All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:03
January 28, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you back.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
I can't believe it's already the third hour of the fastest three hours in media.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network 800 282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman will not be meeting with the media horde at the Prudential Center in Newark until later in the day.
No, he's going to be meeting, but not till later.
The Broncos'media day is first.
The Seahawks'media day is later in the day.
But Richard Sherman has said that he's not going to attack others anymore.
He has a column that he writes on a website called MQB.com.
And here's a pull quote.
No one has ever made himself great by showing how small someone else is.
And Sherman says, that's not mine.
It belongs to Irvin Himmel.
Somebody tweeted it at me after the NFC championship game.
If I could pass a lesson on to the kids, it would be this.
Don't attack anybody.
I shouldn't have attacked Crabtree the way I did.
You don't have to put anybody else down to make yourself bigger.
So Richard Sherman says he's learned.
He's not going to be attacking others anymore.
It's not the way to elevate himself, but it's certainly not the way to lower anybody else.
And it's not going to make the media happy.
Thank you.
They had so much hope invested in Sherman rocking and rolling all week.
And now Sherman says he's not going to attack any of them.
I know it's a, my boys at Gawker are being sued.
Oh, I saw that.
Quentin Taratino, Terrant is suing him because they leaked a movie script or something, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, they put the link to where you can see the script.
And Tarantino says he's so mad about it, he's going to delay production of the movie for a year or so.
He's really meant suing the Gawker guys.
Well, you know, excrement happens.
From the Associated Press, the new Homeland Security Secretary says that an earned path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally is a matter of national security.
We have simply got to give them their citizenship.
To deny them their citizenship is a matter of national security.
Now I have a question.
And I'm sure this question is born of total ignorance.
How does being in the country illegally and taking jobs away from Americans and getting benefits like education, welfare food stamps, and all that without paying any taxes.
How does that earn you anything?
You know why this works?
I mean, here you have the department, and Obama's gonna make a big deal about this tonight.
He wants this.
He wants these people registered as Democrats.
And for some re well, it's not for some reason.
We know now who's pressuring the Republicans.
It's the Chamber of Commerce.
Moneyed donors are determining the Republican position on Amnesty.
And we know that now.
And the issue had died electorally for this year.
And now the Democrats are urging Obama, hey, keep working with Boehner because Boehner is saying the Republicans are gonna make this happen.
Independently of what Obama wants.
It's what their donors want.
The Republicans, they're not doing this to please Obama to please Democrats.
That may be a side benefit in their minds.
They're doing this because this is what their donors want.
Now you've got the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary saying that making sure these people are granted citizenship is a matter of national security.
And that they've earned it, by the way, all of the years they've been here and all of the hard work they've done and all of the taxes they paid and all of the living in the shadows they've done and all of the hiding and all of the running away from authorities and all of the pressure and all of the intensity of maybe being deported, they've earned it.
They're in violation of the law.
How would this work if the crime involved were, say, bank robbery?
Like if Bonning and Clyde had tried and failed for a number of years to rob banks and suffered the humiliation.
They were basically good people.
They just wanted to rob banks.
Would we at some point say give them the money because they've earned it, they have expended so much effort, and they've done so much, in this case for the state of Texas.
Look, it's a flawed analogy here.
But this is a textbook example of how emotion trumps everything in 2014 America.
When it comes to cultural matters, and for the longest time, emotion is what Obama used to insulate himself from any accountability for the destruction of his policies everywhere you turn in this in this country.
And I was I was making the point that economics is pure logic.
But the problem with it, what makes it complicated is that for every action, there are many reactions, not just one, there are multiple reactions to every action that occurs economically.
And once you introduce emotion in the minimum wage is not an economic issue to people.
It's an emotional issue.
It's become one of fairness.
In fact, everything the Democrat Party is doing is designed to make every one of their beneficiaries a victim of this country somehow.
And as a victim, they are owed.
That's what this DHS guy is essentially doing.
These people, whatever the number, 11, 12, 20 million, undocumented, illegal aliens, are actually victims.
And we need to make it right.
They are victims of an unfair, unjust, punitive uh racist law.
