All Episodes
Previous Next
March 21, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:09
March 21, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Not only did this woman say it, she has said other crazy stuff.
This Robin Morgan babe.
Not a babe, sorry.
Not a babe.
Well, not a babe.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Yes, sir, Ibob, another exciting, busy broadcast hour remains.
The one and only Rush Limbaugh program we call Friday Open Line Friday because whatever people on the phones ought to talk about is what we talk about.
It does not have to be something that I want to know.
Callers do not have to submit their questions in advance like they do at the White House.
You know, that's right.
Next time I do a TV interview, I ought to say, I want you to submit your questions to me in advance.
And I'll give you my answers in advance.
And then we don't have to do the interview.
I mean, that's what, if, if Jay Carney can get the questions in advance, why shouldn't I?
If I do an interview with a drive-by reporter.
Okay, but I want the questions in advance.
Anyway, go for it.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And seriously, Open Line Friday, no restrictions.
Whatever you want to talk about is fine.
If I were a caller on Open Line Friday, I'd try to take advantage.
I'd try to come up with something nobody else is talking about.
A question or comment, but that's just me.
However, if you want to weigh in on something major that's happening now that you want to, that's fine too.
It's the point.
Anything's okay.
So this, just to close the loop, this Robin Morgan, key radical member Americans women's movement, she actually is.
She's a close associate of Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem.
And she has written books.
I think she's a might be a professor.
But she did say in The Demon Lover on the Sexuality of Terrorism, published in 1989, New York, Norton and Company.
It's on page 224.
She actually wrote this.
Published in El Libro.
My white skin disgusts me.
My passport disgusts me.
They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
If I could peel myself inside out, I would be glad.
If I could become part of the oppressed, I would be free.
Robin Morgan.
Can you imagine what kind of fun this woman is at a party?
Other quotes from Robin Morgan.
We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
Sexism is not the fault of women.
Kill your fathers, not your mothers.
That's what she says.
This is The Demon Lover on the Sexuality of Terrorism, Norton and Company, 1989.
I don't know if these other two quotes are from that book, but they are accurately attributed to her.
Sexism is not, and these babes, I'm sorry, they're not babes.
This woman and Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, have petitioned the FCC to get me punished.
They say I've hidden behind the First Amendment for too long.
So that's who they are.
Grab audio soundbites 13, 14, and 15.
Somewhat fascinating here, actually.
This morning on CNBC Squawkbox, the guest was the author Rupert Darwal.
And during a discussion about his book, The Age of Global Warming, a co-host, Andrew Ross Sorkin, talk about the economic implications.
You make an argument about Putin and what's happened in Europe.
This guy's basic premise is that green policies, pro-global warming policies, wacko-nut lunatic global warming beliefs have pushed Europe into the hands of Vladimir Putin.
It's unquestionably the case that green policies in Europe, and particularly in Germany, have pushed the German economy into the hands of Putin.
Because if you switch from fossil fuel power generation to wind and solar, you depend on the weather.
Because you're depending on the weather, it means you need other sources of fuel.
So they were pushed into the hands of Gazprom, the Russian gas company.
And you've seen gas shipments from Russia rise by about 30% in 15 years, which is a big amount.
Now, let me dissect this.
This is important, folks.
With Putin on the march now, we had a caller, first caller of the day, said, am I the only one?
As he's asking me, he says, am I the only one who thinks Putin's off the rails and is a walking danger?
I mean, this guy just could go lunatic on us in a moment's notice and just destroy the world.
And I said, I don't think what Putin's doing.
I think Putin wants to run the world and be happily alive while he's doing it.
I don't think he's got any suicidal tendencies.
What this man is saying, Rupert Darwal, is really quite insightful.
He is saying that all of the Western nations going full blast into this green technology business, we're just handing the world to Vladimir Putin while he's laughing all the way to the bank.
And he uses the example, Germany.
We've pushed the German economy into the hands of Putin because as these companies decide to go into wind and solar, they have decided to turn their energy sector over to the weather, which nobody can control, nobody can depend on, and the weather doesn't produce enough harvestable energy to run anything yet.
So while the Western democracies get rid of conventional fossil-fueled energy economies, they open themselves up to the need of fossil fuel energy, such as natural gas.
And if Putin is not joining the push to global warming, he's going to be the guy you have to buy your natural gas from.
And lo and behold, Gazprom, which is the natural gas company of the Soviet Union, they have the pipelines.
That's why Putin wants Ukraine.
Get a map.
Get a map and look at all the natural gas and all pipelines that run through Ukraine.
And it'll impress upon you the importance of Crimea, but controlling Ukraine.
Putin wants control of energy.
He can charge what he wants for it because Western democracies in this stupid, idiotic push into global warming, they are getting rid of their own fossil-fueled energy use and production, like we are here.
Although we're not actually because we're fracking out the wazoo and we're overcoming what Obama's trying to do.
But imagine if we were totally dependent on Putin for natural gas.
Well, Germany is becoming that way, and so is the UK.
And so Putin holds a huge card, lots of leverage there.
Just like we were dependent for so long in the Middle East for our oil, this is really an insightful comment.
These green policies, this idiotic belief that Western democracies and their progress are destroying the planet.
And so they're made to feel guilty.
And so they get rid of their fossil fuel production and use, but they still need it because the weather doesn't provide enough energy.
And that's what wind and solar is.
This guy's exactly right.
They're depending on the weather for their energy.
Who would be stupid enough to do that?
But liberals.
So then Becky Quick, CNBC Squawkbox said, well, Rupert, you're right.
Germany, the rest of Europe have been hamstrung by this reliance on somebody not very friendly.
Do you think climate change is not real?
If you think climate change is not linked to human behavior, or do you think it just doesn't rank high enough on the problems that we should be addressing?
If you look at polls today, they put concerns about environment and global warming right at the bottom.
So I think there's been a big shift in public opinion.
People are kind of worn out by the hysteria, the predictions of catastrophe.
And the other thing is we've had 15 years, according to the IPCC, of basically flatlining global temperature.
17 years now, 17 years of flatline temperatures.
There hadn't been any warming in the bottom line.
So this guy is, again, Becky Quick says, so do you think climate change isn't real?
No, it isn't real.
And anybody who thinks it is is an absolute, you've been brainwashed.
You want to believe a catastrophe-based life.
You want to believe in one.
And he is pointing out that, and it's true in every public opinion poll you've got, global warming and climate change are at the bottom of a list of issues, people think are important.
Because you just, you understand, since the 1980s, people have been told we got 10 years to save the planet.
Since the 80s, 10 years to save the oceans, 10 years to save the planet, 10 years here, 10 years there, catastrophe.
We're all going to die.
It hasn't happened.
Now, people are worn out and they don't believe it.
That doesn't matter to liberal leaders.
They have this desire to punish their own countries.
So they turn their energy sector over to the weather.
You know, that is a great way to put it rather than say wind and solar.
Green energy is dependent on the weather.
Because it's exactly right.
Solar energy, wind.
What if wind doesn't blow?
Your windmills are worthless.
And we're not harvesting enough solar even in bright sunlight to make a difference to anything.
But it's a great way to be persuasive and to ridicule these green idiots.
I thought, yeah, okay, so we're going to turn our energy needs over to the weather.
Yeah.
But now here is the PA's des risistance.
The co-host, Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Is that statistic which gives you comfort in suggesting we should put it in a back burner or not?
I mean, you say that global warming, climate change at the bottom of the list of things people care about.
Does that give you comfort?
Does that give you comfort?
You think we should put it on a back burner or not?
Unless China and India and Brazil and those economies say we are going to join in and cap our emissions, there is absolutely no point in the U.S. and Europe going alone.
The thing that people kind of forget is it's global warming.
It's not U.S. warming.
And it's not even that.
But his point is, once again, that if the ChiComs are not going to reduce their carbon emissions, then all the rest of this is academic.
If India is not going to reduce theirs, if Brazil isn't, then what the hell are we doing penalizing ourselves?
And I can tell you right now, the ChiComs are not going to do it.
They want to grow their economy.
So does India.
They have to feed their people.
They've got to keep their people employed or they've got massive unrest.
They cannot engage in energy policy that reduces economic growth.
No leader in his right mind would want to do that.
So if the ChiComs and the Ruskies, the Brazilians and the Indians are not going to participate, there's no reason we should because we can't make a difference.
We're not even the leading polluters.
Quick time out.
Be right back.
Sit tight, Mike Ren.
And back to the phones we go.
In Open Line Friday, this is Stewart in Gainesville, Florida.
Hi, Stuart.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I've been an off and on listener to your show over the years.
And one thing I've consistently heard you do is sing the praises of Apple products.
And it's time for somebody to call BS on that.
And I'm the guy to do it.
All right.
All right.
B.S., the stick-to-the-issues crowd is going to love you.
Yes.
Well, it's time this topic was aired.
There's two parts here.
There's a technical part and a regulatory part, and they are related.
First, let's acknowledge the technological part that the only reason computers became the force in our lives that they did is because one company made a world-changing decision when IBM decided they weren't going to make their PC, personal computer, a proprietary architecture.
