All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:49
February 7, 2014, Friday, 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 and a reason.
A reason that I'm right that often, because that's what we do here.
We relentlessly unstoppably pursue the truth and we find it.
And it causes lots of people on the left to go absolutely nuts.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
All righty, Openline Friday.
One of the greatest professional career risks ever taken by a modern major media figure.
And that is turning over the content of the program to rank amateurs.
That we love, by the way, don't misunderstand.
Seriously, whatever you want to talk about for the most part is okay.
Doesn't have to be political, doesn't it have to be news of the day.
Whatever you want.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
You know, I um I I did hit this pretty hard an hour ago, and I I want to hit this again.
I because a lot of people are glossing over this, as I think a lot of people are glossing over a lot of big stuff, which may be understandable in the sense that most people feel powerless to do anything about it.
But when among the people feeling powerless to do anything about it is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, to me, that's big.
Now, this specific comment that John Bahner made regards uh immigration reform, his announcement yesterday that uh it's dead for this year, which nothing's ever dead.
Politics.
I mean, anything can happen on a dime.
Reversals of fortunes take place, but for all intents and purposes, what he said was look at uh I just don't have the votes.
I uh we're not gonna get the votes.
Uh Wall Street Journal picked up the refrain, as we shared with you, blaming talk radio.
Primarily.
A little bit of blame to the Heritage Foundation and Jeff Sessions, but primarily blaming talk radio, actually blaming the House leadership for being afraid of talk radio was the Wall Street Journal's point.
What did Boehner say?
Boehner said that the primary reason we're not going to proceed with immigration reform is a widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce the law.
And people said, Oh, oh, okay, ho hum.
Now that's not a ho-hummer to me.
That is major.
If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to, because they don't think it'll matter, because the executive branch will just ignore it.
I mean, that's a breach of serious proportion.
That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real, that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about because of the president's race.
If the Speaker of the House really believes that, if members of Congress, and by the way, there's every reason to believe it, the president does behave outside the Constitution.
We had Sheila Jackson Lee in the House of Representatives saying that their job now is to write executive orders for Obama to sign.
Not laws, but Right executive orders.
During his state of the coup speech, when Obama announced that if they didn't do what he wanted, he's going to go do it anyway, the Democrats stood up and cheered.
He, in effect, told members of Congress, screw you, and they gave him a standing ovation.
They are totally willing to grant dictatorial power to one of their own.
And they gave that premise a standing ovation.
So Banders then says, well, I mean, we don't why even do it?
He's not going to obey whatever we come up with.
He's not obeying the laws we have now.
He's not obeying his own law.
He sued the state of Arizona for coming up with the state law that mirrored federal law on immigration.
What's the next logical step in a case like this?
That is that's whatever happened to be concerning concern with gridlock.
This is gridlock on steroids.
Gridlock brought about by this is not even gridlock.
This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government.
Basically saying, you know what?
And he has in practically these words, said this.
You know what?
I got a pen and I I got a phone.
And uh if they don't do what I want, I'm gonna do it anyway.
But you can't impeach the first black president, no matter how corrupt or how lawless.
So what Dr. King say he dreams of the day or dreamt of the day when we judge men by the content of their character instead of a skin color.
And skin color is everything now.
And it is acting as a paralyzing.
So we can expect more executive orders, and on tap, right on schedule, the president announced that he wants to extend lawlessness for three more years.
The lawlessness that would allow you to keep your current insurance plan, which is in violation of Obamacare.
It is against the law.
Aspects of Obamacare make your current plan illegal.
But remember, Obama's giving you a waiver.
He's not going to punish you for having an illegal policy.
He's not going to have the authorities pursue you.
But you are still in violation of the law, and he wants to allow you to continue to break the law for three years because they don't have anything better.
Now, Obamacare was supposed to be the panacea of the be-all end-all fix everything.
It's just nothing but made things worse.
And so to get past the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential, we'll just delay Obamacare for three more years.
We'll just delay the fundamental aspects of Obamacare.
The president has decided, you know what, let's just delay it so that we don't make it any bigger of a target.
And the Republicans are saying, well, we can't do immigration reform or anything else because it doesn't matter.
The President won't enforce the laws that we pass anyway if he doesn't like them.
And there's nothing anybody is willing to do about it.
And in the midst of all this, the Wall Street Journal is editorializing against me.
And in the midst of all this, the Wall Street Journal is a very important part of the Wall Street Journal.
