All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:39
January 31, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, great to have you here.
We're thrilled to be with you on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh, at it on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday exciting hour to go here, folks.
And then it's Super Bowl weekend.
And in this hour, we will have our eagerly anticipated environmentalist wacko pick.
Should I give them a hint and tell them who the environmentalist wacko pick dictates will win the game?
What's that?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm going to explain it.
I'm just going to say, should I announce who the pick is?
Without doing any of the extra, you know, do the extra days, just get them a heads up on who the pick is who the pick is is really not that's not the fun of it.
I mean, how you get there, excuse me, is what the environmentalist wacko method is all about.
Well, okay, then I won't do that.
We have one hour left, we'll try to get some of your phone calls in too, and it's whatever you want to talk about, 800 282-2882.
Grab soundbite number 21.
I've been promising to do this for an hour or more.
The president has been on this kick lately of income inequality and fixing it.
And we got to do something about economic inequality and educational inequality and income inequality and uh income, just all equality.
You gotta do something about it.
The president said, if the Congress doesn't do anything about it, I have a pen and I have a phone and I will do it myself.
Now, the way liberals go about changing inequality.
A the whole premise is flawed because you can't.
There is no such thing as equality other than of opportunity and before the law, but there is no equality of what's going to happen to you when you engage or pursue your opportunity, and there's no guarantee that what's going to happen to you once you have your equality before the law.
There is no equality of outcome.
It's always held out as a utopian dream, but it's not possible.
Equality is not possible.
The pursuit of equality, however, people really love that.
For some reason, people attach the most wonderful of motives to people who say they see all this inequality out there and need to fix it.
It's just not fair, and you'll hear it manifest itself in discussions about the so-called widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Or the widening gap between men and women.
Which is actually two twin beds, but that's another story.
You will also hear about the widening gap in the educated and the uneducated.
And the liberals will all say we must do something about it, and some in our population swoon.
Oh, yes, it's so unfair and so unfortunate, and we've got to do something about the inequality.
And so the Democrats then have their permission to do something about it.
And the way they go about it is not trying to make people equal at all.
The way they go about it is not even rooted in changing inequality, the end of the day.
And the way they go about it is destructive for everybody.
When liberals see income inequality, for example, who do you hear them bitch about?
The rich.
When you hear them talk about income or economic inequality, who's to blame for it?
The rich.
Now, who are the rich to the Democrats?
Well, the rich are the winners of life's lottery.
They've had nothing to do with it.
They just lucked out.
They haven't worked hard.
They haven't prepared themselves.
They just won life's lottery.
In fact, the rich people that former congressman from Missouri Dick Gephardt knows, he said that rich people came to his office all the time.
And he said, Dick, if you'll just raise my taxes, I mean, just keep raising my taxes, Dick, then I'll have more money than I've ever had in my life.
And so will everybody else, and it'll be a much better country.
Dick said he knew rich people like this.
They came in and constantly asked him to raise their taxes on the premise they would have more money than they've ever had.
Dick told this story many times on television.
What the Democrats do with income inequality is punish the people at the top of whatever bracket we're talking about.
If it's income, they want to raise taxes, they want to impugn, punish institute more regulations and just make it tougher and tougher and do what they can to take money from them.
Under the premise, by the way, that somehow that money is going to end up in the hands of the people who don't have much.
It never works out, does it?
But that's what the promise is.
The Democrats, you might hear them say that the rich are rich because they stole all of their money or somehow fleeced the poor for all of their money.
If it weren't for these cheating, skunk, lying rich people, you poor people would you'd have the money, but you remember when you had it, right?
You remember when you had that house on the beach and your Rolls-Royce, and then one day some rich guy came over, stole it all from you.
Remember that.
And so you remember that.
So you want to vote for Obama, the Democrats to get your house back and your Rolls Royce.
Because you remember when Koch brothers came and took it from you.
And if it wasn't a Koch brothers, it was Mitt Romney.
And when Romney came to take your house, he had his dog on the top of his station wagon to boot.
Really a mean guy.
So the Democrats tell all the poor people and all of the middle class that they're only where they are because the rich have cheated them, exploited them, or stolen all their money.
And the way they're going to make it equal is to take from those people who have just won life's lottery.
And the premise being that the poor and the rich and the middle class are going to get the money.
That never happens, yet the poor seem to support this class envy.
How do they why?
Because I'll tell you why.
Because it's very hideous.
What the Democrats have done is tell the poor in the middle class that the Democrats are looking out for them.
Democrats are going to get even with those rich people.
They're going to lose theirs.
