All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 13, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:02
February 13, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, welcome back, folks.
Greetings from all of us here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your host, the heterosexual Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
Mr. Broadcast Engineers for Audio Soundbites, have number 10 and 11 standing by, and it looks like maybe four or five in order there.
And when do we get to the, when we get to the audio sounds, folks, will you indulge me?
I need to share with you some reviews that people have sent us about the first children's book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.
As you know, well, you may not know, last Friday we announced the second in the Rush Revere series, Rush Revere and the First Patriots.
It's available now for pre-order.
It goes on sale on March the 11th.
And the focal point is the Boston Tea Party, but it was so much fun to write.
I'm tempted here to tell you what's in it, and I'm, of course, not going to.
But it's just really, really good.
And the feedback, the reaction that we are getting, we've got the Rush Revere, Adventures of Rush Revere page.
I call it the portal at our 2ifbyt.com website.
And we have built that out, you know, much as we have the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum at rushlimbaugh.com.
And that is one of the greatest, I think, of all time, graphic creations.
We have one of the greatest graphic artists in the history of websites at rushlimbaugh.com.
And we're doing much the same thing at 2ifbyt.com.
We're building that out with a similar premise, but instead of a broadcast museum, it's town hall.
And it's where people can go and leave messages, post pictures of their kids or of the kids can post pictures reading the book, send fan mail to the characters in the book.
And the feedback that we are getting is just phenomenal.
I can't tell you how gratified I feel and how humble and how excited.
It is, to me, it's a big deal because we've set out here to target a new audience, people that will not, you know, young children, I get to listen to talk radio unless they're with their parents.
And yet, we're all very proud of what we do here.
And we want as many people to be exposed to it, learn from it.
We believe in the greatness of America here.
We want everybody to know it.
So the books, our mission to take the values and the beliefs of the program here to that demographic.
And every bit of feedback we get that shows us it's working is just a big upper.
And here are three reviews.
And these are just randomly chosen.
Dear Rush, my kids loved this book.
They never wanted to stop reading.
And they can't wait till the next one comes out.
At first, I thought your book was a little long on fantasy and a little short on history.
But after we finished, I grilled the kids pretty good about the historical facts.
And even my six-year-old was answering like a pro.
Well done, Rush.
And I rated it five out of five stars.
I read the book.
I read this book out loud to my eight-year-old Nettie, my 11-year-old son, my 13-year-old daughter, who are the primary audience of your book.
They all enjoyed and begged me to read it again to them.
When I was taking breaks, I made about a 25-question quiz on the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, and the first Thanksgiving.
We played the game with the rest of the family members yesterday after Thanksgiving dinner, and the kids remembered all the details.
They beat the adults, no problem.
It's a fun and educational book, all in one.
And the next one is, we recently finished listening to the audiobook, and my three older kids were begging us to listen to the story again.
It's a fabulous time travel story for the younger generation, but as parents, we enjoyed it too.
I like the idea of bringing American history back to life in a fun, interactive way for the younger generations.
Well worth it to read the story to the kids.
This is over-the-top grade.
And these people, these reviews are coming in, and people are sharing with us their thoughts.
And I just have to acknowledge this to all of you who are writing, and thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
We really do.
And again, the next book is Rush Revere and The First Patriots, and it's available for pre-order now.
And all the usual places that you would go, Barnes ⁇ Noble, Amazon, iBooks, Books a Million.
I mean, it's everywhere, as it should be.
Okay, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press says that it used to be more common for a husband to have more education than his wife in America.
But now, for the first time since the Pew Research Center has tracked this trend over the past 50 years, the share of couples in which the wife is the one marrying down educationally is higher than those in which the husband has more education.
Translate that.
For the first time since Pew has been tracking this in 50 years, wives are smarter, more educated than their husbands.
Among married women in 2012, 21% had spouses who were less educated than them.
That is a threefold increase from 1960.
The share of couples where the husband's education exceeds his wife's increased steadily from 1960 to 1990, but it has plummeted since then to 20% in 2012.
The trend toward wives being more educated than their husbands is even more prevalent among newlyweds, partly because younger women have surpassed men in higher education the past 20 years, and it's not even close.