Because of that one decision, they made computer, this concept of computer affordable to everybody because they didn't keep the technology to themselves.
And it allowed people all over the world to turn out clones at lower cost.
And that's why all through the 90s, when the industry was in its big growth phase, the IBM compatible had 90% of the market, and Apple, which was supposedly the quote-unquote superior technology, had only 10% because it was so much more expensive than the IBM clones because Apple wanted to control every single part that went into the machine and every bite of software that went into it.
So all through the 90s, Apple lovers always talked about, oh, the Apple's so superior, never locks up, and the IBM compatible is a piece of junk because it crashes all the time.
Well, of course it crashed all the time because there were thousands of people all over the world writing software for it.
Why is that?
Okay, so IBM makes the home computer possible and Apple decides to go Mac and doesn't license clones, although they did for a while before jobs came back.
But why is that bad for Apple?
What did Apple do there?
Ah, well, let's go to the other half of my argument and see if I can tie it in for you.
But no, no, no, no.
I mean, what you said, you need to get my mind right or get it straight about Apple.
They're not the greatest guys in the world like I make them.
So what did they do wrong by having 10% market share?
Oh.
I mean, I don't understand the crime.
Okay, all I'm saying is, well, you got to let me get to part two for a while.
Okay, let's go to part two.
We'll come back to part one.
We'll try to close it.
It's the regulatory angle that ties into that angle.
You remember back in the 90s when the FTC went after Microsoft because it was so wrong that they had a monopoly on the operating system and the apps that they could fold into and it was putting all of them in the middle of the market.
They were bundling their browser with the operating system and thereby freezing everybody out.
Right, right.
And the Justice Department, you remember they wanted to break Microsoft up into an operating system company and that was only because Microsoft wasn't paying any bribes.
They didn't have any lobbyists and they weren't greasing any skids.
And the way it works in Washington, if you don't have a lobbyist and if you don't have somebody greasing skids and trying to pave the way for you, i.e. sharing some of your profits with politicians are going to come after you.
Okay.
But we can't.
But it did happen for whatever reason.
They didn't play the game.
Okay, but it did happen.
Now, what if Apple had been on the other foot and Apple had the 90% market share?
Think what the Justice Department would have done to them because they would have had an effective monopoly on hardware and software.
What I'm saying is that computers became part of our lives because what I'm saying is specifically Apple.
Because they got to fly under the radar all through the 90s and Microsoft took all the heat.
It gave them the cover.
How in the world does 10% market share allow you to fly under the radar and dominate anything or anybody or force anybody to do anything?
Because the Justice Department was so focused on Microsoft.
Well, right.
How can somebody with 10% market share even be called a monopolist?
That's what I'm saying.
What if the shoe had been on the other foot?
But it wasn't.
We can do what if with all what if Samsung had not copied the iPhone and had invented it themselves?
Where would Apple be?
Okay.
But they didn't.
They copied and stole the iPhone and used it, and they had that.
That's a court decision, by the way, that affirmed that.
I'm just saying.
Well, can you at least acknowledge that for Apple fans to say, I'm never going to convince you, am I?
I don't know what you want me to admit to.
If you just tell me what that is, I'll be glad to consider it.
What am I guilty?
You just don't like Apple fanboys.
You think they've been brainwashed, and you think they just love Apple just because it's Apple, and they won't be open to anything else because for whatever reasons, their minds have been poisoned.
Apple's really not the best.
IBM and all these derivatives are, but because of what Apple, the way they played it, and they've skirted any kind of regulation, they've been allowed to basically sell junk to people and they think it's class stuff.
Is that what it is?
Okay, I wouldn't put it as extremely, but it just, it ticked me off so much that I had to listen in the 90s to how crappy the IBM compatible was.
Okay.
But it was open to the world.
Anybody could write a piece of software for it.
Right.
Even the crunkers.
Kept everything in-house.
They controlled every single part of the process.
The IBM compatible is what made the computer revolution possible.
That's what I'm trying to get at.
And you wish everybody loved Microsoft and appreciated them instead of loving Apple and appreciating them.
I would say, instead of, just acknowledge that IBM's decision to let...
Well, then why did IBM get out of it?
Why did IBM close up their consumer computer division?
Because the clones that they enabled by opening the architecture took all the profit out.
Well, see, that's a dirty little secret.
That's the real, there wasn't any profit.
That's why there's an Apple.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back, El Rushbo, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Now, what our previous caller made his point a little bit more complicated than needed to be.
He just wishes that I were a Microsoft fan because he thinks Microsoft paid the dues to make Apple possible.
He thinks Microsoft, enduring their massive lawsuit to govern the antitrust suit and that they pave the way.
I mean, they ate the costs at first.
They made the home computer possible and they made it open to everybody.
And they were down for the struggle.
And Apple came along.
Didn't pay any dues.
And we're just scoring huge profit with only 10% market share.
And he just wishes I would acknowledge Microsoft's role in paving the way.
I think that's what he was basically after.
But I think where IBM got screwed, and I'm wild guessing here.
But PC compatibility moved from being compatible with IBM to Microsoft, Windows.
First there was MS-DOS and there was Windows.
And Gates came along.
And you talk about Monopoly.
The Monopoly was that Gates had contracts that Windows or MS-DOS had to run on every PC made.
And they were bundling their Internet Explorer browser and not giving people a chance to use Netscape or whatever.
That's technically what it was.
But Gates, just a brilliant contract negotiator.
But the clones that he was talking to, the PC clone, not the Macs, but the PC clones didn't have to have IBM motherboards, circuit boards, and other parts.
So IBM, at the end, didn't have anything to sell.
Dell computer, Compact, it didn't matter what you were really buying.
And those computers weren't any different than any other because it was the operating system, the software that made it, and that was all the same thing.
So you got a Sony Vio, okay, you like the way it looks, but it's going to do the same stuff on it that a Dell does.
Or it's going to do the same thing that Gateway did.
Certainly the crash virus.
Right, right.
But point is, it was a tough row for those guys.
If you were Gateway or Dell, I mean, you've got a computer, but it's no different than the other guy's computer other than you can't put any different features on it than the other guys have because that's all Microsoft.
You can maybe put a couple of different buttons on the keyboard and you could have a better display with more pixels and all that.
But that's how you had to differentiate your computer.
The way it worked was identical to the other guy's computer.
And then Apple, of course, had a wholly different operating system.
Yeah, well, that's right.
Apple's system was really glommed onto by artists, musicians, graphics designers.
I think it was Apple that introduced the first laser printer, if I'm not mistaken, for consumer use.
Politico, Maggie Haberman, story on Hillary Clinton's delay.
Delay what?
The claim has hardened into accepted fact among many Democrat operatives.
Hillary Clinton is freezing the Democrat 2016 presidential field as she waits until possibly late this year to decide whether she's going to run.
And the rest of the field is frozen out until she decides.
What this implies is that there's a whole bunch of Democrats that really want to run, but that they're not going to if Hillary gets in because they won't win.
Because it's assumed that she will just wipe the floor with everybody.
And so they're a little ticked off that she's waiting so long because while she waits, she's freezing these other people out and they can't raise money and they can't announce their candidacies and they can't go to Iowa and they can't get started on what you have to do.
So Hillary Clinton's delay.
Is she freezing the field or arguing the opposite, that the first lady is shielding other contenders from months of attacks?
See, the Clinton people say, no, no, no, we're not trying to freeze you out.
We're trying to protect you.
And the political story focuses on those two alternatives.
But part and parcel of this story is a new Gallup poll that has the top reason for voting for Hillary.
They ask people in the Gallup, well, what is the number one reason why you would vote for Hillary?
And it's because she'd be the first female president.
The people who would vote for her because of her experience, i.e., qualifications, 9%.
49% didn't answer the question.
49% had no opinion.
18% think that they'd vote for her because she'd be the first female president.
But the bottom line is, in the political story, there's a lot of angst out there in the Democrat side because Hillary is messing it up for everybody that she's being selfish.
And so the Clintons in response to the charge of being selfish.
No, no, no.
We're trying to help you.
We're trying to protect you.
We're trying to save you from being destroyed.
We're providing cover for you, like you, Biden.
You want to run?
Say it.
But if you don't say it, we're going to protect you by my not announcing because everybody knows the media is waiting for my decision.
In Hawaii, Honolulu police officers have asked, in fact, they have urged lawmakers to keep an exemption in state law, to keep it that allows undercover officers to have sex with prostitutes during an investigation.
It's touched off a heated debate over the provision.
The authorities say they need the legal protection to catch lawbreakers.
Their undercover cops need to be able to have sex with prostitutes in order to catch the bad guys.
Now, there are critics, including human trafficking experts and other police.
It's not necessary.
And in fact, it could further victimize sex workers, many of whom have been forced into the trade and would really not rather be there.
And if they have to come up with, if the cops can legally pay for having sex in an investigation, that's just going to further damage these poor prostitutes.
Now, it's not clear how often Honolulu cops are having sex with prostitutes, but they want the option.
It is the police asking for the option.
It is forethought.
It's one way to keep investigative work alive.
You know, encourage those conducting investigations to have sex with the targets.
Maybe this, if, you know, there isn't any investigative journalism anymore.
We have chronicled that.
There's no way investigative.
What if journalists could have sex with prostitutes in pursuit of their targets?
Do you think it might revive investigative journalism?
What makes me think they're not already doing that?
That's a good question.
In fact, it's not even sex with prostitutes, is it?
What am I thinking?
You're exactly right.
It's already happening.
Do you know this?
The AAA, the American Automobile Association, has been testing electric cars.
You know what they found out?
They found that an electric car can only travel half as far as advertised in freezing weather.
It's a good thing they found this out before we had a really bad winter.
Oh, wait.
We have had a really bad winter.
They just found this out.
Frigid temperatures can reduce the distance an electric car travels by 57%.
It's already not a great distance that they go.
Latinos are souring on Obamacare.
This is not the first time we've heard of this.
This is the third, I think, maybe the fourth time that I have seen polling data like this.
A new poll shows that Latinos, a fast-growing and key demographic in American elections, are not as fond of Obamacare as they used to be.
This poll is a Pew Research Center poll.
It showed that Hispanics are split on whether they approve of Obamacare.
47% approve, 47% disapprove.
The numbers are notable because Latinos have generally been among the healthcare law's chief supporters.
Other polls have shown that they supported the law by two to one margin not long ago.
September 2013 poll, before it was implemented, 61% of Hispanics approved it.
Isn't that fascinating?
61% approved it before it was implemented.
Now that it's implemented, that 61% is down to 47 and it's falling.
But yet, remember, we were told for years that once people got to know more about it, the more they would love it.
Kathleen Sebelius told us that.
Pelosi told us that.
I think even the Messiah himself, the one, told us that.
Well, you know, as we roll it up, people begin to use it.
They're going to realize how much they like it and how much they've missed it and how great it is.
But instead, the more people know about Obamacare, the more they loathe it.
So here, again, I hate bringing this up, but it's a golden – the Republicans are what?
The Republicans are salivating over a connection with Hispanic voters, are they not?
The Republicans are out there openly saying they'll never, ever win the presidency if they don't really get an increased percentage of the Hispanic vote.
The Democrats were the first to tell them that.
And the Republicans, you know what?
We think you're right.
We are not going to ever win again without a lot of Hispanics.
Well, here you go.
Republicans, it turns out that Obamacare is your ticket.
Obamacare is the connector to you and the Hispanic vote, not Amnesty.
It's Obamacare.
Do you think they'll move on it?
I hope so, but I think they're so invested in Amnesty now that this would be looked at as a problematic, confusing thing for them.
We have Evangeline or Evangeline, 13 years old from Vernon, Florida, and welcome to the program.
It's wonderful to have you here.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello.
How are you?
I'm great.
How are you?
Well, excited.
Well, good.
Good.
It's nice to know you're excited.
Oh, I'm cutting out, I think.
I think I'm cutting out.
No, it's okay.
We're on the air.
Time to go.
We don't have much time.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Well, I wanted to talk to you about your book, and I've also read your second book.
And, well, and I really enjoyed it, and I am not a fan of history, but I don't even read books.
And I read your book through, and, well, and I really, really enjoyed it.
And I used the flashlight for like for a couple of hours because we were camping.
Oh, and you had to read it.
I didn't want to go to sleep yet because I wanted to find out what's pretty big.
You don't like history, but you went to all the trouble to get a flashlight to read it.
That's pretty flattering, Evangeline.
That's very, that's very flattering.
You've read the second book already?
Yes.
I read it like...
Real quickly, what do you like about them?
You don't like history.
What do you like about these books?
What I liked about these books was in the first book, I really like how William Bradford encouraged the people.
You know, let me tell you something.
I'm really short on time, and I don't mean to be rude, but you're focusing on William Bradford is really important.
If you want to learn more, I mean, because you will as you get older, William Bradford would be somebody really worth your time to study.
He doesn't get a lot of credit, attention, which is why I started publishing The True Story of the First Thanksgiving in previous publications and on the radio show every Thanksgiving.
So I'm glad that that made an impression on you.
And I really appreciate your call.
And you never know, you may have a chance someday to vote on whether or not you like that book.
Stay tuned.
Evangeline, thank you much.
Appreciate it.
13 years old, Vernon, Florida.
Homework assignment.
Read the overprotected kid at Atlantic, theatlantic.com.
We'll link it at rushlimbaugh.com.
The overprotected kid.
It's long.
Read it, and we will discuss it on Monday.
I've never given a homework assignment.
▲
Export Selection