And that would be our immigration law.
And we have to fix it.
We have we've we've we've got we've got to be nice to them.
We have to we have to pay them back.
All the pain and suffering that our law has caused, they now must be compensated for it somehow, because it's our mistake.
And this is how the Democrats advance practically everything is infuse emotion into it, which is much easier to feel than thinking is to do.
Emotion is instantaneous.
You experience it automatically.
one way or the other.
But critical thinking requires time before you come to a conclusion, before you realize what you really think about something.
And by you're in the midst of thinking about what you really think about something, the emotional impact can often take hold first.
And the Democrats know this, and this is how they they advance practically everything.
And the guilt trip is always placed on the majority.
The minority in practically every instance is a victim and is owed redress simply because they are a minority.
And the only reason they're a minority is because it's unfair and mean to have a majority.
You know, that's where power resided in the democratic Fashion and so forth, but now you may as well be two steps shy of being criminal if you're in a majority.
The way the Democrats and the left have structured things.
Remember Tom Perkins, we talked about Tom Perkins yesterday.
This is uh one of the founders of Kleiner Perkins, the venture capital firm.
He wrote a letter to the editor in the Saturday Wall Street Journal.
And he said that the incessant attacks on the one percent in this country, and he was addressing specifically in San Francisco, are the equivalent of Kristallnacht, which was the beginning, as you know, of Hitler's final solution.
And it sparked a fur roar over the weekend.
It sparked outrage, and he was insulted as an old man who doesn't know anything anymore.
And how can he possibly mean this?
How can he write this?
How can he explain it?
And so he is now apologized for part of it.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
This is last night on Bloomberg West.
Emily Chang is interviewing Kleiner Perkins Caulfield buyer's venture capital firm co-founder Tom Perkins, talking about his comments comparing the treatment of wealthy Americans today to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany.
And and uh Emily Chang said, Tom, do you regret this comparison?
Yes.
I talked to the head of the anti-defamation league, Abe Foxman, this morning, following up on a letter I had sent over the weekend, apologizing for the use of the word crystallinocht.
I used the word because during the Occupy of San Francisco by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
They broke the windows in the Wells Fargo Bank, they marched up to our automobile strip on Van Esse Avenue, and broke all the windows and all the luxury car dealerships.
And I saw that.
I remember that the fleece just stood by frozen, and I thought, well, this is how Kristallnacht began.
So that word was in my mind.
So then Emily Chang said, so more than 90 Jews were killed in Kristallnacht, 30,000 people put in concentration camps.
What were you going for in your analogy, old man?
The Jews were only one percent of the German population.
Most Germans had never met a Jew, and yet Hitler was able to demonize the Jews.
My point was that when you start to use hatred against a minority, it can get out of control.
The one percent are not causing the inequality.
They are the job creators.
It's absurd to demonize the rich for being rich and for doing what the rich do, which is get richer by creating opportunity for others.
Oh boy, now he's really stepped in it.
The rich get richer by creating opportunity for others.
No, Mr. Perkins, you must learn why you got into trouble.
A, the rich are never supposed to defend themselves.
Ever.
That's mistake one.
Mistake number two, Kristall knocked.
Shouldn't have gone there.
Understandable, and he's apologizing, but he has not apologized for the point that he was making.
The rich and uh men are the two minorities today that you can have a field day with.
And there may be others that you can think of.
Some might say Christianity is a is a minority in real numbers worldwide, and it's fair game on Christians as well.
Uh but the the thing is that that uh the popular conception today is the rich have gotten rich by stealing from everybody else.
The rich have gotten rich by exploiting the poor.
The rich have gotten rich in ways that do not warrant them being rich.
It's not deserved.
It's a myth that the rich got rich by working for it.
They stole It from the poor.
And they stole it from the middle class and they continue to by not paying them anything, by denying them health benefits, by creating products that kill them.
The rich are despicable.
They are responsible for poverty because they don't share.
They don't give their money back.
They don't they don't believe in in in giving back like real people do.
The rich are responsible for inequality because they have created poverty.
They benefit from it.
