Rush Limbaugh Program - February 14, 2014, Friday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 14, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

33:36

February 14, 2014, Friday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And greetings and welcome back.
	It is great to have you with us, my friends.
	It's L Rushbow, and this the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and it's Friday.
	Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
	It's open line Friday.
	Radio Rado Rano.
	It's open line Friday.
	When we go to the phones, you get to determine what we talk about here.
	And the telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIB net.com.
	Some of you, many of you have been here for most of the 25 years, but a lot of you haven't.
	A lot of you are new arrivals.
	We love you all.
	Those of you who are not new, and even those of you who have been around here for 25 years, you may have forgotten a lot of things.
	But in this discussion of amnesty and immigration, and we had a caller an hour ago who wanted to know look at the journalist conservative, you're conservative.
	Why they ragging on you?
	Why does Bill O'Reilly rag on you?
	Why do why do all these other so-called conservatives rag on you?
	And I'm I'm trying to answer this with without.
	I'm trying to answer this in a in a dignified way without.
	It's tough because there are really short, truthful answers here that I'm not the one to say.
	But let me just on this on this uh amnesty business.
	Give you something that's really basic.
	Snerdley just pointed it out to me.
	There are, I would venture to say, on our side of the aisle, there are a lot of people who are opposed to this who will not say so.
	And the reason is they are scared to death of somebody calling them anti-Hispanic.
	And so they will not tell you what they really believe about immigration reform or amnesty.
	And in fact, what they'll do is tell you what they don't believe.
	In order to gain the approval of everybody or somebody or the media or what have you.
	That I don't care.
	I don't care if they call me anti-Hispanic because I know that you know that I'm not.
	And that's plenty for me.
	I don't care what other people say about me.
	I can't, I don't know how to tell you.
	I've every Thanksgiving at Christmas, I try to express my gratitude and appreciation for all of you and you know what you've meant to to my life and my family and everything, you you just you you'll never know.
	And part of it is I am I I don't care what is being said about me elsewhere.
	I know that you all know who I am and you know the truth, and you know when there's BS out there about me.
	And that's all that matters.
	So I'm if if if I oppose whatever immigration reform is being proposed, if I oppose it because I genuinely oppose it because I think it's harmful and wrong and bad for the country, the fact that somebody might call me anti-Hispanic is not going to stop me from saying it.
	The fact that somebody might call me a racist is not going to stop me from telling you what I really think about it.
	But it will stop most others.
	Not only will it stop them, it will cause them to say things they really don't believe in order to not be criticized.
	And sadly, that describes way too many of our elected officials.
	But it also describes some of the people on supposed our side of the media.
	And you can extrapolate that to any other issue beyond abortion, social issues, immigration reform, Obama, you name it.
	There are just a lot of people that will not tell you the abject fear people have of media criticism, public criticism.
	Even people are in media and have a chance to answer it or refute it.
	It's just for a lot of people, a path of least resistance is just easiest to calculate every issue.
	Okay, what can I say here that will make me sound different than the people they're gonna hate, and what'll make me sound reasonable, and what will make me sound Unoffensive, and what will make me appreciated by whatever group, in this case Hispanics.
	I don't make those calculations.
	It's not a factor.
	The only thing that matters to me when I'm doing this program is what I believe.
	Because I figure if if I ever if I lose that connection with you, then this is over.
	There is no more of this.
	I'm not gonna ever throw that at risk or put that at risk.
	And those of you who have been here for 25 years, there's something you know I have not one time other than when I fake endorsed Clinton.
	I have not one time changed my opinion on anything fundamental, crucial, serious, ideologically political, and you and some radio programmers would say, you know, Russia, you gotta mix it up.
	I mean, you gotta, you know, change, come out for something just to keep the audience off.
	I said, Nope, not gonna do that, not gonna do that.
	You wouldn't believe the pressures.
	I call them pressures, they're not really the attempts.
	Uh Rush, well, you know, you know, we might be able to get uh this or that if you'll just and I won't do it.
	So in 1995, Time magazine, this is after the House elections where the Republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years.
	And so Time magazine does a cover, and they put me on it, and they had a picture of me, but they added that they they photoshopped or whatever was used in 1995.
	They made my face scowl, and they had a plume of cigar smoke coming out of my mouth, and it looked really mean.
	And the headline was Is Rush Limbaugh good for America?
	And he read the cover story, and I'm not mentioned.
	Was just on the cover.
	What the what the story was there's too much democracy.
	That there are too many people that are now involved in politics who don't know what they're doing.
	It was classic elitism.
	It was everything in a nutshell, it was ruling class versus country class.
	Uh it was establishment versus uh uh elites versus common folk, you and me.
	And there was a line in the story talk radio is only the beginning.
	Electronic populism threatens to short circuit representative, representative democracy.
	So in the minds of the editors at time, which was the same as in the minds of the Democrat Party hierarchy and probably the Republican hierarchy, there's too many people voting.
	There are too many people who don't know what they're voting on.
	They're just following this limbaugh guy, and he's getting them to vote.
	That's what they all thought.
	And that's why there was too much democracy going on.
	There was too much participation, and that's why a cover story is Rush Limbaugh Good for America.
	Here's something else from that article.
	Email and other tech talk may be the third, fourth, or fifth wave of the future, but old-fashioned radio is true hyper democracy, very hyper, like the backyard savants, the bar room agitators and soapbox spellbinders of an earlier era.
	Limbaugh and company bring intimacy and urgency to an impersonal age.
	What's new is that today the radio rightists are wired into the political process.
	In 1994, the scream rose to the top.
	Those fervent spiels in which we heard America slinging, stinging, cajoling, annoying, persuading, finally transformed the social dialogue.
	And the article ends like this.
	Again, this is January of 95.
	Will the mood of radio listeners Change, can the hot talk hosts continue to squirt scalding water on the body politic without one group or the other crying enough.
	So that's the media bias Larry King claims he's never seen.
	But folks, that 1995 story could have been rewritten again verbatim after the 2010 midterms.
	Except after the 2010 midterms, it wasn't talk radio, it was the Tea Party.
	There is too much Tea Party.
	And now it's the same thing.
	The Tea Party, too many people, dumb and stupid, don't know what to do, led by other idiots like Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.
	And this is the traditional elitist rant.
	Now, some people in our media would like to be considered elitists.
	They want to be in that group.
	They want to be thought of as the special and anointed.
	And the fastest way you do that is to attack me or others on talk radio.
	That's how you join that club.
	But I just want, you know, to stress here, excuse me, that while the focal point may change, 95 it was the Republicans winning Congress.
	2010, it was the Tea Party sweeping the Democrats out of power in the 2010 midterms.
	2014 shaping up to be the same way, I think.
	By the way, they disagree with me on that at Fox.
	But it's all going to boil down to the same thing.
	You've got this group of elites who are not even trying to gain your trust, folks.
	They just want to be able to wield power.
	They're not even trying to gain your trust.
	They're not trying to relate.
	If anything, they're trying to fool you.
	And some of them are in the media.
	They're trying to make you think there's something they're not, trying to relate to you with this segment or that segment.
	But the last thing they want is to be written about, like Time magazine was writing about talk radio and so forth.
	And me, I don't care.
	It doesn't.
	No amount of criticism, particularly phony and wrong criticism is going to make me change my core belief.
	To me, I'm not the one who has the explaining to do.
	I know I'm not the one that has to justify myself.
	I happen to think the people that have to explain themselves today are the people in Washington who are making this mess.
	Not people like me and you commenting on it and living in it and having to deal with it.
	We're not making the mess.
	We're not spending money we don't have.
	We're not running the country into debt.
	We are not violating the Constitution.
	We are not forcing things on people that they don't want.
	We are not making people do things they don't.
	We're not governing other people against their will.
	All of that is happening to us.
	And when we speak up in a poll, we become the problem.
	I don't look at it that I they're the ones that have justified what they're doing.
	The ones spending us into oblivion, the ones writing laws that are destroying the private sector.
	They're the ones that have to explain themselves.
	Not us.
	I look at you and me the same way I look at the country and the world.
	I think the United States is the solution to the problems in the world.
	Yes.
	And I think you, the people who make this country work, are the solution to what's wrong with the country.
	The solution is not.
	Well, the solution's going to have to be implemented in Washington, sadly, or state legislatures.
	But some some the solution to the problem here is going to have to involve people who are making this mess somehow not in a position to do so anymore.
	But We're not the problem, folks.
	They want us to think we are, and they want to create as many other opinions as they can that we're the problem.
	The Tea Party's not the problem in this country.
	The Tea Party doesn't threaten anybody.
	Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, they're not threatening anybody.
	All they want to do is improve things.
	But you know how they're portrayed.
	Palin is a great example, by the way.
	How many how much media piling on was there on Palin once that die was cast?
	And how many people stood up and defended her.
	You can count on one hand.
	I'm talking about Republicans in and out of the media.
	You can count on one hand the number of people who defended her.
	And you can't count the people that piled on, they're too many.
	And it is my contention that in our media, conservative media, and Republicans slash conservative politics, many of the people dumping on Palin were just doing it to be seen dumping on her.
	because it was the safe play.
	And we'll be back.
	Do not go away.
	El Rushbow and open line Friday.
	Sit tight.
	Okay, let's go to the phones.
	I'm gonna grab Gary in uh in St. Louis.
	Gary is on Gary S Gary Split.
	All right.
	Uh R Regina in Westchester County in New York.
	Your next open line Friday.
	Hello.
	Hi there, Rach.
	How are you?
	Um I wanted uh I wanted to let you know that uh as a feminist uh of a speci p particular group of feminists, uh uh uh Cuomo has uh told us uh we can leave the state.
	Uh he made a comment uh a couple of weeks back that people who are pro-life, who believe in the Second Amendment, who believe defending marriage and so forth, they should leave New York, because uh New York is not a place for them.
	And it so happens that I am a feminist for life, and uh uh this man just didn't uh say that, but he actually put his money where his mouth is, because he has in the Senate right now, it already passed the assembly, a bill uh uh that is supposed to be a woman's equality bill.
	It's called the Women's Equality Act, and there are ten sections to it, and the Senate broke it up into ten separate bills.
	Uh last June they passed all uh nine of those.
	But the tenth one, and mind you, the assembly passed all ten of them, uh, and the assembly's uh two to one liberal uh you know, it's two democrats to every one republican.
	But anyway, uh the Senate broke it up because they wanted to pass nine of those women's equality amendments uh uh bill sections, but the tenth did they did not.
	And this is where uh women are really second-class citizens, and it's not being put out there by the media.
	Uh, in this tenth section of the Women's Equality Act, which is similar in its um speech or in its wording to the Reproductive House Health Act, which is S438, this the uh uh Women's Equality Act number 10 is S5881.
	Anyway, in that one, it it uh lets uh uh people have abortions for all nine months uh of pregnancy.
	Uh and Regina, why Regina, why doctor?
	What Regina, what's what what are we talking about here?
	We're p talking about why uh what Obama I mean Obama, I should say the same sort of uh what Cuomo is doing, besides just saying get out of New York State.
	Yeah, but he walked that back, didn't he?
	He didn't he say he changed his mind about that and and conservatives can stay, including pregnant women.
	He might have walked that back.
	I didn't hear it, but uh even if he walked it back, he's pushing this thing which is extremely dangerous to women.
	And except for Planned Parenthood and some very wealthy uh people who are find um abortion uh a religion even if it's uh women's dead bodies are the price.
	I this is this is another uh glaring example.
	Okay, Cuomo's a liberal.
	The image is that liberals love women, women's rights and all this.
	Do you know that Planned Parenthood?
	I didn't print it out, but Planned Parenthood is urging women to get abortions for Valentine's Day.
	And this is what liberal Democrats support.
	The idea that that liberal Democrats are out looking out for women, liberal Democrats are they they they see it's amazing the way they see women.
	And I'm I'm I'm amused at this public perception that conservatives and Republicans are engaged in a war on women when in fact Democrats see women as basically just walking vaginas.
	Democrats see women as nothing but walking vaginas, looking to have sex every chance they get, and then they go get an abortion whenever they need one, or they gotta give them birth control pills or whatever.
	If you listen to your average liberal Democrat talk about women, that's it.
	That's what they think the only thing women are concerned about is making sure they can have sex whenever they want to have it, and then they're covered, either with contraception or an abortion.
	And anybody opposes that is obviously engaged in a war on women.
	It's nonsense.
	So my phone just sends me an alert.
	Traffic is unusually heavy on the way home, and give yourself an additional five minutes.
	I love this stuff.
	And it's not Google.
	It was not, it's not Google now telling me that.
	I just I just love this stuff.
	Anyway, welcome back, folks.
	Uh L. Rushbow in the EIB network.
	Happy to have you here.
	It Planned Parenthood is running ads that in effect say, Will you be my birth control on Valentine's Day?
	The Maryland affiliate of Planned Abortion tweeted a picture of a colorful condom in place of a ring in a box.
	Will you be my birth control?
	The caption on the picture reads, Happy Valentine's Day from Planned Parenthood.
	Condom.
	Speaking, grab somebody 15 first before we use number two.
	Nancy Pelosi.
	This morning on uh now this news website, whatever the heck that is, but our show prep knows no bounds.
	We found it.
	Pelosi was being interviewed.
	It's an Instagram thing.
	She was being interviewed, and uh the subject of marriage came up for some reason.
	Speaking of which, have you heard about the f the f oh, play the Pelosi sound by this while I find it?
	Here's what she said about marriage.
	I always say, you know, if you're getting mad, why are you getting married?
	Why would you get married?
	Why wouldn't anybody get married?
	They met the person that they loved so much that was irresistible and they had to get married.
	Not a big one for rushing people into marriage, is as wonderful and happy as mine was.
	Why would anybody get married?
	Why?
	Why would what does she know that the rest of us don't?
	Nancy Pelosi does nothing, thinks of nothing unless it goes through a political prism.
	Just like Henry Waxman.
	He's nothing these people do other than politics or ideology.
	And so she said, why why would anybody get married?
	Why would anybody she'd been married fifty years?
	Met her husband once at a cigar dinner.
	He came up and said, Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi's husband.
	Like I was supposed to be shocked or intimidated or something.
	I said, Wow, you his name was Paul.
	Nice to meet you.
	And we had a nice chat about what a tough job it is.
	No, no, being in Congress, not her husband, but what a tough job being in Congress was.
	A federal court ruling in Virginia, echoing decisions reached elsewhere in the U.S., Virginia on Thursday became the first state in the South to overturn a voter approved prohibition of same-sex marriage.
	So once again, something that was voted on by the people has been overturn by a judge.
	The judge obviously thinks that she's Obama.
	U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen issued a stay of her order while it's appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia still will not be able to marry till the case is ultimately resolved.
	Both sides believe the case will not be settled until the Supreme Court decides to hear it or one like it.
	Now this judge does not know the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence.
	I have here, I'm holding in my formerly nicotine stained fingers the very first page of Judge Arenda Wright Allen's ruling.
	And she mixes up the Declaration with the Constitution.
	She claims that the Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn't.
	Now it's one thing for an average ordinary citizen to get that wrong, but this is a judge writing an opinion that apparently is reviewed by clerks.
	May have even been written by clerks, but this thing is not fastened together and thrown out there in a matter of seconds.
	It's written and it's reviewed, and you've got a federal judge who released an opinion claiming that she was finding in favor of the Constitution's guarantee of all men are created equal clause, and there's no such thing in the Constitution.
	She wrote a spirited and controversial debate is underway regarding who may enjoy the right to marry in the United States.
	America has pursued a journey to make and keep our citizens free.
	This journey has never been easy, and at times has been painful and poignant.
	The ultimate exercise of our freedom is choice.
	Our Constitution declares that all men, and she's got that in quotes, all men are created equal.
	Surely this means all of us, she writes.
	I mean, this is embarrassing.
	This is a federal judge writing this.
	While ever vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice.
	One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize the laws that emerge from some roots.
	So basically, here's a woman who thinks it's the Constitution that says all men are created equal.
	And then she has, by the way, we assume they meant everybody there, not just men.
	Unbelievable.
	She gets that wrong.
	And then she goes on to say, yeah, we've done we let people vote here, but sometimes, sometimes people don't know what they're doing.
	And we, smart judges have to move in and save the day.
	We've got to protect people from the mistakes they make, even though their intentions are good and honorable and all.
	One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize laws that emerge from such roots.
	And the roots are wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public.
	Well, it's not too much wisdom here.
	Now the marriage law, you know, marriage is.
	Do any of you think that whoever invented marriage intended discrimination to result from it?
	I I think the way this judge and and the entire left looks at marriage is cockeyed and wrong.
	They look they look at it like everything else, that it is the result of prejudice and discrimination from the white power structure that founded the country.
	And so you get these prejudiced roots here that she talks about.
	You can overthrow a law passed by citizens because it could be founded in prejudiced roots.
	And obviously this this judge believes that whoever wrote the law of marriage was discriminating against people.
	And we can't have that.
	And there's no discrimination in marriage.
	If you want to get married in this country, you can.
	Anyway, there's another ruling out of Utah that that may this one pales in a side-by-side comparison.
	And that one basically is permitting polygamy.
	That's folks, I mean, it's it's deteriorating rapidly out there.
	All across the fruited plane.
	Now you're gonna judge.
	Look at it's it's not this is not you know sometimes people when they're speaking confuse things.
	This is a written opinion, took a while to write.
	It's obviously been reviewed, and whoever, everybody that looked at this did not know that the Constitution doesn't talk about all men being created equal.
	And she's citing the Constitution as the reason for her ruling.
	She's citing something that isn't there.
	She's a federal judge.
	We are so screwed.
	I tell you, this is here is Glenn in Cincinnati as we roll on on open line Friday.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush, how are you?
	Good.
	Thank you.
	Hey, I've got I've I've got a great idea for CNN since their ratings are terrible and they want to get out of the news business.
	I say we start a reality show and we call it the next rush limbaugh.
	And the winner and the winner gets Pierce Morgan's spot.
	They would go from 200,000 a night watching Pierce Morgan to 10 million a night watching Pierce.
	Do they have 200,000 people watching Piers Morgan?
	I'm probably being generous.
	I thought it was like 75 now.
	Oh, yeah.
	It is bad.
	I mean, it it it is.
	It's so bad.
	Larry King said that what they ought to do is run SpongeBob SquarePants cartoons and then break in for breaking news.
	Absolutely.
	But I think if we had a conservative takeover of CNN, it's not gonna happen.
	Do you don't think money would push them over to the city?
	Look at this for Let me ask you a question.
	Let me ask you a question here.
	You sound like an informed astute guy when it comes to media.
	Okay, now here's here's CNN or take MSNBC or take anything out there, and they're sitting there with 50,000, 70, 100,000.
	Let's say give me your 200,000 listeners.
	Over here is a radio show with 20 million.
	And who is the last person you think of that might be able to help?
	The guy with 20 million.
	They ought to wake up and realize.
	I mean, it's it's stunning.
	It's it's absolutely and who do they hire?
	People that have 20,000 viewers.
	It it does it doesn't make sense.
	Fox is brilliant.
	Okay, so what is this idea?
	They the uh find the next Rush Limbaugh is the reality show?
	Yeah.
	What's the objective to find another conservative viewpoint talking head that eventually could still the position of Pierce Morgan and get rid of him for one thing and put a conservative voice on CNN.
	I I know you know I know it's far-fetched, but you know, one of those liberals over there would have to go, you know, this idea could make a a crap load of money.
	Let me tell you something.
	That's that's that that's right.
	That's how stupid.
	Oh, they we can't make money that way.
	Oh no.
	Back when Walter Ising, who wrote the Jobs biography, when he was running CNN, they approached me about doing a Sunday morning football show and then a Sunday morning political show right after it.
	And the word leaked out, and and Roger Ailes heard about it.
	And he said, I will bet you that Walter Isaacson needs security in his own building for this idea.
	Meaning Walter Isaacson put his life at risk by even thinking of having somebody like me seeing it.
	Nothing ever happened.
	Nothing came of it.
	But I'm sitting here, find the next rush limbo.
	A, there is a I just I think it's a brilliant idea, but uh Fox would pick it up in a heartbeat.
	But the the problem is Fox is already conservative.
	I say we we wage a war liberal media and start taking them over.
	Fox probably thinks they already have.
	Well, I don't even want to go there.
	It's it's a it's it's an intriguing.
	It's an intriguing idea.
	It's an intriguing.
	You know what?
	You could you can give the proceeds and or a lot of the proceeds proceeds to like wounded warrior.
	And I'm telling I'm telling you the idea of the takeoff.
	You just keep striking out.
	I mean, you're coming up with things no way any self-respecting CNN executive would even think of.
	Wounded warrior beneficiaries, find the next rush limb.
	You realize the cocktail invitations end.
	The awards end.
	Oh.
	But I like the way you think.
	That could be a fun reality show.
	Sadly, my friends, we are out of uh busy broadcast time, busy broadcast moments, but there will be more on the other side of the weekend.
	Thank you so much for being with us.
	Appreciate it.
	Hope it wasn't too inside baseball today.
	That's what open line Friday can be.
	You just never know.
	We follow the lead of the callers on Friday.
	And we'll see you Monday.

▲