All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
February 10, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, back in, we are sitting here firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone, Rushland Boss, serving humanity just by being here.
I mean, just by opening my mouth.
It's so easy to do.
Happily so.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
We have always got a full board, but I like to give the number out anyway, just to remind people.
And if you are on hold, sit tight.
And I'm going to try to maneuver into phone calls as soon as I can in this hour.
And just, look, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but this does light my fire.
These attacks on the traditions and the institutions, which have not only made the country great, but define human greatness and permit it and promote it and inspire it, make me livid.
This actually gets my juices going.
It may be just a campaign technique, and it probably is, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility that this is what they would like our society to be.
A bunch of people not working depending on them.
I don't have any doubt about that.
They look upon European socialized democracies with envy like you can't believe.
Maybe urine too, for all I know.
But it's disturbing, folks.
It is profoundly disturbing because they're not going to, Chuck Schumer's not going to stop working.
Barack Obama is not going to stop working.
Well, he may never really start it.
But I mean, they're not going to do this.
These leftist Hollywood rich, they're not going to stop working.
They're not going to take their own advice on this.
This is simply about dumbing down the people they claim to be helping and supporting and all that.
And they're ruining people's lives.
Whether it's a campaign ploy or whether they really mean it, it doesn't matter.
And it's just something to me that has to be fought on the educational front.
Now, this whole thing, I'm telling you, this whole notion that work is a punitive thing and that not having to work is a liberating thing, freeing you from a bunch of rotten choices and still being able to have your health care.
That's what this is really all about, is saving Obamacare and saving the Democrat Party from Obamacare.
Because in a normal set of circumstances, this would have destroyed the party that came up with it, would have ruined their electoral chance, and may have done that, by the way.
But in a last gasp effort to save themselves, they're now tarnishing and trashing work as a means of building up Obamacare.
And this is exactly what the CBO report said.
Let's go back from Reuters.
In its latest U.S. fiscal outlook, the CBO said that the health law would lead some workers, particularly those with lower incomes, to limit their hours to avoid losing federal subsidies that Obamacare provides to help pay for health insurance and other health care costs.
That's being forgotten by the drive-bys.
The drive-bys, the media, they're now pretending that the CBO said that Obamacare will allow people to leave their jobs, not force them to, in order to keep their subsidy.
Obamacare is forcing people out of work.
So the Democrats are moving in and trying to claim that this is a choice they have now given people.
You think you're being forced out, but actually this is what we planned all along because we love you.
We want you to have your health care and we want you to not have to work for it.
And voila, we've done it.
When in truth, real life circumstances are forcing people to do whatever they can to get a subsidized policy because that's all they can afford.
Remember, all of this is mandated by law.
At some point, whenever this damn thing gets implemented, everybody's going to have to have an insurance plan, an insurance policy.
It's the law.
And most people can't afford it.
The mainstream media never mentions that the only choice that these poor people are facing is either one, lower their income by way of lowering their hours or lose their subsidy.
Those are the choices.
Those are the choices the Democrat Party has offered them.
Not this liberating nonsense from the choice of having to work.
No, the wonderful choice that now we're supposed to be celebrating is one of two things.
Either lower your income and qualify for a subsidy or lose the subsidy.
That's the choice people have because they can't afford it, folks.
Otherwise.
Did you notice how the drive-bys tried to turn this around for the Democrats?
Every single outlet, every one of them rushed out a fact check on the CBO report, and every one of them made the same claim.
They said that the CBO wasn't talking about jobs.
When they said that 2.5 million people would leave the workforce, that didn't mean there would be 2 million fewer jobs.
No, no.
That's what they all in unison said.
But that was never the point.
The real point is the CBO said that people would cut back on their hours to the equivalent necessary 2.5 million jobs in order to lower their income so that they could keep getting their Obamacare subsidies.
The fact checks never even tried to dispute that.
They just, this has all been an effort here to confuse everybody and take what was just a horrible report, 2.5 million people losing their jobs or reducing hours in order to qualify for subsidies.
That's what the CBO said.
That had to be turned around.
That is devastating.
That's another nail in the coffin of the Democrat Party.
That had to be turned around, and that's how they're doing it.
Oh, we're liberating you from having to work.
And once again, they're appealing to the lowest common denominator.
They're going after the low information voter and trying to make it look like this is one of the greatest inventions.
And now they've got all of his scholarship, these professors, and all these fall right-in-line columnists who are now saying, well, you know what?
This might actually be a good thing.
Pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of leisure.
Ross Douthett has a column in the New York Times.
I don't know how to interpret this.
I'm told that Ross Douthett is a conservative in the same vein as David Brooks.
And his piece ran on February 8th.
So that would be Saturday.
Well, Sunday Review.
Saturday night, it got posted.
It's leaving work behind.
And I don't know if he's advocating or mocking.
I just don't know.
Well, I was going to share with you some parts of this.
When economists look ahead to the possibilities awaiting our grandchildren, they often see this divide widening even further as the digital economy delivers rich rewards to certain kinds of highly educated talent, while revolutions in robotics eliminate many of today's low-skilled, low-wage jobs.
And it goes on a couple, three paragraphs.
It says, and this is where liberalism has a very important choice to make.
It's possible to defend Obamacare's overall goals while also recognizing its potentially perverse effects and conceding that we should try to minimize the number of low-skilled workers exiting the labor market.
But then, on the other third hand, it's also possible to argue that as a rich post-scarcity society, we shouldn't really care that much about whether people choose to work.
The important thing is just making sure they have a decent standard of living.
Full stop.
And if they choose Keynesian leisure over a low-paying job, that's their business.
I honestly don't know whether he is supporting that, criticizing that, or throwing it up as a possibility we have to consider.
You know, because much of opinion media today is, well, on the one hand, you could do this.
On the other hand, I can understand not wanting to do that.
And then in the middle, some people might choose to do both.
I don't want to be confused with agreeing with either side, but the possibilities are limitless here.
We might have to someday consider the possibility in our post-scarcity society that we really shouldn't care whether the poor choose to work or not.
It's none of our business as long as they have a decent standard of living.
But don't associate me with that.
I'm just saying some people think that.
Some people might not think that.
Some people might think half of that.
Anyway, we're bending and shaping ourselves into all sorts of pretzeled forms in order not to criticize this.
The post-scarcity society.
Have you heard of that, Snerdley?
It's possible to argue as a rich society, we shouldn't care if the poor choose to work or not.
Oh, and then there's this part too: it's not always clear whether this larger welfare state is supposed to promote work or to substitute for work's gradual decline.
Now, I've always thought I've always thought that the ultimate aim of welfare was to get people back to work.
Well, I guess I've been wrong about that.
Now, I know some of you have always suspected the poor were a bunch of lazy bums and never intended to work, and you may have been right because now it says right here in the New York Times, it's not always clear whether this larger welfare state is supposed to promote work anyway.
So, when the Democrats are trying to come up with a campaign tactic, we get this kind of thing and others in all sorts of learned, scholarly opinions columns and journals trying to make it sound brilliant and deep when it's a surface, pure surface emotional play.
Got to take a break.
Be back.
Get to your phone calls after this, and don't go away.
We're going to start Chicago.
Bob, great to have you, sir.
Thank you for waving and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, baby, how are you doing today?
I'm pretty good, sir.
Thank you.
Fantastic.
I'm driving through middle Illinois looking at all these farms and seeing all these truck drivers drive past me smoking my Hoya de Monterey Excalibur and Rush.
I don't get it.
These people, the liberal elites, they do not get it.
Before, you used to have to work to put food on your table.
You used to have to plow the farm.
You used to have to slaughter the pigs to put food on your table.
And nowadays, they just go to the grocery store and they say, well, it'll come.
You know, we have money.
We can go buy our groceries and stuff.
