's what the cliffhangers are going to be about.
So not the Tea Party.
Guess what?
Did you know the Tea Party created by rich people?
That funded it, that created the Tea Party.
Hillary Rosen, CNN, Aaron Burnett out front, the guest host with Don Lemon.
And Lemon said, the president says, I'm not the caricature you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
And Lemon says, can the president blame Fox News for his problems?
Liberal outlets out there do the same thing on the other side.
Isn't the president above that?
I mean, why is the president punching down this way?
The president is expressing a frustration that is very real, which is if there was an environment where he could just have an actual communication about policy with people that often in the past have agreed with many of his proposals and now they reject them for political reasons, then that's a legitimate frustration for him to express.
So it's a leg it is a legitimate frustration.
The man, the most powerful man in the world, is legitimately frustrated and could should be legitimately frustrated with Rush Limbaugh, because I am preventing him from having this discussion with all of the Pipples in the country about his.
Off to a rousing start.
We are here at the EIBD.
Michelle Obama, get this now.
Michelle Obama wants $10 donations to help protect Obamacare.
$10 donations.
▲
Export Selection