And you're supposed to feel good about that.
You who are poor or middle class, you're supposed to feel happy, not because you have any more than you had.
You're supposed to be happy because the rich that you hate have finally been screwed, like you think you were screwed.
Your life doesn't change one way for the better.
When the Democrats start punishing the rich.
In fact, every time you hear the Democrats start talking about standing up for the little guy, look out because it's the little guy that gets creamed.
Because when the Democrats start targeting the rich, they are also targeting the people that hire you.
And if they take enough money away from them, you might lose your job.
And you're supposed to be happy about that too, because the rich guy just had his taken from him.
This is not arguable.
This is how the Democrats go about it.
If you take a look at education, the kids that get Good grades are said to humiliate those who don't, and what then do we do?
Slow them down.
We put obstacles in their way.
We do not devise public education systems that are designed to deal with their superior learning ability.
We retard it so that they don't learn any more any faster than the lowest common denominator.
And that really is enough of it.
The Democrats, everybody, equality and sameness is all going to be defined by the lowest common denominator.
As long as there's anybody that's poor or middle class, there will not be satisfaction that there are rich people.
Not until we get rid of all the rich, can we say we have finished the job.
So here's Obama, who's out in the White House today, and he's making a speech about jobs and employment.
And he is describing White House efforts to help the long-term unemployed.
Now, this is the president of the United States.
And this is it goes by pretty quick.
It's only 13 seconds.
But this is what he said.
Today I am directing every federal agency to make sure we are evaluating candidates on the level without regard to their employment history.
Because every job applicant deserves a fair shot.
Now, I would imagine to those of you, well, I don't think there are many of you in this audience that fall for it, frankly.
But to those of you who have thought, wow, that's really cool.
Let me translate for you what he's really saying.
We are going to make sure that the least qualified get hired just as much as the most qualified because they're the least qualified.
So once again, Obama, by his own admission, lowering standards, recognizing punishing achievers by moving them to the back because their achievement has given them an unfair advantage.
So he today is directing every federal agency to make sure we evaluate candidates on the level without regard to their employment history.
So if you are a rotten employee, if you don't show up on time, if you don't get any work done, that cannot be examined as whether or not it makes sense to hire you.
What we're going to do is make sure that we only hire the people who have been out of work the longest, because that's fair.
Regardless of their work history, regardless whether they're qualified, this is Obama making it equal.
And of course, you hear every job applicant deserves a fair shot.
Well, what is a fair shot?
And why does he get to determine what it is?
What is a fair shot for a job applicant?
An interview or getting the job.
See, with Obama, the opportunity is not what's fair, it's the outcome.
He's going to dictate the outcome.
And the premise is that the longest-term unemployed person is the one who's been screwed the most.
These evil employers have got something against these people who have been out of work the longest.
And Obama's here to level that playing field.
So if you're out of work longer than anybody else, that's all that matters.
You are at the top of the hiring list.
Now, how is this going to end up manifesting itself in reality?
Nobody's going to get hired.
Because businesses are not going to willingly hire.
Unless they're paid under the table, subsidized somehow by Obama or the federal government.
There are exceptions to everything, but most businesses want to hire the best they can get for what they have to offer.
If all they've got to offer 15 an hour, they want the best they can get for it.
They don't want the worst.
So that's a classic example.
See, I don't need I spend all this time telling you the theory, and here comes our beloved president demonstrating it for us.
Today I'm directing every federal agency.
Remember, you didn't build that.
You didn't you, Rich V didn't do anything.
You sat there and took advantage of all the hard work, everybody else.
And then you screw them and shaft them, don't hire them, don't give them raises, don't give them health insurance, you exploit them.
You're just mean SOBs.
You didn't build that.
You didn't make your success happen.
We did that for you.
And now you're gonna pay.
So he says I'm directing every federal agency to make sure we are evaluating candidates on the level without regard to their employment history.
What if they're fired because they're drunk?
What if they're fired because they were uh having affairs with the boss's secretary?
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't mat can't look at that.
Can't look at that.
That's not fair.
Because the people that didn't get drunk on the job, and the people that didn't have sex with the boss's secretary have an unfair advantage.
And we can't have that.
So we take away the unfair advantage and the lowest common denominator.
Now is a story.
It's the Washington Times.
New York City Scrual cuts popular gifted program over lack of diversity.
A popular gifted student program at a New York City read liberal democratic scruel is getting the X. A gifted student, advanced student, advanced learning elementary school is getting the X, the whole school after officials decided it lacked diversity, meaning there were too many white people in it.