Do you know how many people listen to you, Rush?
You got truck drivers.
You got farmers.
If you were to say to farmers and truck drivers, hey, adopt a liberal mentality and slow down.
Don't work so much.
And the food starts to become scarce.
We can prove to these liberal Democrat idiots that their policies don't work by proof, not by just complaining, by proof, Rush.
Well, the thing is that that would not, I don't think it's going to work.
People are going to starve themselves just to prove it.
Liberals are idiots.
You don't need to do that.
We already know that.
And you don't need to starve yourself.
The farmers and the agriculture people don't need to get sick.
Just to make a point.
And again, let me stress here.
I don't think what I intended, what I meant when I said was that Obama's not going to quit working, Schumer's not going to quit working.
Take your favorite name of any prominent liberal.
They're not going to stop working.
They may be advocating.
They're not going to stop working.
They don't really mean this.
What they're doing is running a cheap campaign ploy.
They are attempting to tell hapless people that there is a, oh, Lord.
Why you have been liberated?
You no longer have to work because of us.
You can quit your job.
You can get rid of your job and we're going to give you health care.
Vote for us.
That's what they're doing.
And like they've done for most of my life, they are in the process of destroying the human capacity of the people who support them by advocating that these people just lay down, essentially.
Just give up.
All for their votes.
Now, you can go through all these stories.
You will not find one of these advocates for what I would call the quit work movement.
You don't find one of them, not one raising the question, well, who is going to produce the money for them not to work?
Because they know somebody has to.
They know somebody has to work.
I mean, these great liberal columnists, they're going to not going to quit working.
F. Chuck Todd's not going to quit working.
David Gregory's not going to quit working.
They're not going to do this.
Everybody that's responsible knows that work is how you provide for yourself.
Look at this.
It's a sophistry to even have to remind people of this.
Yeah, because the real problem here is, once again, the Democrat Party is attempting to grow and expand the lowest common denominator as the majority of the country.
And it just, on a personal level, it just insults me what they're doing to people.
I'm sorry.
What do you mean, how many Obama stats?
Yeah.
Yeah, because no, it's sophistry to tell the people in this audience, it's sophistry for me to try to, the people in this country don't, in this audience, don't need to be educated about purpose of work.
I don't think the Obama stash ladies are listening.
But that's the point.
Obama's the Obama stash ladies, these are the people in Detroit, Obama's first year.
They're awarding some sort of very limited subsidy for housing.
And there's not enough to go around like there never is in liberalism, and there are thousands of people lined up.
So our affiliate in Detroit, WJR, sends a guy into the crowd to ask them why they're there.
Well, we're here for our rent subsidy.
Where's it coming from?
From Obama.
Really?
Where does he get it?
From his stash.
Where did he get it?
I don't care.
We don't know.
Now, had I been president, that would embarrass me, is my point.
It would embarrass me to think that people that voted for me think I'm their dad, that I'm taking care of them.
And I wouldn't put up with it.
But people like Obama, the Democrats, live off of it.
This is my point.
They promote it.
They encourage it.
And then they excuse these people who aren't working and who don't know how to work, have never been taught how to work.
Blame that somehow on the Republicans.
Here's Jessica in San Francisco.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to thank you for your book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's a resource, you know, that I didn't have as a child.
And I'm Native American and white.
And I'm so glad it's available to my son, who's seven years old.
But as a child, I was taught kind of by society to be ashamed of my white side, especially because I'm also Native American, and my parents taught me otherwise.
But still, I had this kind of internal struggle, I guess, excuse me, I guess you could call it.
And so I'm just so glad that my son has the resource and I can read it to him.
I am so happy to hear you mention this because we went to great lengths to create that character and to have that character be understood by the people, kids reading the book, that it's an honest and true reflection of what happened back then.
Right, and he loves it, you know.
And it was funny because shortly before we started reading the book, we happened to watch the Disney movie Pocahontas.
And I hadn't watched it since I was a child.