I want you to hear this Democrat member of Congress talking about the great benefit of Obamacare, meaning you can stay home in time to tuck in your kids at night.
His name is Mark Poken, POCAN.
And he is the Democrat from Wisconsin.
And this is during the QA.
This is a Wednesday up at the Capitol Hill a hearing, the budget committee hearing on the federal budget and the outlook.
This is when the CBO guy showed up and said Obama cares destroying things.
And it's only going to get worse.
And he had a back and forth with Doug Elmendorf, CBO director.
It starts off with Mr. Polkin, the Democrat congressman from Wisconsin.
It was implied somehow that fewer people had an opportunity to get in the middle class, you wouldn't be better off.
It could be someone on the lower end uh who now is working two part-time jobs instead of three part-time jobs.
And what that means is instead they might be able to tuck their child in bed at night and read a bedtime story or go to an activity, which means they're better off.
Right?
And at least that's how it is in my part of Wisconsin.
So Obamacare will allow people to work two jobs instead of three and keep their health care.
And they'll be able to stay home and tuck their kids in at night.
And that makes them better off, right?
It's the way it works for my people in Wisconsin.
And Elmendorf is just thinking, duh, Elmer Fudd.
Now Snerdley just said, do they really think that we're stupid enough to believe this?
That's not the question.
The question is not whether we believe it or not.
They do.
This is the new tech.
And I'm it's so hard not to laugh at this stuff.
We used to laugh at everything these people did.
And we this is not their new spin.
This is an attempt to redefine what work is, what unemployment is.
It's no different than their attempt to redefine the relationship men and women feminism.
It's no different than their attempt to divide the country, however they're going to do climate change and science and all of that.
For the past 25 years, every time I've reacted these people, we've had our peace updates, we've had the feminist updates, we just laughed at these people left and right for saying things that were just outrageous.
And here we are 25 years later, they are in power and implementing these things.
And we, for these past 25 years, have sat here saying, nobody's gonna fall for this.
Nobody's gonna believe that it's actually good to be liberated from the punitive choice of having to work and still keep your your Obamacare benefits.
The New York Times said it's a benefit.
It's great that two and a half million people are losing their jobs because they're no longer pressured to make a choice they didn't want to make just to get health care.
Now they can get health care without having to work.
Pelosi saying there's a new term for it, job lock.
The Democrats are looking at it as liberating people from a capitalist enforcement mechanism called the job.
It's the job that made you get what you got in life.
And the Democrats want government to be what you get in life and want you to think that they and government are responsible for what you have, not your job.
It all fits.
This isn't spin.
And while we think here, we sit here and think nobody's gonna believe this.
The harder you work, the better it's gonna be, the harder you work, hard you pay off as American.
I told you he doesn't believe that, remember?
He doesn't believe that.
He's simply saying that because he thinks you want to believe it.
What they really believe is this.
Ask yourself a question.
It came up yesterday.
We are now into year six of this administration, are we not?
Do we not have enough years to know that what is being done isn't working and to make changes?
We do.
But what is happening?
We are doubling down on the things causing the problems, at least from our perspective.
So now, as more and more people lose their jobs, we're being told that this is better and better.
Because the truth all along has been that a job is a capitalist requirement, a choice that you really didn't have a choice in, but You had to get a job or you didn't have anything, including health care.
But now here comes Obama and the compassionate Democrats.
And you don't have to stay in that job you hate, and you don't have to work for that evil boss that you hate, and you don't have to do any of those things that you don't like just to get health care because now, because of us, you're gonna have your health care and be home to tuck in your kids at night without having the punishment of a job.
You have been liberated from it.
Now to those of us raised, the standard American tradition of work, work ethic.
This is foreign language to us, and we can't believe it's happening in our country, and so these people are nuts and loony tunes and we laugh at them.
And I'm just telling you.
I've been laughing at them for 25 years, while they have been on the march.
Now I'm not gonna stop laughing at.
Don't misunderstand.
What I'm telling you is the mistake I made was assuming nobody would fall for it.
But look at how many people have.
Look at how many people fall for the war on women.
That's as outrageously insulting and stupid as this is.
And yet how many people vote on it and believe it?
Thank you.
Now it seems they've decided that the redefine the value of work since their policies are killing work.
See, here's how this works.
They've decided to redefine the value of work since their policies are killing it.
They're good people.
They do good things.
They care more, and they do more for people anybody else.
And so people are losing their jobs.
That has to be a good thing then because they're doing it.
So what they do must be good things for good people.
So how is it good?
This is what they've arrived at to justify it.