PS 139 principal Mary McDonald told parents in a letter on January 24th that students of academic rigor, or SOAR, SOAR, would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners.
The New York Daily News said, our kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in, said Mary McDonald in a letter posted on Flickr.com.
At least one parent described students of academic rigor as largely white.
While others disagreed, the report said uh one mother conceded the program did have a lot of white students, but worried that gifted students now wouldn't be challenged enough.
Yeah, that's right.
Where are they gonna put the higher level students?
Sometimes you know there are different levels, and teachers can't handle all the levels in one class, said one mother.
Oh, yes, they can.
They just drive all the higher-level students down.
This is what they do.
It is the core of the public education system.
It's called common core.
No one can excel.
It isn't fair.
This is precisely what I'm talking about.
So the entire notion of advancement, being able to advance rapidly, we're gonna penalize those people because they're the wrong skin color.
There isn't enough diversity in the whole school.
All right, to the phones now.
This is Jan in uh Northfield, Minnesota.
Hi, Jan, glad you waited.
Great to have you here.
Hi, Rush, thank you.
You bet.
Um I want to be spend one second assuring you that you already uh have had profound influence on America's view.
My uh granddaughter Taylor is 18 years old.
She grew up listening to you with her great-grandparents, Barbara and Wayne, and she is a very vocal proponent of freedom, and she courageously defends freedom in her public school classroom.
I'm just so proud of the grateful for the.
That is great because you know, most a lot of people won't go near the subject.
They think it's, oh, come on, we're not having a freedom threat.
They think it's it it's it's almost uh uh unhip to talk about freedom.
I'm glad that she's got the courage to talk about it.
She's a gutsy girl.
Sounds like it.
Yeah.
Um Rush, I'm uh calling about income equality, and uh you've pretty much covered the entire subject already.
Um I think that one thing that that has uh the the term income equality has been tossed around an awful lot in the last couple of weeks, but there's no definition that's been offered.
Uh and uh President Obama has uh engineered an inference among all of us that that everybody's gonna be better off pointed out.
What what what you be if if somebody'd ask you, somebody said, Jan, what's income inequality?
What would you say?
Uh well, I thought about it, and I would say income equality is human beings, uh among human beings, income inequality is the equivalent equivalent of of living as domesticated herd animals with the government acting in the position uh or in the in the activity of animal husbandry.
That's how you would define income inequality.
Uh that's how I would uh define income equality.
Equal.
Oh, you're defining income equality.
Oh.
I thought your question was how do you define income inequality?
It's very simple.
Somebody makes more money than you do.
It's not fair.
It's unequal.
Well, and that's what Obama means.
Obama is playing to the lowest common denominator of everybody, and he is telling them that if anybody's got more money than you do, it's not fair and it's unjustified, and somehow you have been ripped off or screwed.
And that is message.
Let me give you a real income inequality definition.
What it really is.
Real income inequality is what we used to call striving and working hard to get ahead.
Striving, educating ourselves, getting up and going to work, preparing, using our ambition.
And in that process, some people earned more and earned it sooner than others.
Most of my life, everybody made more money than I did.
There was I've I've never I in fact, at when I've been an employee, I have never been anywhere close to being the highest paid person there.
Never.
I was working hard.
I was doing things I didn't want to do that I thought I should do.
I was I was getting up every day going to work, uh, didn't I have phone in sick, striving, uh trying to get ahead, you know, doing you know what Obama says, working hard and applying myself and trying to get ahead.
But there's you know, there was always somebody, there were always a lot of people that earn more than I did.
Now, one thing I'm never ever thought the federal government had anything to do with it.
Never.
Now I might have thought the places I worked uh were full of it.
And I might have thought, I'm never gonna really get ahead here.
I've got to do something else.
Or I may have thought the person they're paying is not worth it.
This guy's got them snowed.
That's common, ordinary, everyday welcome to the market kind of stuff.
It's human nature stuff.
There's always there was always people earning more than I called income inequality.
And there were probably people earning less than I did at a lot of these places, too.
In fact, I know there were.
It just depended on how hard people wanted to work.
It depends on how good they were, by the way, at what they were doing.
Some people were doing things they had no business doing.
They just needed a job, they were surviving.
Some people were doing what they were doing because it was their career, their life's love, others were just trying to earn some money because they couldn't live otherwise, but nobody was ever the same.
And I never ever I never once thought, what why does it Reagan do something about this?
Or Jimmy Carter or whoever the presidents were when I was an adult, never ever thought about that.
And had one of them started talking about it, my antenna would have gone up, and I'd say, what in the world is this about?
