All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 27, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:45
February 27, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers and thrill seekers.
Now wait, I haven't taken over yet.
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
I'm sorry, I can't help it.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Folks, I'm making a pledge to I don't care.
Never, it is not going to happen.
I guarantee you, you are going to be able to tune in here every day and get what you have come to expect.
No caving, no moderating of the tone or moderating of the views or any of this sort of stuff that seems to be rampant out there.
Not happening here.
It's great to have you with us.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
All right, get this out of the way.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, I have been intending to do this is the first hour since this whole Arizona thing came up, and this is good.
Bill Donahue, who is the head of the Catholic, the president of the Catholic League in New York, was on CNN's New Day Today with Chris Cuomo.
And by the way, nobody is watching.
I've got these numbers here.
As I mentioned, Anderson Cooper at 8 o'clock dropped 47% of his audience from last February to this.
That rounded up half the audience left in one year.
And this has been a trend that didn't just start last year.
Aaron Burnett out front dropped 39%.
Piers Morgan was, I mean, everything is down nearly 50% at CNN.
And yet, the changes that they think they're going to make are just going to compound the problem.
It's really amazing to watch this.
And it's, how can I explain this?
Back in, here I go again, the old days, when I was young and starting out, there was a profound respect.
People might not have liked them.
I mean, nobody likes the boss, but there was a profound respect for the people that ran major broadcast outlets, radio stations and networks.
There was no, you might have had your oddballs and some were not quite as good as others, but you just didn't swerve into a job like that.
And if you goofed up, I mean, I can remember the guys that they would appoint to be president of the prime time division.
Those guys might not last two seasons, depending on what happened.
And they didn't have to lose 50% of their audience to be thrown out if they lost 10% or if they picked a bomb show.
They were gone.
I have never seen executives hang on for 10, 15 years like this in a constant decline, constant slide.
And every executive they hire to reverse it only compounds it and makes it worse.
MSNBC, CNN, I've never seen anything like this.
Well, it almost is like being a union member or something, but it's just a dramatic change, and it's a lowering of standards.
Well, they're public companies, but again, the companies are so big that they make enough profit in other divisions to prop these up financially.
But that's not even the point.
Who wants to sit there and suck with 200,000 viewers on a nationwide cable news network?
I mean, who wants to beat their chest and say, I'm president of that?
And it just continues to get worse, and the people they think are going to attract viewers, no prayer, no hope.
So CNN goes out and hires somebody that nobody wants to watch, and 60 Minutes says, wow, we like the guy too, so they have to pick him up.
And I'm not just one person.
This stuff is incestuous.
It just, it boggles the mind.
And I'm speaking to you as somebody deeply embedded in the industry.
So I'm playing soundbites.
You're going to have, you're going to constitute a much larger audience listening to these soundbites than what saw this live this morning.
I don't know how.
If I worked at this network and I had audiences this small, I would be embarrassed.
I'd be thinking, I'm getting canned tomorrow.
And yet, quite the opposite.
They end up with more importance.
They get longer contracts with raises in them.
It's just, and it's all political.
I understand that.
That's the difference.
The cloak covering the objectivity is gone now, and it's all in for the agenda.
And that determines whether you keep the gig or not.
You on board for the agenda?
You willing to sacrifice for the agenda?
You're our guy.
And it's just so different.
And my point is, no matter where you look in our culture, standards are just plummeting.
Standards of excellence, achievement, accomplishment, they don't mean anything anymore.
A kid, three days on TV, gets a Walter Cronkite Award for exploration and journalism.
Three days?
All because he might be Frank Sinatra's kid.
Well, they sure as hell aren't giving him an award because he might be Woody Allen's.
Kid can barely spell teleprompter.
I know he's a Rhodes Scholar and all that, but I don't even know.
Look, again, I'm not criticizing him.
Good for him if he can get, well, I don't know.
It's good for anybody being hired by MSNBC.
But I mean, a guy wants to be on TV, found the job, good for him.
I'm just talking about the liberals.
What are they doing when they give an award?
What was Nobel doing giving Obama a peace prize when he hadn't done anything yet?
They were giving him an award on the come.
They were falling for PR.
They were advancing the agenda.
What does it say about the Cronkite award if somebody on TV for three days reading a prompter can win it?
And by the way, if you happen to be Mika Zhuzhinski, or if you happen to be Rachel Madow, if you happen to be somebody been working at MSNBC for 15 years in the basement, and here comes the kid getting the award after three days, how do you feel?
And you probably think, good, good, this is advancing the cause.
This is good for the agenda.
I know, the blue eyes.
You look at a picture, you understand why this is happening, do you not?
Anyway, here we go.
Well, here's Bill Donahue on CNN's new day today with the host, Chris Cuomo.
And they're discussing Jan Brewer's veto of the Arizona bill.
And Cuomo said, why do you believe that Arizona needed this law?
People of faith, whatever faith you may be, are fed up with the idea, starting with this federal government, with the Obama administration, when it comes to matters, sexual abortion or same-sex marriage, of basically pushing gay rights, encroaching on the rights of people of faith.
Whether it's denial in Illinois and Massachusetts about adoption for the Catholic Church, Catholic charities, we have an attorney general who tells the state's attorney general, don't even bother enforcing the laws when it comes to marriage.
Look, gays as individuals, I'm with you on that.
Let's protect them in the workplace.
Let's protect them as individuals.
What my concern is, and I think I speak for a lot of people of faith, is the institution of marriage.
That's a separate issue altogether.
No, it's not.
Not anymore.
No, no, no, no.
It's not a separate issue.
It's whatever the left wants it to be now.
Chris Cuomo then said, are you aware, Mr. Donahue, are you aware that in Arizona, the LGBT community is not a protected class?
Are you aware of that?
As a matter of fact, I don't even believe it.
Quite frankly, we've had this Riffra law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act since 1997 at the federal level.
Where are the examples of gays being discriminated against?
If they're so discriminated against, how come they make more money than straight people on average?
Is somebody being denied an Applebee is getting a hamburger?
Where are these examples?
Can you enumerate for me examples of gay people in Arizona who are having their rights violated by people of faith?
Duh.
Dead silence.
Again, not the point.
Gay people don't have to have their rights violated by people of faith in Arizona because the left thinks that the people of faith in Arizona would, if they could, discriminate.
Because they've already made up their minds that they are bigots and homophobes because they are Republicans.
So it doesn't matter that there isn't any evidence of discrimination.
All that matters is the left knows they're thinking about it.
And back to the phones.
This is Justin in West Covina, California.
Hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
I just wanted to say that I don't understand why people would think that it's going to stop at the unfortunate couple that did not want to take photographs of the gay.
Wait, wait, just saying.
I want to understand what you're saying.
You want to say you don't understand why people would think it's going to stop at the oh, oh, yeah.
Like, this is not the solution or anything.
This is just beginning in new problems, right?
Yes, meaning that I believe that ultimately they are going to go into the churches, demand to be married in a given church.
And when they're told no because of the religious grounds, then they will turn around and sue the church, attempting to strip the church of the tax-exempt status, which, of course, will force the church to disappear.
So the churches will either have to get in line, all religious people, either get in line, or your church itself ultimately will be pushed out of the marketplace, or not marketplace, but pushed out of society as a whole.
Let me ask you a question, Justin.
Sure.
In Arizona, we just what was it even?
Was it baking a cake?
Baker refused to make cake for a gay couple, and there was one other instance, and so that became Arizona.
Yeah, I was referring to the couple in Utah that the photography had to be.
Okay, so yeah, I just wanted to establish what those two were.
What makes you think that this is not over?
Why do you think they're going to next go into churches and demand to be married?
Because I don't believe that it is about the idea that they can exist as a couple and have all of the rights that they want to have.
I believe that the idea is that everyone must accept them and must agree to whatever terms that they want, meaning to believe that they are the same, to believe that religiously it is acceptable.
Everyone must accept their lifestyle.
I don't believe that they will allow any exceptions to that as far as their perspective and their movement.
So you think that ultimately they're going to want to just basically like destroy the church.
Yes.
Religion.
Religion is.
I don't believe that they will destroy religion.
It is that if the religious groups or the churches do not accept them, do not agree to marry them, do not agree that they are the same as a heterosexual couple in their eyes, then yes, then all of those people, all of those groups, businesses, churches are to be wiped out.
But you are describing political activists.
That is correct, yes, which is exactly what they are, what I believe them to be.
But no, we're told they're people that love and have sex with each other and just want to be able to, you know, live peacefully without being hassled.
But you're describing people that want to go in and tear down institution after institution that might make them feel threatened or something.
That's what political activists do.
Yeah, and if what you said is true, that the projection being portrayed by the media is that they just want to live happily and be with each other, then they could create their own churches and marry away as much as they would like in all of the places where that can be done, and there would be nothing to stop them.
The confrontation could be avoided entirely with religious groups that don't accept.
You're saying they want the confrontation.
That is precisely what they want.
They want the confrontation with anyone that does not agree with what they want, which is why it is a political movement, not one just about being together and being left alone to do what they see fit in their personal lives.
Why do they care?
Okay, so there's the church of Our Lady, the miraculous interstate.
Why do they care if the church of Our Lady, the Miraculous Interstate doesn't like gay marriage?
Why do they care?
Well, that stands in a violation of their own personal belief system.
To say that you don't accept their relationship as being within your faith or your religion is unacceptable.
You can't have anyone because that would be what they would call discrimination, correct?
You're discriminating against them because you're refusing to marry them under any faith because they can claim, of course, that they believe what you believe with that one exception, and then you're discriminating against them the same as the couple that said they didn't want to photograph the wedding because they didn't believe in it religiously.
Okay.
I get it now.
So Justin basically says that they don't really care about what they claim to care about.
They're just political activists trying to tear down people they think stand in their way of being perceived as normal or what have you.
That's what he thinks.
That they're not, it really isn't about love and all that.
It's about equality and inequality, fairness and unfairness.
I think on the left, yeah, if we're to believe Justin, now if we're to believe what Justin thinks, yeah, everything on the left is politics.
Everything.
Even landing on the aircraft carrier.
Here's Mark.
Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Welcome to really inside baseball there, folks.
Mark in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you, sir?
Good, sir.
Thank you for calling.
Absolutely.
What I wanted to speak to you about here is I know you've been speaking about religious inequality or equality.
I wanted to speak to you about how that inequality and that racism plays out between black conservatives like myself and black liberals.
On a day-to-day basis, at work, at social events, I'm constantly bombarded with questions.
I'm constantly bombarded with racism from other black people because of being a black conservative.
And I wanted to kind of get your take on it and what you thought.
I wanted to get that idea out there that black people need to stand up and listen.
When you were speaking about the N-word, I believe I heard you say a little while back that something that someone calls you should only be heard if you believe it describes you.
And that speaks volumes to me.
If black people would stand up and pay attention to this Democratic Party, you would see that the reason you constantly are voting for them is because of how many things they give you.
If they want to keep you on food stamps, why wouldn't they give that to you?
But to keep them in office?
Well, the answer to the first part of your question is: why do you get grief as a black conservative from liberal blacks?
Because you're a traitor.
Right.
You know that.
And a threat.
You've been called an Uncle Tom or worse, right?
I've been called everything from a racial white slur to describe.
I've been called white, period, because I did vote for our president, but my eyes were shut at that moment in time.
Right.
I didn't know exactly what I was doing.
You have been, in their minds, you really represent a threat.
And you are brainwashed.
And you are working at odds against your race because the traitorous nature of what you are doing.
There's no tolerance.
You're experiencing that there's absolutely no tolerance for your beliefs.
That has nothing to do with your skin color.
Well, it does in the sense that you're not supposed to be concerned.
You're not even permitted.
And they're free to call you any name in the world.
And they're free to attack you any way they want because it really comes down to if you really want to know the truth, and that's why you should not cave and never be intimidated by this, is because, Mark, you ultimately represent a threat.
That's exactly why they're scared to death of Clarence Thomas and people like him.
There's one more Bill Donahue bite here, and it dovetails exactly with the point that Justin made, our caller from West Covina, California.
He said, hey, this isn't going to stop at wedding cakes and photographing wedding ceremonies.
The next thing that's going to happen is they're going to demand a church marry them, and the church is going to refuse.
And Obama's going to move in and strip the church of its tax-exempt status and destroy the church unless they marry.
And Donahue brings that up here.
You should hear this.
Again, Donahue talking to Chris Cuomo at CNN.
And Cuomo says, Look, the question is, Mr. Donahue, can you point out a business that was burdened because of what they had to do vis-a-vis a gay person?
Can you point out to me a business that was harmed because it had to patronize a gay customer?
The photographer says, I don't want to deal with a wedding ceremony.
If that person says, listen, the gay people come into my shop and you're a gay person, I don't want to take your picture.
I have no sympathy for these people of faith, all right?
When it gets into the question of marriage ceremonies, whether it's in the secular vein, like I gave an example, or where we're going into the churches.
No, but we're not going there.
Oh, I think that's the only thing that's people.
Nobody's saying that a religious organization has to perform gay marriages.
Nobody.
If we have a federal administration which ignores the express will of the people in DOMA, and when you have the people take an initiative in California saying we don't want gay marriage, and then you get judges to overturn it, we're being besieged.
Now, this is classic because here you have the all-knowing.
I don't know what it is, guys, in on the whole game of the agenda if he's a dupe.
And by that, Chris Como may actually believe that this was nothing more than weddings and pictures.
He may not know that the ultimate aim is to go in and force churches.
He may really believe that.
I don't know.
And Donahue's point is: well, where do you think this is headed when you've got a regime who is already denying churches and universities of religious foundation their religious freedom?
Where do you think we're headed here?
We're being besieged.
And Chris Cuomo side, now, this isn't about court.
Churches, nobody's talking about going into churches.
And the response to that is, yet.
But I think the caller from West Covina, California has got a point, and I bet it isn't long.
After this, I mean, they've got victory after victory after victory.
Why stop?
Brian in Omaha, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello, sir.
Brian, are you there?
Yes, I am, sir.
Are you there?
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi.
My belief is that the political movement about homosexuality is about other people's money and access to it via taxation.
How many local, state, and now the federal government are providing benefits to homosexual couples?
That's what this is about.
I taught us that.
Follow the money.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I haven't heard this.
I want to follow this.
You think that the political nature, and it is, the political nature of the homosexual movement is about tax money?
Access to other people's money.
Access to other people's money.
Through taxation.
Okay.
Support our lifestyle.
And so doing our lifestyle, and doing so, your behavior will be.
Okay, walk me through an example of what you mean here.
How many governments are now providing benefits to homosexual couples?
And in so doing, they're saying your behavior is legitimate.
Homosexuality is a behavior.
Isn't it correct?
Isn't it?
Yes, it is.
And what they want is to legitimize their behavior, to say our behavior is mainstream, despite the fact that we are a very small portion of the population.
And they use bully tactics to get their way.
Okay, look, I understand everybody wants to think that they're cool and normal.
But what is the how are they getting other people to support their lifestyle?
What are they doing?
I'm just asking if you don't misunderstand my tone.
I'm not arguing with you.
I just want to understand, and the best way I can understand, if you give me an example of tax money somehow being transferred to gay couples for their support.
How many gay couples work for governments, and now homosexual couples are working for the government?
And the government is now providing them with benefits, the same as heterosexual couples.
Oh, you mean like in gay marriage?
You think gay marriage is about acquiring health benefits and other benefits?
Yes.
And pretty soon it will be forced upon all businesses throughout the land and religious organizations throughout the land.
Otherwise, you will be considered committing some form of hate crime, heaven forbid.
Okay.
In so doing, do not engage in this risky behavior will then be forced to subsidize that risky behavior.
To help me understand this, let's use what happened in Arizona.
Did a couple walks in and wants Baker A to bake them a wedding cake, and their gay says, no, A, I don't want to have to go to your gay wedding.
B, my religious beliefs proscribed it.
I'd rather not bake your cake.
So how does that result in that gay couple getting money?
So the homosexual couple takes them to court and sues.
And the judge says, okay, now you have to do this for them or you will face a penalty.
I see.
And so the result is that via the court decision, the baker has to fork over money, which legitimizes the lifestyle that he on religious grounds disagrees with.
And that stamps it as normal.
Absolutely.
Okay.
That's what you mean.
Okay.
That's fine.
That's cool.
and understand how your your thought process because the um you know i have a rule always follow the money but i had not attached that to this oh well that already yeah look at it well that's already under employer health plans and visitation in the hospital You know, that's why the civil union thing didn't work out because there aren't any benefits there.
But you allow gay marriage as a legitimate thing, and there are the benefits, and you can leave your 50 cents, whatever, in your will to, yeah, whatever you have.
Yeah, that's undeniable, I suppose.
So the point is, there are a lot of tentacles that are being interwoven.
It's an intricately woven web of deceit, persists.
Some people who have not even figured the financial angle of this.
Spike Lee, well-known movie actor, director, well-known director, Boys in the Hood.
Remember that movie first came out?
Nobody thought, what did Boys in the Hood?
What about Boys in a Trunk?
Nobody knew what Hood was when it came, except the people in the hood.
But the Honkies had no clue.
The homies?
Boys in the Hood?
No, short for neighborhood.
That's Spike Lee.
And Tuesday night in Brooklyn at the Pratt Institute, he spoke in honor of African American History Month.
I booked in New York.
It's changed.
And why does it take the influx of white New Yorkers in the South Bronx in Harlem and bedside and crime heights for the facility to get better?
The government will be picked up every mother in 165 Washington Park.
When you see white mothers pushing their babies and strollers 3 o'clock in the morning to 125th Street, that let's tell you something.
It did come the mother Christopher Columbus syndrome.
You can't discover this.
We've been here.
You just can't come and book my okay.
I didn't realize I had three of these.
I thought I only had one.
And the one I here in this bite, he said, why do we have to have white people moving our neighborhoods for the neighborhood to improve?
Who says that?
Why is that the case?
Why do we need white people moving to Harlem for Harlem to get better?
And you heard the MF slur word in there all over the place.
But really, what is the bite that I wanted to play was: Spike Lee lives on the Upper East Side, and he's sick and tired of white people moving into his neighborhood.
He doesn't like Upper East Side.
Spike, you need to be on the Upper West side over in Zabar's Upper East.
What are you doing on the Upper East side?
But anyway, that's where he is in the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and he's upset that white people are moving into his neighborhood.
And I just wanted to share that bite with you.
But which one is it here?
It's tabby, dab, tab, dab, he's stuck on Humphrey Bogart.
This is not it.
One more.
Grab somebody seven.
This is Fred Coleman.
Fred Coleman is ESPN, the N-word, radio host, talking about the N-word being banned in the NFL.
You got to hear this one.
Why have you not talked to players?
Why have you not talked to coaches?
Wait a minute.
Why have you asked us?
And we're the ones representing your product.
We're the reason why, you're Roger Goodell, you made over $44 million in 2012.
People aren't going to the NFL game to see if Roger Goodell's in the stands.
They're going to see the players.
Why has the NFL not done their homework and really talked to more people before coming out with something like this?
The resentment is really starting to build in the ranks of the NFL.
What Coleman is saying here is, what is this white commissioner doing telling us what we can and can't say?
We're the product.
People coming out to watch us, not listen to us.
They're coming out to watch us.
And he didn't even talk to us about it.
He just going to decree from on high.
Well, screw that.
Call Spike, leave.
Ready?
Back after this.
Don't go away.
All right, listen to this.
Time magazine today.
Quote, six proposals denying service to gays you have not heard about.
The controversies in Arizona and Kansas could be just the beginning.
▲
Export Selection