This is what this is the popular conception that the Democrat Party is seeking to make as many people as possible believe.
So here comes Perkins saying that's not good.
Just start demonizing a minority.
Rich it's certain to demonize the rich for being rich.
No, it's called for, Tom, not absurd.
It's required if you're a Democrat today.
It's absurd to demonize the rich for doing what they do, which is get richer by creating opportunity for other Well, that's totally true, but I mean that's not the conventional wisdom.
There's nothing justified about the rich.
There are exceptions.
Rich Democrats.
They're okay.
They because you know why?
Because rich Democrats join a rich Democrats join with other Democrats in criticizing the rich.
Rich Democrats, you'll often hear someone say, you know what?
I'm going to give all my money to charity when I die.
Great, great rich guy.
Fine, you pass the test.
The really smart rich are the ones who demonize themselves into the rich people.
Thereby building a bridge of uh understanding with the poor and the middle class.
The real rich apologize for being rich in disguised ways.
The real the Democrat rich, the ones that escape any criticism, find ways to send signals that they know they're nothing but lucky.
That all they did was have, you know, the lucky sperm club, and they won life's lottery, and that's it.
And then they escape any of the criticism or scrutiny.
I saw, I read, and I I wanted to discuss it with you, but I'm I'm incapable of doing it.
Uh there's a guy, Joshua Micah Marshall, Talking Points Memo, wrote a five-page analysis of this issue.
And it's fascinating.
I I tried as a in it means a show prep synthesizing it down as a means of uh sharing with you how the intellectual left look at this.
And it was impossible, because I'm not sure what his point was after five pages.
But it was all about how the he d he doesn't understand the rich feeling the way they are, because Obama's been their best friend.
And that's when I said, wait a minute, I said there's so much convoluted theory thinking in this stuff, it's impossible to keep up.
Back to the phones of Wichita, Kansas.
Here is Adam.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, thanks for having me.
You bet.
Um Yeah, I was going back to uh the minimum wage arguments you were making earlier, and you said uh that uh the argument for increasing the minimum wage was was more of an emotional kind of issue.
Um I'm 25 now and and having lived through a minimum wage increase already, um have uh at least a little bit of experience with it.
Um when I was 16, my first job was at McDonald's, making five twenty-five an hour or so, I think was the minimum wage then.
Um as I was telling your call call screener, um it just kind of seems like uh Theoretically, now that the minimum wage has has increased to 725.
Uh I should be able to save a little bit more money each paycheck.
Um I should be technically making more money now than I was then, but uh I don't think people realize that the reality of the situation is uh I'm I'm not.
Um when I was when I was sixteen.
Um wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I I need to understand something here.
I mean, maybe uh laboring here under misconception.
Are you saying you started a McDonald's in 1995?
Uh no, it was it was 2000, 2000 uh six, I believe, two thousand.
So you you've been at McDonald's working minimum wage for the past eight years.
No, I'm I'm not there anymore.
Oh.
When I when I was sixteen.
That's that was my first job.
Was working at McDonald's.
Okay.
Well, I'm confused.
I thought you said you're now making seven twenty-five an hour.
Uh the minimum wage is increased to seven twenty-five an hour.
Um I I've previously left McDonald's.
I'm working somewhere else now, making about three dollars, three dollars more than five twenty-five, about eight fifty or so an hour.
Um according to what the Democrats would be saying is that I'm I would be able to save more, I'd be making more money and able to save more money each paycheck.
Uh but the reality is when I was sixteen making five twenty-five an hour, there was pretty much not a time throughout my whole sophomore junior year that I didn't have a thousand dollars or so.
Minimum wage is not intended to support anybody.
And we're back.
Great to have you.
El Rush Bose serving humanity, executing a scientost duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Telephone number eight hundred-two eight two two eight eight two and the email address L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
I think I touched on this yesterday.
I want to mention this again.
There's a there's a study out from Harvard.
Single parents are a hindrance to social mobility.
Actually, this did not come up.
I'll tell you this came up yesterday.
This was you know, I had an idea for Obama to propose in his uh state of the coup address.
Let me review this.
