All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:43
February 13, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
That's as close as anybody's going to get.
And I may even improve on it.
I mean, nailing it lately.
You've got to nail it a long time when you're this close to perfection.
You're going to be perfect for a long time, but just a tenth of a point.
Constantly working on it because what we do here is relentlessly and unstoppably pursue the truth.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program at 800-282-2882.
The email address ilrushbow at eibnet.com.
I've been looking at TV here.
I've got CNN up there.
There's some guy standing at an airport with a lot of snow in the background.
I'm saying, how did he get there?
Oh, sorry.
It's a woman.
Geez.
Well, she's wearing one of those sock caps.
I'm sorry.
Are you sure it's a oh, gee.
Let me look.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You may be right.
Maybe right.
So I got CNN.
I'm looking at Fox and then people, how did they get to work today?
They're in New York.
How did they get there?
Well, because I've seen all the reports of snow and ice, you can't drive on that stuff.
Like 10, 15 inches, and they're telling everybody, don't drive.
They're telling her, be very careful, stay inside.
How did they get there?
I mean, everybody that is supposed to have been at work at Fox today is there.
I know the schedules.
Well, that could be.
They could have slept there.
There are hotels nearby Fox.
There might be beds in Fox.
Who knows?
That's possible.
They could have done that.
But everybody?
You know, some of the Fox people live in Connecticut, some of them live in New Jersey.
How did they get there?
These are just questions based on the reporting.
And how did people, how did this, how did this CNN babe get to the airport?
How did the airplanes get there?
Well, I'm just reacting as a consumer to all the news on the weather, how it's impassable, you can't drive, you shouldn't drive, don't drive.
Stay inside, don't walk, don't do anything, don't go to the store.
Well, but that's true any day.
Some people don't know how to drive when it's dry.
So you let it rain some places like here.
It's as bad as when it snows.
Dale Hansen is a sports anchor at WFAA-TV, Eyeball 8 News in Dallas.
And he had some thoughts on Michael Sam, University of Missouri football player who has sex with other men, who is going to be joining the National Football League in the draft this year.
And this is Monday night on air, Dale Hanson speaking about the University of Missoula defensive and Michael Sam's announcement that he is gay.
You beat a woman and drag her down a flight of stairs, pulling her hair out by the roots.
You're the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft.
You kill people while driving drunk.
That guy's welcome.
Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes, we know they're welcome.
Players accused of rape and pay the woman to go away.
You lie to police trying to cover up a murder.
We're comfortable with that.
You love another man.
Well, now you've gone too far.
That's his take on the current makeup of the NFL.
That sounds like he sees it as the Crips and Bloods.
Well, you beat a woman, drag her down a flight of stairs, pull her hair out by the roots, you're the fourth guy taken in the NFL draft.
You kill people while driving drunk, you're welcome.
That's true.
There's a player.
That's also true in politics, by the way.
That happened in Massachusetts.
You kill people while driving drunk.
That guy's welcome.
That's not just the NFL.
That's also Massachusetts.
But let's be honest about it here.
Players caught in hotel rooms with illegal drugs and prostitutes.
We know they're welcome.
Hey, that's happened for mayors of Washington, D.C., too.
Marion Berry, the B.I.
It set me up.
Remember that?
Washington, D.C. hotel room.
Players accused of rape, pay the woman to go away.
You lie to police trying to cover up a murder.
We're okay with that.
But you love another man, and now you've gone too far.
Now, that's not quite, nobody's saying you've gone too far.
Nobody's saying keep the guy out.
In fact, they're bending over the other one.
They're not intentional.
People are, I think, really opening their arms to be welcoming to Michael Sam.
Now, Dale Hansen continued and got a little bit more political in the next soundbite.
It wasn't that long ago when we were being told that black players couldn't play in our games because it would be uncomfortable.
And even when they finally could, it took several more years before a black man played quarterback because we weren't comfortable with that either.
So many of the same people who used to make that argument and the many who still do are the same people who say government should stay out of our lives but then want government in our bedrooms.
I've never understood how they feel comfortable laying claim to both sides of that argument.