Because they don't know it's none of their business.
It's not the role of the federal government.
It's not his job, the president's to pick winners and losers, nor to pass judgment on anybody.
Get the hell out of here.
You know, worry about the Soviet Union.
Federal Reserve, whatever.
Leave me alone.
And I didn't know anybody, by the way, who thought the government ought to fix this.
Now check it.
How many, how many people do you know think it clearly it's something to fix a role of the federal government?
Mr. Limbaugh to deal with income inequality and make sure these evil employers are fair and do it the right way.
And this is just a testament to the success that they've had over the uh over the years.
If you really want to end income inequality, I've got the way to fix it.
People who don't work shouldn't get any income.
How dare he be so mean?
Listen in, see, that's why people hate him, because he doesn't have any compassion for people.
Do you hear what he said?
Hear what Limbod said?
Limbaugh said, if you don't work, you shouldn't have an income.
If you don't work, you shouldn't get paid.
That's right.
Then there will be people.
Outraged that I said that might even make a headline at certain leftist blogs today.
Fix income inequality.
People who don't work shouldn't have any income.
But there's another side of that.
I remember back in the 90s, homelessness would come up, and I would say, you know, there's a fix for this.
You know, what is it?
Well, maybe they should think about getting a job.
Oh, easy for you to say.
Oh, that's really gonna help.
Oh, you really got a big heart.
Oh, is that your solution?
Have them get a job?
Man.
Man.
Look at you.
No wonder.
And that was the reaction.
It was one of the most mean things you could say about a homeless person.
They should get a job.
Peyton Manning.
Since we're on the subject, Wall Street Journal, Peyton Manning, Mr. Annoying.
The only thing more terrifying than playing against Peyton Manning is playing with him.
Now let's be clear.
Players love everything that comes with playing with Manning.
He's a great quarterback.
And by all accounts, he's a fine guy.
Teammates get Super Bowl appearances, eye popping stats, big contracts from playing with him.
There's only one problem.
Peyton Manning is annoying.
Walking by Manning in Denver's locker room is a source of anxiety for all Broncos players, they say.
Think of that now.
All Broncos players, according to the journal.
Walking by Peyton Manning's locker with him there, obviously, is the source of anxiety.
Running back Ronnie Hillman said that he tense up when he brushes past Manning.
And that's because Manning is known to give passers by a pop quiz about Denver's upcoming opponent.
And by the way, there's no favoritism.
It doesn't matter.
Anybody, what according to this, everybody walks by, even a coach gets nervous.
Backup quarterback Zach Dysert said that the questions Manning asks him usually focus on where the ball should go against a particular coverage.
It's definitely easy to be scared of Peyton Manning, he said.
And all Manning is doing is determining how prepared his teammates are.
Yeah.
It seems like he's going about his business, and all of a sudden he'll stop and ask a question, said Luis Vasquez, a guard.
Usually when guys are in a locker room, it's time to take a break, but his mind is always going.
Scenes like these are common in Denver since Manning joined the team in 2012.
This season, at age 37, Peyton Manning threw for the most yards in NFL history with 5,477.
He did it with a mixture of natural talent and preparation.
Lots of preparation.
Former NFL quarterback Rich Gannon, now an analyst said, I don't think Denver Had any idea what you get in Peyton Manning.
You have to stimulate the guy mentally, or you will lose him.
Equipment guys, trainers, video guys, coaches, everyone has to be on edge.
The practice field is Peyton Manning's main laboratory for overbearing behavior.
Overbearing behavior.
Manning often doesn't wait for Broncos coaches to correct the players' mistakes, and that doesn't apply to just the offense.
Safety David Burton said that Manning can get ticked off when a special teams player drops a punt on another field way off in the distance.
Or even if we miss blocks during the kicking phase of practice, Burton said.
Manning won't even tolerate mistakes that fail to take advantage of his mistakes.
Bruton said that the quarterback will get ticked off if a defensive back fails to catch Manning's own potential interception.
The important thing to remember is that he's not mad at you.
He just gets frustrated.
He's trying to make us pay attention to details.
Gannon, who is a CBS analyst, goes to watch practices and said Manning runs the best Friday practices he's ever seen.
Now in the NFL, Friday is typically the last practice day before the game in the most competitive.
No, it's not.
Wednesday is.
Friday's not the most competitive.
What is this guy?
You talk to any NFL player when they retire, the first thing they say is no more Wednesdays.
Wednesdays.
Friday, you're almost into walkthroughs by Friday.
They don't want to get anybody killed before the game.
Oh well.
In one practice, Gannon saw earlier in Manning's career, a pass hit a receiver in the chest.
Manning yelled, We do not drop balls on Friday.
At another practice, a player ran the wrong depth on a pass route.
On the way back to the locker room, Manning rushed over to the receiver to address the mistakes before a coach could.
Yeah, coach was probably sitting right there, but at the end of the day, who is it that's steering this ship?
Gannon said, it's it's Peyton Manning.
At practice, the Broncos have a drill in which, as an experiment, players will switch to positions that they don't ever play.
Way to keep practice fresh.
This is the kind of thing it'll happen on a Friday, by the way.
On one occasion, tight end Jacob Tam was playing a deep wide receiver.
Tight ends don't go deep, folks.
Which a blocking tight end like Tam would never dream of playing.
Before the play, Manning saw coverage from Denver's defense and adjusted Tam's route at the line of scrimmage.
Tam failed to execute the route properly.
Manning was mad.
Tam replied, I haven't run a route like that in six years.
Manning didn't accept the excuse.
There was a quick burst of correction, Tam said, and then it was on to the next play.
I got it right.
This ceaseless attention to detail extends to the film room, too.
And it goes on.
Manning's use of modern technology is legendary.
Last month, a photo of Manning, multitasking went viral.
He was watching plays, tape, on his iPad while soaking his ankle in a coal tub and a helmet on.
Peyton Manning was injured that day.
Couldn't practice, so he listened to the radio of the play calls in his helmet headset while practice went on without him.
He refused to be out of the loop for a second.
And remember now, the premise of the story is how annoying it is to play with Peyton Manning.
Environmentalist wacko pick.
In the early days of the program, I picked football games.
On Fridays, and a lot of people listening didn't care, didn't like football, some women and some guys.
Come on, stick to the issues.
So I devised a way to combine politics with the football picks and came up with the environmentalist wacko method.
And what it does basically is take each contest, take the teams involved, and determine who should win based on the how based on how animal rights and environmentalist wackos would view the game in terms of what's fair and what isn't fair.
Now this game is tough using the environmentalist wacko method because you Got two animals.
Normally, in the environmentalist wacko method, the animal team almost always would be picked to win.
There are exceptions even to that.
So in this case, I mean, who are the Broncos?
Well, the Broncos, they're wild horses.
They're not lovable and cuddly, and so they have to be tamed.
And who brought them here?
There were no horses here.
The Native Americans didn't have them, didn't need them.
They were brought here by evil white European settlers.
That's a strike against them.
The owner of the Broncos is a Canadian oil baron.
Ooh, yucko.
Plus, you know, the Broncos, uh, they're not the best kind of horse you could have.
A Bronco will never win a race.
You'll never put a Bronco in the Kentucky dirt.
They're really the dregs, the way some of the environmentalist wackos look at it.
Not the way you and I would.
On the other hand, who are the Seahawks?
Well, the Seahawks actually don't exist.
There isn't such a bird.
It's said to be that they're like the Osprey or what, but what do they do?
Well, they're birds of prey.
They kill other birds.
Not good.
The environmentalists wacko it, except they don't do it because man made them do it.
They do it because they're on their own.
They're predators.
That's how they survive.
So who owns Seahawks?
Well, Seahawks are owned by a good liberal.
Uh Paul Allen, very, very rich liberal, co-founder of Microsoft, has like five yachts, two of them bigger than any other yachts in the world, and he throws great parties and lets TMZ on to cover them.
Cool.
And all kinds of rock stars show up and A-list celebrities.
And he also has like a fleet of five or six airplanes.
One strike against him, he sold one of his airplanes to Trump.
But we'll look the other way on that.
Because he screwed Trump in the press.
And that's good, uh, as far as these people are concerned.
And he's also said that when he passed away, he's going to give all of his money away.
But he's not.
He's going to give it to Bill Gates and to charity.
So the owner of the Seahawks is considered one of the finest, greatest guys.
The Seahawks themselves, they don't really exist and they're kind of filthy and they run around and they do kill otters, and we love otters.
But when you boil all this down, the fact that the Broncos are even here because white Europeans brought them, the Seahawks got here on their own.
flu.
And by the way, these white Europeans brought syphilis and racism and sexism.
The Broncos deserve to lose.
Simply because of that.
So the environmentalist wacko pick would be the Seahawks by default.
Folks, I hope you have a great weekend, and I um I hope you enjoy the Super Bowl.
It'd be fascinating to see how this actually plays out.
It's not going to be freezing cold, but it's not going to be Super Bowl weather either.
▲
Export Selection