Let me set it up this way.
You know as well as I do that the Democrats believe that there is political hay to be made in this whole argument of inequality.
And how do they always suggest attacking it?
They always punish achievers, high earners, people that get good grades, good teams that score more points than others, they always want to lower the rich, the uh people that excel in performance and other things, lower them so that everything is more equal.
They never seek to elevate people at the bottom.
It does them no good to do that.
They need a permanent underclass.
They need a permanent underclass of helpless dependent people, depending on government, depending on them to essentially live.
And it's folks, this is not arguable.
The Democrats punish achievers.
They claim that achievers, high earners, whatever.
Somehow it's unjustified.
It's unfair.
Uh they had advantages that other people didn't have, or the Lucky Sperm Club that won life's lottery or what have you.
Okay, so Obama's tacking attacking inequality.
And I suggested that what the president suggests here is in order to equal, we got the millennials, we got young people coming out of high school and college, and they're just starting out.
And since we're interested in the equality of outcomes, we have to also be interested in equal beginnings, level playing field.
And my suggestion is using the way the Democrats approach this to make sure everybody starts the same level.
See, it's unfair that some kids are spending all their day high or playing video games uh or uh sitting there at the mall or what have you.
So we make everybody do that.
We make we get everybody high.
We get everybody playing video games.
We make all of the achievers, we bring them down to the same level as the non-achievers, and that's the starting point.
And as part of doing this, I observed that parents, it's been it's been confirmed that children from two-parent families do much better in life than children from single parent families.
It's not a criticism of anybody, it's just factual data analysis.
It just happens to be true.
That kids that come from two-parent families do better.
Well, that naturally means that kids coming from two-parent families have an unfair advantage.
Through no fault of their own, it's not their fault their parents stayed together.
And it's not their fault that kids in single-parent families are the product of divorce.
So using the Obama-slash Democrat way of fixing this, I suggested that we might want to force every two-parent family to get a divorce.
So that every child is coming from a single parent family.
And that way everybody's equal at the lower end of the scale.
So everybody is starting off with the same level.
Nobody has an advantage over anybody.
This is the way the Democrats approach it, right?
Now you can sit out there, you can get mad, you think this is insensitive.
I'm just telling you, this is the way reality manifests itself.
If you let the Democrats do what they would do normally without any checks or balances, this is essentially what you're going to end up with.
And if you doubt me, go to any place they run the show.
And you take a look at how people are living.
You take a look at the economy, take a look at the unemployment roles, take a look at the culture, you take a look at any when the liberal left is running the show, you've got an absolute disaster.
You've got homes being bulldozed, you've got high unemployment, you've got absolute uh no economic opportunity, people moving away if they can.
This is the way the Democrats do things.
So here's a Harvard study.
A new study from Harvard University on the ability of low-income children to achieve social mobility has found that the largest hindrance to moving up the income ladder is being raised by a single parent.
The strongest and most robust predictor of social mobility, upward mobility, is the fraction of children with single parents, the study said.
Further, the study found that children of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.
So single parenthood disease is catching, in other words.
No, it says here, obviously, there are cases of successful children who were raised by single parents, obviously, that's true.
But the study suggests that it is much more likely for a child to climb the income ladder if they are living with both parents in a community of married parents, a neighborhood.
A neighborhood of married parents.
You probably do not need a study to tell you that.
You probably instinctively know this, either from your own life experience or the uh what you've seen.
Okay, so how would the Democrats solve this?
Obviously, what's the problem for upward mobility?
The problem is not single parenthood.
No.
The problem is the unfairness that kids who have two parents have.
That's the way the Democrats look at it.
They'll see a study like this, this new study from Harvard, and they'll see that Harvard has shown the upward mobility of low-income single-parent children to practically not exist.
So rather than elevate, and rather than talk about strong marriage, and rather than talk about, you know, come out against abortion and all the cultural things that lead to Single parenthood.
No, no, no, no.
We can't do that because the Democrats need those victims.
They need those people as victims.
A single parent household is single parent because something in this country is wrong.
And whatever is wrong is resulted in the inequality, the unfairness.