You're home at night, tuck in your kids, not to work three jobs, only two, and some days not any jobs, and you don't have to work at all now to have Obamacare.
We have liberated you from that shackle.
Remember, folks, the modern liberal.
There's something about him that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, lesser over better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Liberalism sides with and promotes everything that undermines.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back and continue.
It's open line Friday, and uh let me start.
Keswick, uh Keswick, Virginia.
This is Lucia.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
How are you?
Good.
Good.
Listen, it was just a lark.
And I, by the way, I love Bo.
He's very nice.
He had some laughs.
Um I told him that you and I well, I speak to you all the time, and today's the first day you're gonna answer me.
And I just thought to tell you something.
When you were talking about your book, you know, the the children's books and the new books that are coming out.
I thought to myself, I've got to tell him this.
I know when you are angry, I know when you are pissed.
I know when you're bored, I know when you're tired.
But from the sound of your voice, but what you are when you talk to the children is absolutely delightful.
You have you have a tone in your voice that is just a it's a pleasure to hear you.
And I I recall the little girl that phoned you, and she must have been told, um, the phone is not a toy.
You talk very politely and succinctly and do what you're supposed to do on the phone.
And she told you she liked the book, and you said you were going to send her the um voice one.
And then you said, and she's very polite, thank you.
And then you said, and I'm gonna send you a teddy bear.
And she said, yikes, and it was so great.
Then there was the family that had the book.
And the each of the kids got a chance to talk to you.
And then the it looked sounded like it was the oldest child, a boy.
He got on and he said, Yes, I like the book very much.
When are you going to write about the revolution?
And I thought to myself, that was so great.
And I thought of that this morning while I was dusting, and I said, I'm just going to take a take a chance and call them and tell them.
Well, so you've you've spoken to me all these times.
Yeah.
And now I thought I get a chance to uh talk back.
Well, what do you mean you could you can tell when I'm tired, bored, mad, all that.
I'm never bored.
What do you mean?
Well, sometimes there are some people that call up, of course, this might be.
Oh, oh, you mean you would really rather not have it.
And of course I can't hear you because of the radio is not.
I can tell from your voice.
You mean when I'm talking to callers, you can tell if they interest me or bore me or make me mad, but when the children call, I'm just Mr. Wonders.
You melt.
You absolutely melt.
And there was only one other time.
It was before you were married, and you never mentioned you know, there was someone in your life, but but her name was never mentioned.
Then you became ill in Hawaii, and you recovered, and when you got back on the radio, on the air, you said Catherine.
And I thought to myself, that man adores her.
I hope he tells her that he treasures her.
I don't have to, she knows.
For the rest of your life and have a long and happy life.
Thank you so much.
That's amazing.
Now here's something else interesting.
So Washington Post uh sorry, New York Times.
What is this um?
Uh uh New York Times story, and it is it's about the Democrats' plan for let's see 2014, the midterms.
And let me just get to the nut one.
Their strategy for 2014 is not winning over public opinion to their side of anything.
It is to shape the turnout.
Pro-government turnout, pro-democrat turnout.
They are going to focus on voter registration, single women, minorities, immigrants, young voters.
That's who they're gonna focus.
They are not gonna have a campaign that's issue-oriented.
They are not going to try to persuade people, they're not gonna get into the arena of ideas.
Their campaign is not going to be in the arena of ideas.
They don't care about the independence, by the way.
They are going after the true dependent, the the the the demographics they think are most open to an argument turning over your life to government.
Single women, single women mothers, minorities, young voters, the unemployed.
And the campaign is going to consist of how rotten and mean the Republicans are, and how munificent government is.
And we're getting we're getting, I think, maybe some test marketing of it right now with this idea that, hey, a job is something we are gonna liberate you from.
A choice that you won't have to make any longer.
You we know that health care is the most important thing in your life, and we are the ones who have arranged for you to be able to have it without having to get a job.
And they're gonna make a that that's gonna be a pitch.
This guy, Mark Poken, his little pitch.
I we're in the midst of the test marketing of a campaign right now that has nothing to do with winning people's ideas or winning people over with with uh you know, influence them, changing their minds, or getting them on your side uh uh on whatever the issues happen to be.
This is pure statism.
This is pure promotion of government command and control economics.
This is turnover everything in your life that's hard to government and the Democrats, and they'll take care of it for you.
That's what they're gonna do.
And they think that that is a big winner when stacked up against hard work, patience, virtue, because there's l that they've seen to it that the pie that everybody wants a piece of is much smaller.
The economy is shrinking.
The number of people working and producing is less, and so much less is being produced.
This is an all-out blitz, folks, on uh the the capitalist roots of the country.
And is an all-out blitz on creating it's and this is actually uh it's a continuation of of what obviously they've been doing for 50 years, but this it's a full court press now.
This is a blitz, not with with no disguise, no camouflage, no hiding.
They are just out in the open.
They are now actually going to say there's better things than a job, there are better things than work, and those things are us.
You want your phone, you want your car, you want your TV.
We have it, so you can do that without a job.
A job is a choice that this country has forced you into, that you never really wanted.
It's always somebody else's rules that you gotta get a job, and you gotta get a low-paying job, and you've got to work hard in that job for 20 years before you have anything.
We have a better way.
So what we're up against.
Don't believe me at your peril.
Here is Neil in Denver.
Neil, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh.
Rush.
And after they do all that, then they're gonna legalize marijuana in more and more states so that you'll have all kinds of ways to pass away the time you don't need to spend on the job.
Uh yes, Neil.
Uh happy Friday.
Same to you, sir.
And let's not talk about last Sunday, please.
Uh fine with me.
That was one of the dullest football games I've ever seen.
I'm you got it.
Uh I'd like to link what I believe are some of the both the factual things about income inequality and also uh things that are simply uh statistical.
First of all, I'm going to go back to immigration, which you started off earlier today.
Immigrants typically wind up in the service economy, and out here a lot of national builders employ them with significantly lower wages.
What this does, it it not only lowers the income per family, but it also means displacing, more often than not, displacing American workers.
And that subsequently means that they go into the around here at least, the underground economy, which is estimated to be 900 billion dollars, which is a huge number.
So that affects household income, which is really what they're talking about when they talk about income inequality.
So besides immigration, the other factors to me are education, divorce statistics, which is more statistical, and income, dual income families.
With education, the two fastest growing segments of the population, according to the New York Times, I think it was a 2001 study.
61.5% of all blacks graduate from gr uh from high school, and 63 point centre Hispanics.
Now whites are 81.1.
Hey, Neil, I need to Neil, if if I may I need to know what we're talking about here.
Okay.
I mean, you're listing these stats, but I'm sorry.
Unfair to you, and I apologize.
No, no, no.
I just no, no, no, don't apologize.
I I just I I need to Understand uh what your theory is that all this supports.
Okay.
Income inequality in many ways is due simply to the lack of education.
You can't get a higher income if you only s graduate the low sixty percent of the two fastest growing 70 population.
That's that's the that may be true to you and me and traditional Americans, but that's the problem.
Income inequality is because of greed among the rich.
Income inequality is because the people have the money will not share it, and the people who hire will not pay people enough.
The reason for income inequality is injustice and immorality of this country.
You're getting all the statistics you want.
You can because the Democrat Party is going to tell these people that 61% graduate and that have uh no education or they have no qualification.
They're gonna tell them that they are more qualified to have as much money as anybody else because they've been shafted.
It's not their fault they're not educated.
They're not educated because they're people that don't want them to be educated.
They're they're they're it they are victims, they are total victims of an unjust, socially unjust, morally unjust country.
And the Democrats are their allies to get even with the people that have been mean to them.
And this is what we're up against.
Now, your your numbers are exactly right, and in in the traditional American or human way of thinking, income inequality is precisely due to people's qualifications, effort, ambition, you name it.
But the Democrats are not going to win any votes acknowledging that.
Income inequality, as they talk about it, is the result of mistreatment, injustice, unfairness, and all that.
And so their solution to it is not to solve it.
They're not going to solve income inequality.
They're going to punish the people who have more than others.
Okay, fair enough.
Let me move on to two statistical things which which in my opinion are large enough to matter.
Uh and this again, you know, the uh remember Obama, no matter what we say, he will have the BS to overcome it.
That's we have to live with that.
But the divorce statistics in the United States are about 7.4 percent per year.
But in total, of every married couple, 50 percent have been divorced.
That has risen clearly and statistically from the low 20s in 1960 to 65, all the way up to roughly 50 percent.
So what happens with a divorce statistic, you have two people, one earning, say the family is one it's a numerator and a denominator problem, and yes, maybe that's too heavy for Obama.
But you have one family that has an income of 100,000 and one household.
They get a divorce.
Roughly it's split.
You can pick the numbers, but say it's split 50-50.
You now have $50,000 per one household, you but you've doubled the the denominator or the number of households.
That is not insignificant if you work out the numbers.
Now, another strictly statistical.
But it's irrelevant.
What are you gonna do?
What is I disagree, I respectfully disagree.
Let me explain why.
Name for me the candidate you want saying what you just said.
And and winning votes doing it.
Yeah, I don't see any candidates on the horizon that I would jump up and down for.
So my my point, if I understand what you're saying, is you are offering hard-called statistical facts to explain societal differences, economic inequalities, and so forth.
All right.
And just to let you know, there have been some of the most brilliant scholars I know, Charles Murray, James Q. Wilson have been writing about this for as long as I've been doing this show, and you know how much impact it's had?
Because the only people that read It are other scholars.
And it remains an abstract subject to have over cocktails at the Harvard Club.
It may all be true.
But you put those words that you just uttered in Mitt Romney's mouth in the 2016 or 2012 presidential campaign, and I ask you how many people are going to say, yep, that's the solution.
Well, no, no, okay, we got a problem.
It's divorce.
Divorce is calling is causing income inequality.
There's no question that that's true.
Single parent families, lack of education, dropout rate, all of that's true.
Every time any of that's mentioned, whoever does it's going to be called a racist or a sexist or a bigot, and the Democrat Party is going to be right there defending the insulted and claiming to protect them and say,
just because you're divorced or just because you're stupid and just because you dropped out doesn't mean you're not entitled to Obamacare, a job if you want it, uh, and a car and what have it does not mean that you are just as worthy and just as qualified as anybody who didn't drop out.
Because the way they're going to solve that inequality is not by giving the people who are uneducated an education.
They are not going to keep the people dropping out in school.
They're going to punish the people doing better.
They're going to equalize everybody down.
And that's called sharing the misery equally.
Everything that Charles Murray has ever written is dead on right.
Everything that James Q. Wilson has written is dead on right.
But in the modern whatever you want to call culture, society, uh, all that that gets portrayed as blaming the victim.
It doesn't persuade anybody except the people who read it.
In fact, Charles Murray even got beat up in a in a chapter of one of his books on the bell curve.
Oh, there's no less racist human being in the world than Charles Murray.
He was tarden feathers a racist simply for reporting factual statistics on marriage, divorce, education, dropout in minority communities.
All he did was tell the truth.
So your contention is that every stat that you mentioned, every fact, and you add facts, is relevant.
And there was a time in this country where it was.
But now the Democrat Party has succeeded in taking us to a position in life culturally where all of that is the result of oppression, mistreatment, and victimization brought on by the majority, which mostly white, of course.
And so they have to be punished.
The uneducated don't have to be educated.
The poor are not going to be made middle class.
No, no, no, no, no.
The oppressors are going to be punished.
And all this always happens.
And because it always happens, it seems to me that it'd be a way to resolve it and make sure it doesn't happen.
I getting people saying, hey, Rush, uh, Amazon and Marns and Noble, I'm trying to pre-order the second book.
And they either don't have the graphic of the book or whatever, some are able to place orders, some not.
Folks, don't doubt this.
Rush Revere and the brave first patriot, uh, first patriots, brave uh traditional, I'm confusing the first book and the second book.
Regardless, we announced the second book for pre-order today, and you will be able to order it.
Uh sometimes these websites are a day late and a dollar short getting up and running, but they are going to be working, hang in their bee tough.
Constantly are working on this, but it's uh I pre just I appreciate your patience On it.
Seems like there's certain things that you can predict that always seem to happen no matter what.
Since Rush Revere and the first Patriots, Time Travel Adventures, Exceptional Americans, Book Two, officially announced as of today.
Just to remind you, uh CNN, ORCA polls, CNN Orca poll.
More Americans still blame George Bush for the economy than blame Obama.
However, for the first time, the number of people who say it's the Republicans' fault, Bush's fault is 44%.
That's that's below 50% for the first time since Bush left office.
There's no longer over half the country, but it's still more people blame Bush than blame Obama.
But it's trending such a way that by 2016, and I'm not making this up, the poll is trending 2016.
More people by then will blame Obama for the economy than Bush.
At least according to this CNN poll.
Sit tight, final hour coming up.
Don't forget.
A funny story from the Sochi Excuse me, Sochi Olympics.
As you know, there have been all kinds of uh allegations to hotels or rats' nests.
And a a Sochi official denied it and and and claimed to have evidence uh prove his point.
And shortly after offering the evidence, they grabbed the hook and they yanked him, and he hasn't been seen from or heard from since.
▲
Export Selection