What is that an attack on conservatives there?
Is that what that was?
Let me, okay, well, let me, okay.
Wasn't that long ago we were being told a black player couldn't play in our games because it would be uncomfortable.
Well, that was the 50s.
Even when they finally could, it took several more years before I could play quarterback.
We weren't comfortable with that either.
So many of the same people who used to make that argument and the many who still do, who still makes that argument?
Who is still saying that blacks can't play quarterback?
So many of the people who used to make that argument and many who still do are the same people who say government should stay out of our lives.
I don't get a non-sequitur, but then want the government in our bedrooms.
Who wants the government in our bedrooms?
No, who's he talking about?
Who wants the government in our bedrooms?
What is that in reference to?
Is that in reference to abortion?
Is it in reference to prostitution?
What's in reference to?
I've never understood how they feel comfortable laying claim to both sides.
And finally, wraps it up with a plea for all of us to celebrate Michael Sam.
I'm not always comfortable when a man tells me he's gay.
I don't understand his world, but I do understand that he's part of mine.
Civil rights activist Audre Lorde said, it is not our differences that divide us.
It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.
We've always been able to recognize them.
Some of us accept them.
And I want to believe that there will be a day when we do celebrate them.
I don't know if that day's here yet.
I guess we're about to find out.
But when I listen to Michael Sam, I do think it's time to celebrate him now.
Okay.
Fine.
Let's see.
Now, this gets back to my other question.
Why is there, I'm asking this as an open-ended thing.
Why is there, and let's not forget, Jackie Robinson was a Republican.
Let's not forget this.
And Branch Rickey was a Republican.
And I try to stereotype all these things.
But my question is, why is there a political agenda attached to men who love other men?
Why is there a political agenda to men having sex with other men?
Why is it a big deal here?
If we have colorblind and other blind types of science, what is the big deal?
Why are we celebrating or why should we celebrate a homosexual joining the NFL?
Don't read anything into the question.
The question is self-contained and there's nothing behind it except the desire for an answer.
Why should we celebrate it?
Why should we celebrate anybody else that goes into the NFL for any reason?
Maybe somebody who is escaping poverty and finally through hard work is going to get drafted in a high round and earn some money.
Should we celebrate that?
I mean, I think Mr. Hansen has some decent points he's making.
This is not my, I'm not, I'm not trying to come up with a pick a fight or anything here.
I'm just what, why is there a political agenda to this?
What is the politics of this?
I mean, we know the answer.
I'm just asking it out there.
Should we celebrate the people who disagree with us?
Now we celebrate our differences.
Since here we celebrate those differences.
We are different.
The differences divide us.
It's our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.
Okay, so we celebrate the people who disagree with Dale Hanson that Michael Sam needs to be celebrated.
That's right.
He's critical of those who don't want to celebrate.
So he's being critical of those that differences.
Well, I don't know.
Let's just grab a bottle of champagne and be done with it.
Okay, look.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
And this is Judy in Clarkston, Michigan.
Judy, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I'm so happy to speak to you.
Thank you.
Great to have you.
I was calling regarding the gay NFL player coming out to be celebrated, as you said.
No, no, no, no, that's not.
I was asking why.
It's the sports anchor at Eyeball White News in Dallas.
That's okay.
My point was, though, if the football players are not supposed to feel anything about this or be uncomfortable in the showers, you know, in the locker room in the showers, in that case, why don't the cheerleaders and the football players shower together?
I mean, if nobody's supposed to feel uncomfortable.
Hmm.
Let me see if I understand this.
Let's take this beyond cheerleaders because cheerleaders are not going to be in a locker room of football.
But you're still trying to make a point here.
Correct.
You're saying if men and women shower together, men may be unable to help getting excited.
And maybe the women, too.
Who knows?
Exactly.
Or feel shy and uncomfortable.
Either one.
Either one.
Okay, so what you're asking, I think, is, if you put a man who gets excited by other men rather than women in a shower full of other men, you're thinking that somebody in there might feel uncomfortable.
Correct.
Okay.
So then what?
Well, I don't know.
Because the uncomfortable are supposed to get over it.
And if you had the cheerleaders and the football players showering together, they're not supposed to feel anything.
They're not supposed to feel uncomfortable.
And yet, I just think it's human nature to feel uncomfortable.
Well, okay, let's not use cheerleaders because we know that isn't going to happen.
Not that we will ever hear about it.
I mean, it's never going to be.
But what you're saying is, okay, let's take a female girls volleyball team, and let's have men go and shower with them.
All right.
You're saying that would never be permitted because it's a recipe for absolute disaster.
The women wouldn't like it.
The men can't help getting excited.
These are female.
These are beach volleyball players, not wearing much anyway to begin with, okay?
That's what you're trying to ⁇ you're giving an example of men and women in the same shower together, and you're thinking it's ridiculous to ask both of them to act like there's no big deal here, right?
Yes, yes.
So you're extrapolating further.
Okay, so you put in a room full of men one guy who's essentially looking at a lot of women, if he were heterosexual, is excited by other men, then there's going to be a level of discomfort in there.
And you're saying, if that's okay, then why don't we let men and women shower together?
Right?
You got it.
Okay.
And what's your answer?
Why don't we let men and women shower together?
For that very reason.
They're going to be shy and uncomfortable and feel very awkward.
Well, how about it's because we're a backward society?
I don't go with that.
I don't go with that.
There's not many jobs where you shower with your co-workers or where you're in that intimate setting.
I know it's a sad thing, too.
So I don't know.
Get them their own shower room?
I don't know the answer.
But what bugs me about it is acting like the guys that would feel uncomfortable are no good, homophobic.
I don't want to swear.
I see, I see.
So you're what I'm trying to say.
Yeah, they're being set up to be called names simply by acting naturally.
They're going to be chastised as insensitive or what have you.
Well, let me ask you this, Judy, since you're attuned to this issue.
Do you watch football?
Yes.
Okay.
You watch the National Football League?
Yes.
Let me construct a scenario.
Michael Sam is drafted by a team and makes it and is playing in a game.
He's a defensive end, so he's not going to ever really catch passes, run with the ball, unless he intercepts it.
But let's say that at some unfortunate point during the season, he blows out his knee.
And here is instant replay from every possible angle of the injury, as they do for every injury.
What happens if somebody thinks that it was purposeful and that it was a hate tackle or a hate hit?
Can you see that happening?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
That's my whole point.
It's just wrong.
Now, the reason why, I better jump in here and make a point real quick.
The reason why is because there are going to be a lot of people who I think are hypocrites.
They're going to say that this ought not be any big deal, and they're going to be the ones making it a big deal.
They're going to accuse others of being bigots who aren't going to say a thing about this, who aren't going to have an opinion expressed about it.
Nobody's going to know what they think.
But it's going to be assumed by these people that there are a lot of bigots out there.
And the people that are going to make this a big deal, i.e. the media, are the ones who preach to us about how we shouldn't make it.
They're going to be the ones focusing all this attention.
It's going to be, you know, there's going to be some media people are going to demand that this guy become an activist.
He may just want to play football.
He may not want to be in that.
There are going to be a lot of pressure on this guy to fulfill a lot of, I don't know, dreams or desires on the part of other activists.
But to most people, I would have to say that it isn't going to be a big deal, except the media is going to make it a big deal, and therefore people are going to get ticked off because of that.
What was the overriding need to declare in the I Mr. Snerdley is asking me why I think the player felt it necessary to go public and come out when he did.
What I heard him say was that he, a lot of people knew, his Mizzou teammates knew, and a lot of people in the NFL already know, just nobody was talking about it.
And what he said was, is that he wants and wanted to be in control of how the story is told.
He wanted to be on offense, if you will.
He didn't want to have it leak out by somebody else and then immediately be undefensive, explaining himself.
He wanted.
No, he said it wasn't activism.
It was he wanted to be in control of his message or control of the story coming out.
No, I don't think the guy is an activist.
That's my point.
Others certainly are going to try to make him one.
But I don't know.
We'll see.
To most people, particularly in this country, this day and age, most young people, this isn't a big deal.
And I guarantee you, a lot of 16, 18, 20, 24-year-olds are running around watching.
I said, what is the big deal?
It isn't a big deal to them.
Homosexuality is not a big deal.
They're trying to figure out what is the big deal about it.
This is my point.
Who is it that's making it the big deal?
And I got to take a brief time out.
Sit tight, my friends.
We will be back.
Don't go away.
You know, folks, it's actually kind of interesting out there.
An article here from The Nation, far, far left-wing, extremist publication, rag.
And they are mad that there hasn't been any right-wing reaction to Michael Sam.
The headline of the article, why the curious right-wing silence on Michael Sam?
Jonathan Cohn asked an interesting question at the New Republic this week.
Where is the mainstream right-wing reaction to NFL prospect and SEC defensive player of the year Michael Sam's announcement that he is gay?
The left is actually mad that conservatives are not outraged about this.
And that, folks, is very interesting in and of itself.
The left is, they're a little upset.
They're curious.
They can't figure it out.
And they're a little mad that there isn't any opposition to this.
There's no reaction to speak of from the so-called right wing.
Here's how that piece ends.
Republican elites, caught between their own friends and family and their own donors and voters, have decided that silence is the better part of valor.
History will judge this as cowardice.
In the present, hearing nothing but a chorus of crickets just makes them look odd.
So you see, folks, if conservatives react negatively, that fulfills the stereotype and the left is happy.
If conservatives don't say anything, that means they're cowards.
Because we know what they all really think.
They just don't have the guts to speak up.
And that makes them look really odd.
That's right.
And if a right-winger happened to stand up and say, hey, Michael Sam, we love you too.
Welcome to the NFL.
They would accuse the right-winger of lying.
So the conservatives can't win no matter what.
Don't say anything, cowardice.
Don't say anything, cowardice, trying to cover up what they really think.
If they welcome the guy to the league, they're lying.
But the left is curious.
They can't.
So I go back to my original question.
Why is there a political agenda to this?
What is the left's overall political agenda?
Well, there's a hierarchy of things.
What animates them more than is their opposition to us, their hatred for us.
And they get really disappointed when they don't see any outward behavior that would warrant hatred on their part.
They're ticked off here.
I find it, I find it all fascinating, both from a political, even a psychological basis.
Here's John in Salt Lake City, Utah, as we head back to the phones.
Great to have you, sir, and the EIB network.
Hi.
Ah, pleasure's online, Rush.
I'll get right to the point.
I think I have an answer to your question that you asked a couple of days ago as to why the traditional values of America are being attacked so fervently by the left.
My belief is at the core value, it is, as you well know, power.
Where they get their power from is they're able to get control over the narrative and just pretty much just as long as they are getting people all behind them, they're able to then take power over the situation and then twist it around on the Republicans or the conservative right, if that makes any sense.
So liberals are trashing traditional values.
Well, maybe I should elaborate.
Think of it this way: the liberals know history just as well as the conservatives do, whether they show it or not.
You look back at history, America was able to take down one of the greatest nations at the time, England, from men sharing the values of freedom.
And of course, the English nation was everything that the liberals strive for, control, power.
And then that's why things like the Tea Party happened, the original Tea Party.
They're able to crush out an entire empire out of their nation.
The Liberals are trying to do it from within the nation, but they're just using a different tactic of doing it.
They're trying to eliminate the freedom aspect so that they can have free reign.
Okay, so it is an assault on freedom, you think.
Essentially, yes.
They claim to be big proprietors of freedom, but everything that they do is contrary to that, whether it's going against the Constitution or whatever the case may be.
Everything they do goes against freedom.
But why?
Don't they want to be free themselves?
Absolutely not.
Think of it this way: all the kings of England, they were terrified of freedom for one purpose, and they tried to block it out by blocking out knowledge.
The Catholic Church, the English Empire, they had their own church.
I mean, as you point out in your great book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, people who strived for freedom, they couldn't get it there.
They actually had to leave to accomplish their end goals.
So they don't want to be in the position that the Pilgrims are in.
They want to be in the position that, say, King George was in, where he is the one controlling the people.
Like, oh, we will save you from everything that ails you.
Just make sure we get the credit, make sure we get the power.
Okay.
And we're able to do it.
So even the schlubs of the left want to be able to exercise power over people.
Even these pajama-clad guys that don't have jobs and live in the basement, they still want to be able to wield power over people.
Exactly.
Because think of it this way: a person just sitting in their basement doing nothing all day, they probably don't feel very powerful.
But if an issue comes up where, oh, there's a, like, for example, with your last caller, a gay football player is coming out.
All of a sudden, they have the power to say, yeah, yeah, we support him, and we do not like anybody that had even a smidget of an opinion saying otherwise.
And it gives them a little bit of a sense of power to a certain extent.
Okay.
Well, I understand that.
I asked this question a couple of days ago.
It is a series of questions.
Sometimes I do that.
For those of you new to the program, the problem is, once I opine on something, there generally is not much left to say about it.
And that really denies a lot of people an opportunity to get their opinion out there.
People in this audience.
So sometimes I hold back.
Sometimes I do not present my full opinion on things.
And instead, I pose questions to the audience that are designed to get the mental juices flowing and to cause independent thought.
Because I think that's key, and I think it's also educational.
I think it's fun.
I actually think it's a great exercise, thinking.
It's hard work to a lot of people, but it's nevertheless fun.
There's always results to it.
There are always results when you start thinking.
And I think it's fascinating.
It's not taught.
Thinking, most people are programmed and propagandized and told what to think, not taught how to critically think.
It's one of the big problems we have.
So sometimes I just sit and ask questions.
Okay, typical question.
What is the politics of one man having sex with another?
What is the politics?
Why is there politics?
What is the agenda to one man loving another man?
What is it?
Because there is.
Everybody knows it.
No, everybody doesn't know it.
Actually, when you get down to it, everybody doesn't think that there is a political agenda attached to it.
One of the reasons for asking the question was to establish the fact that it is political.
It isn't just interpersonal relationship stuff.
It is political.
Everything the left does is political, and everything the left does political has an agenda.
There's an end game.
There's a desired result to it.
There's a reason why they do it all.
And oftentimes, the real reason had nothing to do with what they say the reason is.
But if I were to just tell you what I think, that'd be the end of it.
There would be nothing left for anybody else to say.
So sometimes I just pose questions.
I have to take a break now.
You sit tight.
We'll be back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
We have a call via Skype from El Segundo, California.
It's Ron, and thank you, sir.
Great to hear from you.
Hello.
Rush Mike Diddos from Southern California Summer Command for taking my call.
Mr. Sam, you're in the media.
Do me a favor, Ron.
Slow down just a little bit so that I can comprehend what you're saying.
Okay, I'm sorry.
That's not your problem.
It's mine.
But if you just slow down, I can deal with it.
The media here is emphasizing on Mr. Sam's homosexuality.
When in fact, in doing so, they are diminishing his personhood by putting emphasis on something that has nothing to do with his humanity.
And in doing so, it's really diminishing his identity.
This is an interesting point.
Let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
Your premise, your point is that by virtue of supporters of Mr. Sam and the media and so forth focusing on his homosexuality, they are ignoring everything else about him that makes him human.
Correct.
They're ignoring everything about him that defines him as a person.
Right.
That's interesting.
Because homosexuality is a very personal aspect of his life.
It has nothing to do with his public image.
Well, it didn't, but it does now.
Yes, because of the media.
And that's what they're trying to do is destigmatize the homosexuality.
Well, but now wait a minute.
He's the one who confirmed it.
He announced it.
And he's making a mistake by doing so.
Because, again, that's the root of the problem.
When homosexuals say they're homosexual, it draws attention away from the humanity and puts emphasis on this one.
Well, no, they think it's part of their humanity, and they don't like living the secret.
But it's not.
It's part of their sexuality.
It's part of a private behavior that I, as a public human being, as a public person, as a person, as a public rather, has nothing, I have nothing to do with that.
I don't need to know that he's homosexual.
All I know is he's a person, he's a human, and he should live his life the way that he should live.
Wait a minute.
Why do you not care that he's a homosexual?
Why does that not interest you?
Because it's a private behavior.
It has nothing to do with his person.
He doesn't, his homosexuality has nothing to do with him driving the car to and from work or paying his taxes or going to the grocery store and buying groceries.
I don't go to the store and say, hey, hi, everybody.
I'm a heterosexual.
No, but the day may come where you'll have to.
Yeah, if the liberals have their way, yeah, sure.
And that's what I'm saying.
I mean, we're fast approaching a world where it ain't cool to be straight.
Right.
And the lady prior to that call has made an excellent point.
What's to say that the men and the women can't be in the shower together?
I mean, what about public restrooms?
Should we have the same?
Well, but we've already answered that, too.
There are co-ed dorms at institutions of higher learning.
Yeah, so why stop there?
Why can't we have restrooms with boys and girls going in the same restroom?
Well, I think that's a good question, actually.
Why can't we?
And the answer is because privacy matters, and he should keep it private.
Because it has nothing to do.
But we must lift the veil on bigotry.
And the only way to do it is throw people in the shower, nude.
But it's not bigotry.
It's common sense.
I don't go into the girls' restroom.
Well, you may think it's not bigotry, but you're not the one defining it.
Right, I understand.
Now, these are all valid questions.
They're all valid questions.
And that's the whole privacy aspect of it after making a big deal and going public is when they then demand privacy.
The whole gay marriage aspect, the whole gay marriage movement is based on the person's sexuality.
Give me my equal rights because I am gay, and therefore you should accept me as being a gay person.
Never mind that I'm a person.
Focus on my homosexuality first.
And that is wrong.
They're doing themselves a discussion.
Well, let me ask you, but what if a person's homosexuality is in their own mind?
What defines them?
What if their homosexuality is the thing they think most important about themselves?
Then they need to go see a psychologist because there's more to them than their sexuality, and they need to find themselves and define themselves by their humanity, not by their private parts or who they sleep with.
Well, why can't sexuality be part of humanity?
Why are you separating their sexuality from their humanity?
Because it has nothing to do with their public.
The public has nothing.
I have no business knowing what they do in private.
What they do in private is their private business, and it should remain private.
Okay, so you think the drive-bys, the state-controlled media, are objectifying Michael Sam, turning him into a sex object?
Correct.
They're engaging in political prostitution, if I may be so bold, and devaluate every person's humanity who happens to be homosexual, which has nothing to do with their person.
Nothing.
Well, that's where they would disagree with you.
They think it has everything to do.
Otherwise, he wouldn't go public with it.
Doesn't that stand to reason?
It's a huge deal.
This is the liberals, yes, because they don't see the person.
They don't see gender.
They say, well, that's true.
That's true.
They see the surface stuff.
They see the sex.
They see the race.
They see the gender.
They see the orientation.
They see the economic circumstance.
They see everything but the humanity.
They see victims.
That's what this is about.
They see victims.
They see victims and they perpetuate the idea that everybody is a victim, and that's who votes for them, the victims.
Well, you know, you've got some interesting points here.
It's all genital politics.
That's right.
And Rosh, we put on a great show.
Thank you for a wonderful 25 years and a happy belated birthday to you.
Thank you, Ron, very much.
That's Ron V. Skype.
He's in El Segundo, California, where a good friend of mine, George Brett, grew up in and around El Segundo.
Every time I hear Il Segundo, I think of, I think at number five.
All right, a quick timeout, folks.
We will be.
Yeah, genital politics.
I said it.
I meant it.
What's the big deal?
So, Ray Nagan, school bus Nagan, remember him?
School bus Nagan.
This is in all those school buses didn't move during Hurricane Katrina.
Anyway, Ray Nagan, first ever mayor of New Orleans, convicted for corruption.
But no matter what you listen to, no matter what you watch, no matter what you read, you will not learn that he's a Democrat.
Unemployment claims.
Experts shocked.
Weekly claims rise to 339,000.
Wall Street looking for 330.
Once again, they were unexpected.
▲
Export Selection