And I just noticed in there that the depiction of the white people, the settlers that came to the land is that they came here for gold and greed and that there's actually a line in there that refers to them as ravenous wolves consuming everything in their path.
And it was just terrible.
And I just wanted to turn the movie off.
And I was so glad that shortly after that, I was like, I have to get his book and teach my child the truth about why the pilgrims came here and the blessings we have because of that.
And so I'm so grateful that he has this resource besides just me telling him in his ear the truth.
Yeah, I understand that parents never know.
Right.
At certain age, the parents are, they're never the ones that are right.
It always takes a third or fourth source.
But look, now, I really appreciate that.
I just announced on Friday the next Rush Revere book.
Oh, great.
Oh, yeah.
It's available for pre-order now.
We just announced it on Friday, Rush Revere and the brave, the first Patriots.
And it's not a sequel, but it picks up another area of American history.
But it's the same characters, just going to different parts and places of American history.
And I just wanted to let you know, I just wanted to remind everybody that it's up for sale now at all the usual places for pre-order and on sale on March the 11th.
Thank you much.
Now, the title of the book is Rush Revere and the First Patriots.
And among other things, young readers will be introduced to Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry.
And one of my favorite parts of the book, Rush Revere, gets into an argument and debate with King George III over his treatment of the colonists.
And folks, it is so, I got to be very quiet about this because it is one of the most important teachable moments of the book.
But it does not have any political overtone to it, yet it teaches the truth about freedom versus tyranny to young people in language they will understand.
And it's such a, it was this, this device of a substitute teacher Rush Revere, the spokesman for 2FIT, and his time-traveling horse that can talk.
And they go to anywhere in American history that takes them.
And that was such a fundamentally important part of this.
Put in the words of the king his thoughts of these colonists and how insignificant they are.
Well, to them, the only thing that matters is their freedom and liberty and how he doesn't.
And I don't want to give too much of it away, but it is.
And it's written for kids, obviously, between ages 10 and 13.
It's for everybody.
As I say, this book is the second book, it's part of a mission, and it's for everybody.
And I think, too, that adults are going to learn some things about the incidents in this book, just as they did the first book that they didn't know because they weren't taught.
So it's a plus-plus all the way around.
And I just wanted to reiterate that it was made available for pre-order on Friday.
Rush Revere and the First Patriots.
The Boston Tea Party is one of the focal points.
Covers a lot.
Big book.
Little bit bigger.
A few more pages than the first book.
And it goes on sale on March the 11th.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I find myself here in a bit of quandary because, frankly, I don't care right now about whatever has been produced or learned or reported about Hillary Clinton.
If there's ever been two people that my reservoir is overflowing with, it's the Clintons.
And I don't even, I'm not even sure I believe this latest so-called treasure trove.
One of her closest friends, Janet Blair, was that her first name?
Janet, wife of Jim Blair, these are Whitewater era figures.
Jim Blair now dead.
No, Janet Blair passed away, I think, in 2000.
I don't know.
She kept a journal, apparently, of the years that the Clintons were in Arkansas and then moved to Washington.
And it's got some things that are supposedly embarrassing to Hillary in there.
And I read a little bit of it.
And frankly, I didn't see anything in it that's earth-shattering.
It's all do they actually expect me to believe that when the Lewinsky thing happened, that Hillary was blaming herself for not being a good enough wife?
Because that's what this thing says.
This thing, this Janet Blair's journal said Hillary told the journal.
Remember, Diane Blair, sorry, see, I couldn't remember Diane Blair.
Remember, the Clintons had people that lied to their own diaries that worked for them.
What was that clown that had to testify?
Josh Steiner, right, Tom Lantos, the congressman doing the interrogation.
This guy admitted lying to his diary.
So here we got Diane Blair says that Hillary was just beside herself because Bill was so overworked and nobody saw it.
And nobody recognized how to pressure his mom died and his gerbil died and a bunch of things died.