And this has been one of the objectives of the feminazis.
I mean, you'd almost have to say they've achieved their goal here.
This is what happens, folks, when you chickify universities and make them uninteresting to men.
Look at the enrollment at most major institutions of higher learning.
The male-female ratio is 65% female, 35% male.
Now, a lot of guys would look at that and say, there's a good reason to go.
Guys like Snerdley would say, what?
You mean there's two.
Oh, where do I sign up?
But the limiting factor is they don't like what's going on when they get there.
In the classroom, the curriculum, the teachers, the professors, and so forth.
And the Pew Center actually has a chart here that they have entitled More Women Marrying Down.
I can remember all the times in the 25-year history of this program, where I would talk about the economic phenomenon of women marrying up.
God, I can't tell you how offended certain people got at that, even though it simply was an accurate depiction of what happened.
I mean, you can't, you can get mad at it all you want, but men have been or were the primary breadwinners for eons.
And prior to the modern advent of feminism, there were more stay-at-home moms.
That's changing now, too.
And then that doesn't make the feminizes happy.
You know, what's happening, and it's been going on for a while, is that a lot of young women in the 70s and 80s bought this hook line and sinker and they just eschewed every aspect of traditional womanhood.
They eschewed motherhood, they eschewed relationships, this notion that happiness is to be found in a marriage, a relationship, and a family and kids, to hell with that.
And they went out there and they joined the traditional male career track.
And then something happened.
You know, the biological time bomb went off in the mid-30s for a lot of them.
And they just, all of a sudden, for reasons they couldn't explain, wanted a baby.
And they felt conflicted because the feminists were telling them not to do that.
Feminists were saying urging abortion if you got the urge to have a baby.
But having a baby, that was falling into the patriarchal trap.
Don't do that.
But yet, nature took over and the biological time bomb started ticking.
And that had different phases.
So women then began having babies without husbands.
And some of those women, after the birth of the child, you know what?
I kind of, I don't know that I want to go back to work.
And the feminists panicked because that's not part of the program.
Other women did have the baby, go back to work, and set up daycare centers at work.
Other women did marry the father.
But the phenomenon, what happened was more and more women decided to leave the workforce.
And they wanted the flexibility to leave the workforce and come back to it and leave it and come back to it on the basis of motherhood being unique, special, and distinct.
And during this period of time, with the emphasis on women becoming more like men, the educational track changed and the enrollment at universities changed.
And whereas it used to be, and I'm going back a fairly long time, it was undeniable that women economically married up.
And to say that, oh, it's like showing Dracula the cross because they interpreted it as an insult.
And I was simply reporting demographics.
I wasn't attaching an opinion to it.
So here we are now, where the Pew Center actually has a chart titled More Women Marrying Down Educationally.
Does marrying someone with ledge education mean marrying down economically?
According to the Pew Research Center, not necessarily.
When they looked at the newlywed women who married somebody with less education, they found that a majority of these women actually were still marrying up economically.
In 2012, only 39% of newlywed women who married a spouse dumber than she was out-earned him.
Look, it just takes less time to say dumber than less educated, but you know what I mean.
Plus, let's admit it sounds funnier.
The Pew Research People found that a majority of women actually, when they married somebody dumber than they are, were still marrying up economically.
In 2012, only 39% of newlywed women who married somebody stupider than they are outearned their husbands.
A majority of them, 58%, made less than their husband, who is nevertheless stupider than the wife was.
And so now everybody's conflicted.
Oh, no, what do we do with this?
That's not going to make the feminists very happy.
That little bit of news.
Let's see.
Retail sales fell four-tenths of a percent in January.
Weekly jobless claims rise to 339,000.
This is a front-page magazine piece.
In the meantime, while weekly jobless claims are rising to 339,000, retail sales falling almost half a point, in the meantime, the taxpayers underwriting the Obama's lavish lifestyle have seen their household incomes decline by 4.4% since the recovery began in 2009.
Almost 92 million Americans are out of the workforce, but Obama is giving them money.
And this brings the workforce participation rate to its lowest level in almost 40 years.
The long-term unemployment rate, those jobless for 27 weeks or more.
Are you ready for this?
The long-term unemployment rate, that is people out of work 27 weeks or more, almost half a year, comprises 36% of all unemployed Americans.
That's just unacceptable.
Moreover, the president's latest unilateral adjustment to Obamacare delays, the mandate for corporations and businesses, the kind of people who get invited to state dinners, while regular Americans must adjust their lives to higher premiums, greater deductibles, and the reality that they can't keep their doctor and or hospitals.
In other words, there is no economic improvement for the vast majority of the American people, no matter how you slice it.
Here's Bonnie in Stanton, Virginia.
Hi, Bonnie.
It's great that you waited.
I appreciate your patience.
Hi.
Oh, thank you so much, Russ.
I had to wait because I just wanted to talk to you.
You know, I've been listening to you a lot.
I love you since 1988.
But there's one thing that kind of gets to me.
I can't stand it when you call Obama Santa Claus because I don't think he's a Santa Claus.
He's a wrecking ball, and he's flame shifting, and he's debt raising, and he's job killing, and he's double-talking.
And the thing is, by him giving all this money to people not to work, that means, and there have been less jobs in this country, and there's been less products on the shelves in the stores.
And people go in the stores, they want to buy things, and there's less things in the stores, believe it or not.
There's less services.
There's less choices of these products.
And my husband was one of them who went to manufacturing, lost his job, and the plant closed down.
There's higher prices now.
You know, the thing that Obama is paying people not to work is not a good thing.
So don't think that, you know, by him handing out all this money.
And of course, we know about his wife getting a $12,000 dress and the way he lives.
Wait a minute now.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Do you understand what I'm doing when I do this, don't you?
He's not Santa Claus.
He's a wrecking ball.
He is Santa Claus.
That's the point to practically everybody who votes for him.
That's all he is.
But when they rush, when they vote for him and they get what they want, let's say they're getting a subsidy and their unemployment rate goes up, they can stay on unemployment.
Yeah, where's the wrecking ball for them?
Then they're not working and there's no jobs.
Less jobs because they're not working in the plants.
They're not working in any business.
Yeah, but they're still eating.
They're still eating.
They're driving.
They're making telephone calls and they're watching TV.
So where's the wrecking ball for them?
The wrecking ball, the fact is, they go to the store, they're not going to have as much on the shelf.
They're not going to have as much products to buy.
There's going to be higher and higher products.
They've got everything they need.
Well, not really, because I can see it on the shelves.
There's less on the shelves.
And another thing is, on the wages, when he raised the minimum wage to $10.10, well, what happened there?
Does that mean that the people, when we go out and buy things, I'm going to buy a hamburger now for $10?
I mean, because the companies have to raise their prices.
So that's not going to help anybody in the end because then they're going to take more of your money because they're higher prices because they've got to pay higher wages.
You know, that, of course, is all true.
But you don't possibly, you can't possibly think I'm advocating that.
I'm trying to illustrate.
Oh, geez.
I want to get back to the audio sound by channel.
And I want to play for you some Jonathan Turley.
He was on Megan Kelly's show on Fox last night.
Now, some people get irritated with me when I play these libs saying these things because, well, we've said all this.
I've said it myself, what he's going to say.
But the fact that he's not one of us is why I'm going to spend some time with her.
Not a whole lot, but I'll set it up for you.
He's a liberal.
He's a constitutional lawyer, a big Obamaite from the get-go.
And he is not happy with Obama right now on this constitutional business, on this Obama being lawless.
And he firmly believes that the vast legion of Obama supporters is just a cult now.
And no matter what, Obama can't do any wrong, no matter what he does.
It's just that kind of blind support.
Now, a lot of people get mad at me.
What do you mean, playing Turley?
I mean, I've said that stuff.
I did too.
Back on February 8th of 2008.
Do you realize that's Obama wasn't elected until November of 2008?
This is February 2008.
I, right here at rushlinbaugh.com, Obama's messianic appeal.
I said that the idolatry for Obama back in.
I saw it.
I called it a cult of personality myself six years ago.
And I'm not going to play Turley here and say, see, well, I said it first.
Turley's copying me.
And that's not the point.
It's just that here is a guy who is a big-time supporter of Obama, may have been one of these cult supporters at one time.
It isn't anymore.
My only point here is that there are some leftists, and I've always known that there would be, there are not very many, who are alarmed at this lawlessness.
There are leftists.
I mean, they're not a whole lot, but there are a lot.
There's some of them that do hold the Constitution in some reverence.
And let's just go to the audio soundbites.
Megan Kelly said to Jonathan Turley, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government, and we've lost it.
Now, granted, my critics are right.
This is nothing any of us on the right have not said.
The other day I was talking about separation of powers and how Congress has given up their power to this guy willingly.
The Democrats have willingly, maybe even the Republicans.
With the Republicans, it's not cult worship.
It's just abject fear.
Anyway, here's what Turley said in answer to her question.
We've become a nation of enablers.
We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system.
I think many people will come to loathe that they remain silent during this period.
This is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left.
Many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remain so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions.
You have a president who's claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws.
That's a very dangerous thing.
Again, nothing new there.
You've thought it for years.
We all have.
Okay, so here is a liberal, acknowledged, admitted, proud liberal constitutional lawyer joining us.
And he's, we have to say here, he's exactly right.
Now, when he says, I think many people will come to loathe that they remain silent, he's talking about Democrats there.
He's talking about maybe some Obama voters, but I don't, he doesn't really hold them in high regard.
They're a cult, obviously.
They're cult philosophy, personality.
He's talking about media people.
The people who are supposed to safeguard all this stuff.
They're the ones staying silent.
And he says they're going to come to loathe that they remain silent.
That's what I don't see happening.
Do you see, let me pick a name here.
I don't mean to pick on anybody.
Do you ever see – I'm just trying to think of an appropriate liberal journalist.
I mean, there's so many of them.
It's not a brain freeze.
Listen to F. Chuck Todd.
Do you ever see F. Chuck Todd going on NBC and apologizing for missing what was going on?
Do you ever foresee Bob Schieffer or David Gregory in BCCBS going on TV and regretting they remained silent during this?
See, Turley's reaction here is, I think, a quite natural hopefulness.
At some point, He believes some people are going to speak up and either apologize or acknowledge they missed something big.
How could they have missed it?
This is what I don't see happening.
I don't see the left turning on the guy or on themselves.
That's why I say we have to beat them.
To expect them to join us is a fool's errand, is my point.
It may happen.
You could say, well, Rush Turley is.
Well, is he really?
I mean, he's acknowledging him.
Is he going to vote for a Republican next time?
I don't know.
I don't know Mr. Turley.
I've never met him.
I only know him from watching him on TV.
And then he says, many people are going to look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remain so silent when the president asserted, well, the people aren't remaining silent.
See, this is the point.
People aren't.
There's all kinds of people speaking up.
But nobody on the left is.
But there are all kinds of people raising hell about this.
And when they do, they are shot down, struck down, laughed at, mocked, made fun of, called extremist kook paranoiacs, what have you.
Here's the next bite that Megan Kelly said, well, what is supposed to be done about it, Mr. Turley?
In your testimony before Congress, you cited Benjamin Franklin, who believed that the other branches would work in their own self-interest to try to rein in a president who got drunk on his own power.
Congress can withdraw money, withhold money.
They can move to impeach.
They can file lawsuits, which they've done.
What are they supposed to do?
I am astonished at the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly among Democrats.
I first came to Congress when I was a young page, and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution.
It didn't matter what party held the White House.
But we're seeing now the usurpation of legislative authority that's unprecedented in this country.
And that is right on the money.
But he's one of many people who said, where is Congress?
The Democrats in Congress are celebrating what Obama's doing.
Sheila Jackson Lee, she of the you think she's one of these women smarter than her husband?
You don't?
That's true.
I haven't seen her husband either.
Okay.
All right.
So anyway, she says that the purpose for Congress now, what they should do is be writing executive orders for Obama to sign.
The Democrats in Congress want to see more of this tyranny.
They want to see more of this dictatorial type stuff.
They are happy.
I mean, he's one of them.
They don't disagree with him on anything.
They're happy to step aside and let him play dictator.
Okay, then next is the Supreme Court.
Well, they can't do anything until somebody brings something to them.
Now, I have to think, I'm just, I'm shooting in the dark here.
But there are some justices on the Supreme Court who would just relish slapping this down on constitutional grounds if the opportunity were presented.
Because this is turning the Constitution upside down, and there are some justices who revere it.
And if a case, somebody ever, if somehow one of these separation of powers cases could be brought, or any of this stuff that Obama's doing with Obamacare, it would be fascinating to see.
But it.
Well, but look how long it takes a case to get to the Supreme Court, is my point.
Well, yeah, but the Democrats in the Senate aren't going to do anything, and we know that the Republicans in the House aren't going to do anything on this.
Nobody wants to confront Obama on any of this.
Anyway, folks, I got to take a break.
I just saw the official broadcast clock.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones where you go.
Summit, New Jersey.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
And it says, Jeff, great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Rush, first, let me thank you for maintaining steadfastness in the face of almost insurmountable adversity.
So thank you so much for that.
Thank you, sir.
There are times when my knees are a little weak.
No, I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Really?
Well, I've got two things for you.
First, I think I have an answer to your question about why the left is so opposed to traditional values.
And then I have a comment on a story you read before.
But I think the left is so opposed to traditional values because it flies in the face of everything they use to further their agenda.
And that is traditional values teach straight morality.
It has a straight moral compass.
There is a right from wrong.
There is a should and a should not.
It loops in religion.
But I think the underpinning backbone is that there is straight morality.
That doesn't work for the left.
And some of the examples are abortion versus capital punishment.
Capital punishment sends them into an apoplectic fit, but they are all in favor of abortion.
If you smoke a cigarette, they really want you wrapped in a hermetically sealed bubble.
But as far as marijuana smoke goes, have at it.
All of those things don't comport to a straight moral compass.
All excellent points.
But there's one thing that I really want to add to what you're saying, and it is that they will not acknowledge that there are people that stray from morality.
The people that do that, they're not wrong.
They're victims.
They have been pushed there.
They have been, and therefore they can't be blamed for it.
Well, that's true.
There's no accountability for it.
That's a form of moral relativism.
Absolutely right.
It's not wrong because circumstances make it not wrong.
And because the people defining it as wrong have no right to do that.
Therefore, it's not wrong.
That's absolutely right.
And I think that's why they are so frightened by people who adhere to traditional values because there is straight morality and there is a defined black and white and right and wrong for a lot of things.
From an authority that's higher than themselves.
That's exactly right.
Now, I have a comment also.
There was a story you read before about women who marry down intellectually but marry up in terms of economy.
Right.
If you can marry down intellectually, if somebody who's nowhere near as smart as you or as educated as you can make more money than you do, doesn't that completely undermine the left's argument about income inequality and how those who have higher incomes had an unfair advantage?
They had an unfair start.
They're either genetic.
Except it points to sexism as the explanation for the abnormality or the disparity.
But yeah, how can you have income inequality when the stupid make more than the educated?
I think it's an excellent point.
And especially when somebody marries somebody stupider than they are and a stupid one earns all the money, how in the world is that fair?
It's a dilemma.
By the way, speaking of that, Sheila Jackson Lee's husband, she does have one.
The reason I didn't comment earlier is because I wasn't sure about that.
Her husband's name is Elwyn Cornelius Lee.
And Elwyn Cornelius Lee is the Vice President for Community Relations and Institutional Access at the University of Houston.
So what do you think he does?
What?
I didn't hear it.
Agitator?
Organizer?
That's what.
Vice President, Community Relations and Institutional Access at the University of Houston.
He's also the president's liaison to the University Commission on Women, and he oversees the Women's Resource Center, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center, and the Center for Students with Disabilities.
All of this at the University of Houston.
I guess he must run the university, apparently.
After all, folks, we cannot expect victims to hew to values.
How can they?
Values are used to oppress the victims.
You can't make victims behave according to values.
That's what's made them victims in the first place.
Open line Friday tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection