All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
February 20, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at that.
Look at that, they're finally admitting it.
The regime is admitting Biden is just out there saying there's no way we're not gonna get the seven million people signing up for Obamacare, which was the that was the drop-dead number.
That was the minimum they needed to make it work, right?
So Biden's out there saying, well, it probably, yeah, it's not gonna happen.
If that's not gonna happen, then what are they going to do?
Because if that if that doesn't happen, they don't have any funding mechanism.
If they don't get seven million people signed up for this thing, and I'm not, by the way, do you know in Oregon, not one person has enrolled in in cover Oregon?
That's the state exchange, like cover count.
Not one, not one in Oregon.
In North Carolina, they've got a net loss.
They've had something like I'm rounding numbers.
A hundred some odds sign up and 400,000 have lost coverage.
They're down 300 some odd thousand people.
Even though they've had a hundred and some odd sign up, they've also had 4,000 cancellation.
It's an absolute disaster.
Here's Biden out there say, well, yeah, we're probably not gonna get to the 7 million anytime soon.
Well, then that's why this has been delayed, but they're not gonna give it up.
I'm not asking how they'll fund it.
You might be asking how they're gonna.
That's they'll just write the check.
They'll just borrow it, they'll just print it, whatever.
They'll raise taxes, they'll do whatever they've got to do.
What do they want to do?
They want to transform the country, right?
They want to redistribute wealth.
Okay.
If their if their primary effort in doing that is lagging, then they'll just come up with ways to make it happen outside of health care.
Health care was a transfer of wealth.
Health care is the redistribution of income.
Health care is massive tax increases.
So just do that.
In fact, they might say we gotta double up and ratchet up our efforts here, since we're lagging behind on enrollees.
We gotta get there.
Because they're not gonna give up the program.
Do you expect them to say, yeah, it's a nice try, but you know, we're gonna broom Obamacare and we'll come back later and and we'll just we'll start from scratch.
You think they're gonna do that?
No way.
So it's uh I I just so you know what the media is saying about this.
All they're saying is vice president lowers expectations of Obamacare.
That's it.
As though it's a brilliant political move.
It was an astute political move for the vice president to go out and lower expectations.
By doing that, there can be fewer critics that are taken seriously.
Because if you lower expectations, and if you're honest about how few people you're gonna have enrolled by certain date, uh, then it just makes the critics look like a bunch of nattering naybobs.
Okay, ask me.
Ask me the uh no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
See, I don't understand how you can ask me a question like that and then and then uh think I'm nuts when I tell you that the media would not object to having monitors.
Snerdley just said, now you have to understand, folks, yeah.
Bo Snerdley, uh one of my closest friends that loves me, and and there's nobody more loyal.
You have to understand that.
When you that this is not suck-up.
He actually asked me how long is it going to be before somebody in the regime or the media blames you for the lack of sign-ups because of all the time you've spent talking it down and criticizing it and making fun of it.
And I said, they're not gonna blame me for this.
And when it comes to health care, I'm not on their radar.
They're not.
And but he's he's firmly believes that since they blame me for a lot of other things that they'll eventually get to blaming me for this.
But I do not Believe they will do that.
That's yeah, I'll bet you.
What do you want to bet?
Yeah, you fig figure it, figure something out.
Figure out a how about a 4K 32-inch display that works for my new MacPro.
Okay.
Other items in the news.
I mentioned this right before the uh end of the first hour.
It is from Forbes.
Here's the headline.
Obama administration takes groupthink to absurd lengths.
School discipline rates must be proportionate.
And I'm just gonna give you some pull closer.
Let me read you how this thing starts.
Barack Obama has wrapped himself in egalitarianism all of his political career.
And now that dissatisfaction with his goal of transforming America is growing, he's pushing equally more relentlessly than ever.
Well, let's examine that.
Obama is trying to transform America.
That is his major goal.
And Mr. Leif here contends that there is growing dissatisfaction with this.
Well, there may be growing dissatisfaction, but is Obama not succeeding?
I wouldn't say he's not succeeding.
I think he's had profound success so far.
But what this story says is that Obama is unhappy with the dissatisfaction.
Obama is not happy that people oppose him.
So he is going to push for this transformation even more relentlessly than he ever has.
Last fall, Obama declared income inequality to be the defining challenge of our time.
That's laughable.
But in January, the regime, specifically the departments of justice and education, went even further with a guidance letter that demands a group equality approach to student discipline in America's public schools.
Now let me tell you what this is.
Folks, Mr. Leaf has identified what is happening.
This push for equality.
And the reason that they push for equality is because it's a it's almost a magic word to young people.
They think everybody should be equal.
There should be no inequality, there shouldn't be any unfairness, uh, and everybody should be happy, and everybody should be treated the same.
You know, all of that.
So Obama uses the code words to uh approach it.
It's sort of like you could pass anything in the world you wanted in Congress as long as you call the Civil Rights Act.
You might be able to legalize rape if you call it the Civil Rights Act of 2014.
I mean, you couldn't, but I use that as an example.
You can do a lot just by basis of what you called it.
And so the terms equality and inequality appeal to unthinking, inexperienced, low information, youth.
And that's where this story takes place.
School and the equality of scrual discipline.
School discipline, the rates and the and the and the parceling it out must be proportionate.
And I think this is all part of the uh you know, I mentioned stuff on the on the destruction that this regime can enact in the next three years.
You know, the reason they want to win the House, the Democrats do, they there's no opposition.
That's what Obama wants, no opposition.
He doesn't want to debate the opposition.
He doesn't want to consider the ideas of the opposition.
He doesn't want to have to enter the arena of ideas with the opposition and out debate them and outmaneuver them.
He just doesn't want there to be any opposition.
And that is the modus operandi.
And that's why the Democrats want the House.
It will become a literal rubber stamp.
I mean, if you've got such brainiacs as Sheila Jackson Lee already saying that the purpose of the Congress is to write executive orders for the president to sign, and she said it, and she means it.
The Democrats win when Obama goes before them on the state of the coup speech and basically says, if you guys don't do what I want, I'm going to do it anyway, and they give him a standing O. If the Democrats win the House, the House is a is officially a rubber stamp.
They won't even wait for legislation.
But they'll be able to debate, pass legislation inside of a day.
Obama can sign it.
And that's what they're angling for here.
And a lot of things are taking place before that happens under the radar.
All of these rules and regulations.
All kinds of little things, from the EPA to the Department of Justice to the Department of Energy and Education, is all kinds of things that they're doing.
Like this FCC thing that's been caught with monitors in newsrooms.
Soon school officials under threat of the federal government will either start disciplining students who shouldn't be, or more likely will not discipline some students who should be.
And that is what is on the agenda.
And it's going to be, it's going to be totally illegal, but this is going to be done under the auspices of equality and fairness.
Here's a pull quote from the story.
In January, the Obama administration, specifically the departments of justice and education, went even further with a guidance letter that demands a group equality approach to student discipline in America's public schools.
If federal bureaucrats suspect that there is any racial disproportionality in the punishments meted out for misbehavior in school, they will descend on the school's administrators,
unless those officials can prove to the government's satisfaction, good luck with that, that any deferential in rates of punishment by race or ethnic groups is necessary, the school will face the loss of federal funds and costly mandates for diversity training.
Let me translate that for you.
The federal government is going to assert control over the way discipline is handled in local public schools.
And the administrators of these schools are going to have to report every act of discipline that they have engaged in.
They're going to have to explain who was disciplined and why.
Every case.
If there are disparities seen, if more blacks are disciplined than whites, or if the disciplinary action is at all judged to be unfair or disproportionate by the federal monitors, then the federal government will go to the local school district and say, you're going to fix this, you're going to discipline the way we tell you to, or we are going to withhold
funds.
And furthermore, we're going to mandate that every teacher and every administrator attend diversity and sensitivity training.
And here you go.
Come on, Russia.
Never happened.
They don't have the manpower.
They can't do that.
They can't even run health care.
Not the point.
The point is they want to.
The point is they're going to try to.
The point is they believe it is totally within their purview to do this.
And the point is that their starting point is that it's already inequitable.
It's already unfair, and it's already racist.
And their guidepost for that is the incarceration rates.
They already believe that discipline is disproportionately racist, racist, because there are many more blacks in jail than there are whites.
That's their starting point.
So they figure that on average, it's a natural occurrence, school administrators are going to be much harsher, much more punitive on minority students than on white students.
That's the starting point.
The starting point is the school districts are guilty.
And then the regime is now instituting a program that's designed to prove what they think is already going on.
And they'll be able to prove whatever they want.
They'll have the administrators by the shorts.
You give us what we want in this, or we're going to pull your money away.
The administrators will then begin to alter the discipline, change it, uh, cancel it for some, increase it for others.
Now let's add, let's take a look at how the discipline's going to change.
How does the left deal with matters of inequality?
How do they do it when they when they detect uh income inequality?
How does the left Obama, the Democrats, what how would they attack that situation?
What they normally do is they look at the people in the low end of the economic scale, people high end, they assume people high end are cheating, and they take from them.
They never ever attempt to elevate the poor or the underachievers.
They always take the successful.
The economically successful, in this case, the academically successful, they punish them.
And they equalize people by bringing people at the top down.
So if you transfer that to the way they would deal with discipline, what do you think is going to happen?
The real problem cases are not going to be dealt with.
That's going to become the baseline for norm.
Another pull quote.
When prompted, this aggressive move by the feds, apart from its political value with most of Obama's base, is the notion that some students, especially African American and Hispanic males, are apt to be given harsher discipline for an infraction than would white or Asian students.
You see, the starting point is that there's already bias and racism.
That's the starting point for this regulation.
The starting point is the schools are already harsher on African Americans and Hispanics.
That's why we're doing this.
There's a problem.
We are not disciplining whites nearly as severely, and that's going to change.
So what's going to happen is rather than study why harsh discipline is being handed out, they will study why there isn't harsh discipline on the whites, and they will try to equalize it by making sure that the discipline is increased on those who are not being disciplined as severely as minorities and so forth.
And that's the hour look the other way in the bottom side.
It says ignore the the on the bottom side.
But have any of you heard about any of this?
News, right?
This is stuff happening under the radar.
It has made into Forbes.
Got to take a break, sit tight, be right back, don't go away.
Yeah, I tell you what, I'm going to do phone calls in the next segment.
I got a couple of sound bites that I want you to hear.
And folks, I'm a little hoarse today.
It's it's almost like I'm on the verge of a cold, but I'm not on the verge of a call.
I feel I feel absolutely fabulous and great, but I'm just a little hoarse.
I'm working around it.
Well, the audio processing equipment we have, you probably can't even tell until I noticed it.
And now you're listening with even more attention, sharper detail, trying to pick up the nuances.
But no sweat.
Frank DeFord, sports illustrated NBC sports, well known, highly respected, sports reporter.
Way way back.
During NPR's morning edition, he did a commentary today about Michael Sam entering the NFL.
Sure, the media will beat the story to death, but we have it on the authority of no less than Rush Limbaugh that quote, sports media are worse libs than the news media.
So all the bleeding heart football writers will be rooting for Michael Sam, like most people.
Anyway, by the third game of the season, everybody will have lost interest in him and we'll be back to hearing about injuries and playoff chances and all those poor old heterosexuals whose brains were damaged playing the game.
Oh, those darned distractions.
You want to bet that by the third game of the season everybody will have forgotten about him.
But anyway, anyway.
So go ahead and let the guy play.
Back to those heterosexuals and their injuries and distractions so forth.
Well, let's go back to November 14th of last year.
Same place, NPR morning edition, and the same guy, Frank DeFord.
An HBO Real Sports Maris College poll shows that the danger of football concussions would make a third of Americans less likely to let their boys play.
But now the view that has emerged from the Dolphins locker room goes beyond that and suggests that modern football is so violent, even thuggish, that it can damage your soul as well as your brain.
How many more parents will keep their sons out of the football locker room under the assumption that there are better ways to learn to be manly?
Uh Mr. DeFord, then why are you so supportive of Sam going into the NFL if it if it damages your soul as well as your brain?
Why isn't there an alternative way for Sam to be manly and to go to the NFL?
Last November it was not cool to go to the NFL.
Now it is.
Hey, you still don't believe me about this newsroom monitor business?
Let me give you two words.
You ever heard of fairness doctrine?
Before I leave here today, I am going to convince you that this would end up being totally supported by America's journalists.
If it is aimed at getting rid of talk radio, do you think they'll support it?
Remember, the monitors are going to be in TV and radio newsrooms, radio stations.
You know that the regime, you know that Democrats have wanted to reenact the fairness doctrine ever since Reagan got rid of it in 1987.
And you know that they have purposely misconstrued what it even is.
They have purposely tried to convince people the fairness doctrine is equal time.
And it isn't.
But you know they would love to revive it.
They've tried to.
It's been shot down two or three.
The FCC finally gave it away.
Now we're back to monitors in the newsroom.
To do what?
Well, if you look at what's said, it looks strangely identical to what local stations used to have to go through to get their licenses to broadcast renewed every three to five years.
They had to go out and ascertain the community.
I had to do this.
You probably don't know this.
I'm speaking to Mr. Snurdley.
You may not know how this used to happen.
But as recently as 1980, station management had to conduct meetings once every three years with the local librarian and whoever else.
And get their thoughts on what the radio station should be doing to serve the community.
Now, it wasn't important what was said or whether or not the station acted on any of it.
What was important was that the station had to do the interviews with the local community leaders.
And there did have to be a certain percentage of the broadcast week devoted to those issues identified by the community as important.
That's why you never listened to the radio on Sunday morning and late Saturday night because that's when all that programming was dumped on people because it's nothing anybody wants to hear.
to hear.
TV stations had to do it too.
Now that has been vastly relaxed.
Broadcast license renewals are almost rubber stamp affairs now.
The uh the last real problem with it, you know, the things that are problems now like these wardrobe malfunctions.
They actually tried to go after CBS, but at wardrobe malfunction in the uh Super Bowl, they went after that on uh on the local level, the the affiliate level, and networks are not licensed.
Local stations are the EIB network does not have a broadcast license, but each of our stations does.
NBC News does not have a license, but their stations do.
The ones they own and the ones that carry NBC News, one degree or another.
They're affiliates.
Every local station has to be licensed.
Okay, so we're gonna have monitors.
All of a sudden the FCC, the regulatory agency that is empowered to regulate over the air public broadcasters.
They want to put some monitors in the newsrooms.
Why?
Well, they say to find out what they can do to encourage minority ownership.
And that, of course, who can oppose that?
So you got to welcome the monitor in.
Who can oppose that?
Wait a minute.
You stand up and you oppose the monitor coming into your newsroom because you oppose greater minority participation and ownership, you racist pig.
So nobody will oppose the monitor coming in.
Okay, so what's the monitor really to do?
Well, we have learned here in the Forbes magazine piece that, and I've got I've got the questions, by the way.
I got right here.
There's an outline of the FCC's questionnaire that the monitors would ask of local station management.
Here are some questions for station owners and managers or human resources executives.
What is the news philosophy of your station?
Who is your target audience?
How do you define critical information that the community needs?
How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?
Now you put a monitor inside a local TV or radio station or a network newsroom asking these questions.
This is almost identical to what used to be called public ascertainment.
Local stations, as I don't want to repeat myself, had to go interview local community, librarian, you name it.
Sewage director, you just have to go through the motions of ascertaining what leaders in the community thought was important.
Public airways.
How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
What are the demographics of the news management staff?
What are the demographics demographics of the on-air staff?
What are the demographics of the news production staff?
These are the questions that the regime's monitor is going to be coming in asking.
Of station owners and managers.
Here are the questions for corporate general managers, news directors, and editors.
What is the news philosophy of your station?
Who else in your market provides news?
Who are your main competitors?
How much does your station air every day?
Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source, as in a syndicated radio show?
Do you employ news people?
How many reporters and editors do you employ?
Do you have any reporters or editors Assigned to topic beats.
If so, how many and what are the beats?
This is none of the government's business.
There's a First Amendment clause devoted to freedom of the press.
They've got no business, but this is exactly what local stations used to have to answer every three to five years.
But now they want to put monitors in there.
I am telling you that you're not going to hear any objection from the journalists.
I you F no, no, they won't.
No.
No, no, you're missing the point entirely.
F. Chuck Todd will not stand up in opposition to this.
David Gregory will not stand up in opposition to this.
Take your pick.
Brian Williams will not stand up in that.
They will not stand.
This is the Obama administration.
They are GOAT.
They if the Republicans would do this, then they would stand up oppose it and destroy their administration, call up with the Constitution.
But since it's my point, since it's Obama doing it, these people are groupies.
These people are only interested in Obama succeeding.
These people want access to Obama.
They want to play golf with Obama.
They want to be on the inside.
They want to be in the inner circle.
They want to be in the click.
If you're going to have a monitor from the regime in your newsroom who is going to be reporting back to the regime, and you are a current journalist in the current atmosphere, you're going to do your best to even suck up to the monitor.
So the news gets back to the regime.
What a great team player you are.
I just pointed out yesterday.
I was watching CNN.
I was minding my own business, CC and up there, and I saw a reporter who used, I saw what used to be a reporter named was Jill Doherty.
And she's at the Kennedy School of Government.
She was the she was a domestic news reporter for CNN years ago.
Then a Moscow bureau chief.
She was a reporter CNN.
Now she's at the Kennedy School.
They're not journalists.
They're all Democrats.
They're all leftists.
They're assigned various sometimes.
Then they're assigned to work for a think tank, they're signed to work over at a network, work for a journalist, uh, whatever.
There is no news.
There's no news gathering.
It's the news every day is simply the advancement of the Democrat agenda.
There isn't any.
I'm talking about national network, but what is open the New York Times?
You tell me that's the news of the day?
Or is that what's important to the left every day?
And then whatever's on CBS or NBC's evening news, is that the news of the day?
Is that what really happened today that we don't know about?
Or is that what matters today in advancing the Democrats' agenda?
And that's what the news is.
They're not going to stand up and oppose this.
And if the more I look at these questions, here are the questions for on-air staff.
Reporters, anchors.
How much news does your station air every day?
Who decides which stories are covered?
How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?
Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information?
For your customers, your viewers, listeners, readers, that was rejected by management.
If so, can you give an example of a story you thought was important that was rejected?
What was the reason given for the rejection of your story?
And why do you disagree?
Half of the questions deal with reporters ticked off at management for not being allowed to cover the stories they thought were big.
Now the ad week story, as I mentioned, FCC backs off study of newsroom editorial practices.
This story by Katie Bachman, and she's credible.
I know her.
She's reported accurately on this program before.
And it's February 12th.
She said the FCC is quietly changing course on a controversial study after parts of it were roundly criticized by Republican lawmakers and an FCC commissioner.
Snerdley, there hasn't been the only journalist that's spoken up about this is Howie Kurtz.
It's been out there since February 10th or 12th, and not one of them's even spoken up and opposed it.
If this is seen as a way of implementing the fairness doctrine on radio, do you think that the journalists will stand up and oppose it?
Or will they be cheering it on?
You know darn well they'll be cheering it on.
And that's what I smell here.
I go through this is fairness doctrine.
He's this is a roundabout way.
Then I think you're gonna call it that.
This is minority ownership enhancement opportunities.
But it is the federal government policing and monitoring, intimidating uh media.
Now you asked me a moment ago.
Excuse me.
You asked me a moment ago, well, look, and if Biden says we're nowhere near what we need, seven million enrollees, we're nowhere can't even meet the expectation of of Obamacare, then what are we gonna do?
What are they gonna say?
I guarantee you, and maybe Biden's already said it.
After he said, Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're not gonna meet our expectation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're we're we're not gonna hit the seven million right now.
But they're still out there saying we're heading in the right direction.
Despite the snags, despite the glitches, despite the bumps in the road, we are closer to our targets than we were yesterday.
We're heading the right direction, we're headed there, we're on the way, we're gonna get it done.
And besides, we have the stockpile of all the hollow point bullets now.
You can't find any, can you?
Back to the phones we go.
Here is uh Stephen in South Jordan, Utah.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rice.
I'm glad to talk to you.
I really enjoy your program.
Thank you, sir, very much.
But I have a prediction that Hillary Clinton will not be running for president because Barack Obama will be running for a third term.
Because his people, at the right time, who take that law that says a president can only run for two terms to the Supreme Court and have it declared unconstitutional.
Now Obama will probably pick Hillary as his vice president.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I'm having trouble understanding you because I need you to pull that phone a little further away from your mouth for what I you you think that that uh the Supreme Court will agree that denying a guy to run third time is is what?
Unconstitutional?
Unconstitutional.
But they can't one thing that I know for sure, you cannot change the presidential succession amendment to affect the current occupant.
That that that cannot happen.
Well, I say.
Forgive me, folks.
I'm living in the old days where the law mattered up.
You may have a point.
You may have a point.
But I was gonna say here's my first reaction.
If if Hillary is not gonna run because Obama is gonna there is if if Obama wants to keep being president, there isn't gonna be an election.
Oh He's not gonna have to run for anything.
He's just gonna say, I can't run the risk of turning this country over to the Republicans.
It's too important.
And of course the media would support that.
So that's true.
You can do that.
I think declare a national emergency, martial law, and just not leave.
But there won't be a campaign.
I mean, if the if if Obama wants to keep being president, he's gonna throw that.
He's not gonna run the risk of losing an election if he wants to keep being president.
He's just gonna suspend the election.
And that's not gonna happen.
That that isn't gonna happen.
Let's let's get serious.
Now, let's say here you do you think Hillary would win if she runs, Obama's not on the ballot because he's not gonna be, don't doubt me on this.
If Hillary runs, you think she's gonna win or not?
She's gonna win, I think.
Because she's gonna run on Obama's social justice philosophy, which is really nothing but social covetness.
And there's enough people in this country that coveted.
You know, I kinda like the social to give him.
Social justice is social covetness.
Yeah.
Thou shalt not covet another man's social.
Right.
Interesting.
You know what covetous leads to?
Covet leads to bearing false witness.
Yeah.
If you listen to Obama, bearing false witness, you know he's coveting.
Yeah.
Okay, you've got programs.
You've got Obama on the brain here.
I mean, there's uh no denying that.
Is it Hillary gonna win?
Oh, yeah, because of Obama.
Hillary gonna win?
No, because of Obama.
Um take Obama out of it.
Fifteen seconds.
If Hillary ran, can she win on her own, whether she's coveting social justice or not?
Yeah.
Okay.
So the bottom line is you are scared to death that Hillary's gonna be the next president no matter what.
And that's where we're doing.
Okay, folks, sit tight.
It's the fastest three hours in media, and we've got one more big exciting broadcast hour.
Uh to go.
▲
Export Selection