Why should children from two parent families have more upward mobility than children from a single parent family?
That's not fair.
And the way they would solve it.
You know this is way their solution is not to talk up marriage.
Their solution is not to oppose abortion.
Their solution is not anything oriented toward promoting a cleanup of the culture.
Their solution, they really don't talk about a solution.
What they do is condemn the inequality and the unfairness.
And then they stigmatize the children who get ahead who came from two parent families because they had an unfair advantage.
And if they played it out to its logical conclusion, if they were unchecked, I mean, they would never do this, obviously.
But they may as well blame marriage for the problem and two parent families as an unfair advantage that these kids have and take that away because that's what they do in every other circumstance where there's inequality.
They punish the people they think have the unfair advantage.
In this case, it would be two parent families.
They punish students who learn faster than others by slowing them down.
They punish high achievers by stigmatizing them, impugning them, demonizing them, and then if they can, raising their taxes and regulating their businesses.
They do everything they can to make them the enemy.
Okay.
And it ought to be the exact opposite.
Whether you call them the rich or whether you call them the achievers, or whether you have look into the Democrats make fun of Beaver Cleaver and that old 50s notion of the nuclear fam.
They make fun of it, don't they?
And they make fun of it as come on, you're old-fashioned funny-duty.
You we can't go back to that era.
The genie's out of the bottle.
You just don't understand anymore what life is like for most people.
Thereby insisting that we accept this and that we understand this, and then allow government to come in, i.e.
Democrats, and devise programs to fix this, which invariably involve uh expanding the welfare state.
And then we just create the cycle that creates and expands and cements, if you will, the problem.
Now, the common sense solution to a study like this, single parent households are a hindrance to social mobility.
Okay, well then let's do something about whatever's happening in the culture that's resulting in this.
Whatever we can do.
Not with a government program that's you know what what other things can we do to educate, to influence, to inspire, to motivate people.
Well, one of the things you can do is point to those who are not suffering these problems as role models, but we can't do that either because we've already tarnished them.
We've impugned them, we have demonized them, and we have told people they are the problem.
So we can't use them as role models.
So what we basically do is do what Moynihan said.
We define deviancy down.
We simply say, you know what?
Cultural things, we just can't control them.
The best thing we do is come up with a program to provide some kind of assistance and relief for the single parent families out there, because most of them are women, and of course, we've got a war on women that the Republicans are waging, and we must do.
Did you hear Ann Coulter on Hannity last night?
The only confirmed kill in the war on women is by Ted Kennedy.
It's just like I said, here's CNN just uh clear to piece on their website by John King.
And the headline This year's State of the Union a defining test for Obama.
So you see, as far as the drive bys are concerned, this is not about the country.
It's not about the real State of the Union.
This is all about Obama.
And can he save his presidency, in their view?
Can he get his poll numbers up?
Can he win the people back?
Can he do whatever they think he needs to do?
Folks, I'm gonna say the media in this country, and you know this better than I do.
You know it at least as well as I do.
They are just I don't care whether it's tech media, I don't know, it's if it's it's it's finance media, sports media, news media, it's just it's it's destructive what these people are doing now.
The things that they can destroy and by the same the things that they can build up, it is it's really dangerous here.
You ought to see what they're doing to Apple.
It's just stunning what they're doing to Apple.
Because some analyst, you know, 51 million iPhones ended up because some analyst, some nameless, faceless, uninvolved analyst thought they should have sold 55 million iPhones.
It's a record record, profit record sales.
And the media has got investors spooked and bailing out of the stock.
It's just the most incredible thing.
It's a buying opportunity for people in the know, but I still even despite that.
Serious problem.
That's why I don't get caught up in the daily soap opera anymore and let them determine what is talked about or what is judged to be important here.
And one more time, I uh send out a little request to Republicans attending the state of the coup address tonight.
If you want to have fun, put your arm around a woman who is not your wife and start taking a picture.
A selfie.
Obama popularized that at the Nelson Mandela Memorial.
So nobody can criticize you for doing it.
It's something that world leaders do now.
So join the club.
▲
Export Selection