And then Lewinsky came along and Hillary said, you know what?
I just wasn't being a good enough wife at the time.
Do they really think, folks, we are that stupid?
They must.
And then what is the characterization of Lewinsky as a loony tune?
Yeah, but I wish I could remember the exact term, but it was a narcissistic loony tune.
Narcissistic loony tune.
That's, I guess, let's go trash the women again.
And it's Hillary with the Bimbo eruption reaction.
Basically, Hillary saying that she was a groupie, okay?
And it was all Hillary's fault.
Now, I'm sorry, folks.
I'm just, I've, I've, you know, been to the rodeo.
I just.
What was my first reaction to which?
Just the existence of this thing?
Or to the Monica Lewinsky being called a narcissistic.
My first reaction was, what an absolutely horrible cover-up.
That's not what Hillary really thought.
That can't be what Hillary really.
What Hillary's first thought had to be, Bill, you idiot.
The deal was you don't get caught.
Bill, you idiot, what are you doing in the Oval Office?
Why are you doing it?
The idea that she didn't know this stuff was going on.
I'm sorry.
I'm not buying it.
Not with the Jennifer Flowers history and all that.
And then Hillary going out, blaming the vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her husband.
And she admits in this thing it was her fault because she wasn't being a good enough wife.
Come on.
I can't even swallow after saying that.
I'm sorry.
I just.
So this whole thing to me, I'll tell you what's interesting.
I think, you know, with Rand Paul, Rand Paul's out there, and I'm beginning to wonder if he knew that these diary or these papers existed because Rand Paul has been on a tear for the past couple of weeks, constantly referring to Bill Clinton as a sexual predator.
And there's no question in my mind that Rand Paul is bringing up Bill Clinton's past as a means of associating it with Hillary here at the early stages, the outset of her apparent presidential campaign.
And the fact is that Clinton was a predator, and everybody working closely with him knew it.
That's why there was the bimbo eruptions.
Everybody knew this.
It was called sex addiction back in the day.
But now we've got this psychoanalysis that Bill had competing mother figures in his life and couldn't please either one.
And that's why he was that's why I engage in infidelity.
But on the one, if Monica Lewinsky's a narcissistic Looney Tune, and how is it a right vast right-wing conspiracy?
But beyond that, here's the thing about this that still not offens, but Monica Lewinsky was 19 years old, and I don't care whether she's a narcissistic Looney Toon or a groupie or whatever.
She was there.
She was an intern and she was taken advantage of.
Hillary makes a big point in these papers that, oh, the sex, it was not laying down or standing up or it wasn't real sex, not in the conventional way we describe real sex.
Now, isn't that convenient?
Yeah, we heard that back in the day when Clinton himself said, I never had sex with that woman.
It was only.
And so we got oral sex isn't really sex, right?
It wasn't, it wasn't, you know, I didn't inhale and she didn't swallow.
So it wasn't real sex.
And Hillary confirms that.
It wasn't real sex.
She wasn't worried about it.
It wasn't really a fair.
It wasn't real.
A woman, they destroyed the woman's life.
Can we at least, whatever you think of Monica Lewinsky, she's 19.
She's seduced by power.
Hillary makes a big point that Bill did not use power, did not demand anything, did not threaten to punish her if she didn't come.
There was none of that going on.
Hillary makes the point in this Diane Blair visit was consensual.
And does Hillary?
I don't know about Hillary the Blue Dress.
I'm just Monica Lewinsky, ever since this happened, has been all I know is the Republicans are accused of conducting a war on women, and the body counts all on the Democrat side.
Rand Paul's guy's a sexual predator and he's out there, he ruined this young girl's life.
I mean, I, you know, any responsible person would have recognized, okay, she's a groupie, okay?
She's a narcissistic lunatoon.
Do not, do not do what he did.
It's totally a selfish taking advantage, what have you.
And even in the midst of this latest revelation of the so-called treasure trove, the proper reaction to what happened still remains invisible.
They're still looking at this and trying to analyze it within the construct of, well, it wasn't really sex.
And she, of course, was an absolute groupie loony tune.
And I could have done a better job being a wife.
That's the one that I'm sorry, folks.
I just can't.
Yeah, no, I don't know why.
I mean, everybody says, why are they releasing this Hillary stuff now?
Why are they releasing it ever?
I mean, we nobody would have ever known if this hadn't been released.
Now it's out there.
People are talking about it.
I don't have a guess.
But I do know that Rand Paul is making a big, big deal out of Bill Clinton and his sexual predator behavior here on the early eve of a potential Hillary presidential run.
I don't think that's coincidental.
But here, this is what this release of the Hillary Papers by Diane Blair.
Let's see if I this thing prints to 27 pages.
I had to guess at the page I wanted to print.
Let's see if I got it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Fortunately, I did.
Here we go.
When Clinton finally admitted to the relationship after repeated denials, I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, not a single time.
Remember all that.
After all that, Hillary Clinton defended her husband in a phone call of Diane Blair.
She said their husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the narcissistic loony tune of Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries.
And he was driven to it in part by the loneliness of the presidents.
He was never lonely.
What in the world are they asking us to believe here?
And her own failures as a wife.
Now, we're all supposed to know what that means, and that's what's stretching credulity.
Sorry.
She told Blair that the affair did not include sex within any real meaning of the term and noted that President Clinton tried to manage Monica after they broke up, but things spiraled beyond control.
Now, Hillary is not trying to excuse Bill.
It was a huge personal lapse, and she is not taking responsibility for it when she says it might have been her own failures.
But she does say this to put his actions in context.
Ever since he took office, they have been going through personal tragedy.
The death of Vince Foster, her dad, his mom, and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.
Sorry, folks.
I'm not buying.
I just, the only thing I can't explain is why now.
There's got to be a reason.
And I couldn't begin to tell you what it is now.
I mean, the normal line of thinking is: okay, Clinton's bring stuff up to get it out of the way.
Get it covered, get it talked about way in advance of it being able to do any damage.
But this, had it never come out, nobody would ever know.
So I don't know why it came out, period.
Unless they think it's bad and they're trying to massage it.
I don't know.
I really, despite the last 15 minutes, I don't care.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Me and Matt Drudge, me and Matt Drudge, we forced Bill Clinton into Monica Lewinsky's arms.
Or hands, yeah, whatever.
We did it.
It says right there, his adversaries.
And they've made that Clinton, the vast right-wing conspiracy is all we're the ones that hired Monica.
We put her in the Oval Office and we delivered the pizza.
Yeah, that was might as well have been my cigar, I guess.
Here's Kathy, Gromblanc, Michigan.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
So fun to talk to you.
I had a comment about the discussion you were having on work being a new social issue for the Democrat campaign.
Oh, cool.
And I've wondered for a long time.
I kind of saw this coming.
I've been listening to you since the early 90s, and I've paid attention to the, you know, the rise of the welfare state.
Thank you.
I am so happy to hear that you've been paying attention, really.
Well, I actually wonder what took them so long to actually come out and say it, but it must have been the CBO report.
What I wonder, though, is why the Republicans don't talk to the funders of all these programs, the taxpayers.
We're out here. We're waiting.
Let me tell you something.
I can answer that.
I can answer that in a generic sense.
I ran into something, and I don't have it at my fingertips here.
But I ran it, and you know it, and I know it, and we've suspected it.
We've even talked about it before, but I ran it over the weekend.
Republican consultants advised both McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012, do not criticize Obama.
Do not say negative things about Obama.
That's the Republican consultancy class.
Do not go after Obama.
It's racial.
Kathy, don't go after the Democrats because Obama leads them.
It's race.
Just don't go there.
The American people do not want to hear Obama criticism.
That's what they're told.
We still have one gigantic, exciting, and busy broadcast hour remaining, ladies and gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection