All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:43
April 3, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I let off the program today one hour ago with a piece by Charles Cook in the Wall Street Journal in which he details how he has basically devoted his life to learning about studying and facilitating the notion of people improving their lives.
That begot a discussion.
I got a couple of calls on freedom and liberty and how the left defines it and how we define it.
You know, it's interesting.
By the way, welcome back.
It's great to have you, folks.
As always, telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Which of the first 10 of the Bill of Rights have Democrats fought to expand?
Forget expand, which of the First Amendments, the First Ten Amendment Bill of Rights, did the Liberals even fight to defend?
Well, Amendment 2 they want written out.
The right to keep and bear arms.
They don't even think it's not interesting that.
Freedom of religion?
No way, pal.
No way, Jose.
Freedom of speech?
No way.
Political correctness, their version of censorship.
They don't want freedom of speech.
You've got to say what they want to hear, or you have to be shut up.
Destroyed.
You've got to be taken out.
Just in the last year alone, but it's constant.
They have fought hard to limit free speech.
They have fought hard to limit religious freedom.
And the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
They fight to expand dependency and restraint.
In fact, they don't even like the Bill of Rights.
They don't even like the Constitution.
I'm talking about the intellectual leftists.
Forget these idiots.
I was going to say if you want to have some fun, but I'm not going to.
I'll just tell you what the hell.
I've run across an app, my iPhone, called FireChat.
And now I've done it.
Now I've done it.
Free app.
It is being downloaded like gangbusters.
And it's because, A, it's free, but it uses a new kind of way to communicate.
Ever since, and Android has it with iOS 7, Apple introduced something called multi-peer connectivity.
You do not have to be connected to the Internet in order to use it.
Now, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but the point that I want to make is I downloaded it just for the fun of it, and it's depressing.
You are communicating.
Anybody in the world who downloads the app can post anything to it they want, and it is the bottom of the barrel.
It is the most depressing.
You'll find out exactly how stupid the people surrounding you are.
Now, the way the multi-peer connectivity works, if I can explain this correctly, I'm going to give it a shot.
Two iPhones can connect to each other directly via this app without having an internet connection.
It happens over Wi-Fi and over Bluetooth, Bluetooth 4.0.
Now, if one of those two people, follow me on this, if one of those two people happens to be connected to the Internet, so is the other one automatically by virtue of being connected with it.
So you can have a number of people not connected to the Internet in a chain where only one person is.
Multi-peer connectivity.
In this way, for example, if you had a bunch of people flying with you on an airplane, you could connect to them.
You could have a chat with them on this app without being connected to the Internet, as long as you were within 30 feet of each other.
That's the range that I'm sure they, I'm sure, I'm not going to give you my screen name.
I came up with a screen name.
I asked the first time I got it, what do you think the average IQ on this app is?
It came back 19.
It's a fascinating thing technologically.
It's a fascinating thing.
It's also fascinating to just read it.
I mean, every other post is obscenity here, obscenity there.
It's bottom of the barrel.
But that's just because it's new.
Here's the thing about it that makes it intriguing to people.
It makes the device, your iPhone, a transceiver without an internet connection.
If you're within 30 feet of somebody, it also has the app.
So you can be on a camping trip, for example.
You can be out in the middle of nowhere and still connect to people and chat with them as long as they're within 30 feet of you.
And if one of those 30 people or one of those people in your chain happens to be connected to the internet, then all of you are.
Multi-peer connectivity protocol is what it's called.
And it's causing people to download this app left and right.
Now, the developers, there are two places you can go.
You can have everybody and nearby.
And nearby, there'll be nobody on it unless one of your friends was in 30 feet of you.
So you're connected to everybody around the world.
Now, the developers are behind the scenes category.
They're limiting you to some sort of proximity.
No, they can't get in and get your stuff that way.
The hackers can't get in and get your stuff that way.
They can just connect to your – it's just a – they're not given access to the device.
It's just a – It's a connectivity protocol.
How did I get started on it?
What was I?
Somebody to Koch brothers and freedom and so on.
Oh, yeah.
It was just the whole notion that Charles Koch has this piece on improving your life and what is involved.
And then we began a discussion of the left and how they do not like the Constitution because it limits the government.
And what I meant to say was the elite leftists, the leftists who are intellectuals, the lawyers and so forth, the professors, they don't like the Constitution.
They consider the Constitution a charter of negative liberties because it only limits the government.
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the scope of government in people's lives.
People like Obama don't like that, and he doesn't.
They want the Constitution to be something that spells out what the government can do to people.
They would say for people, but it really bothers them.
So when you get into a discussion, okay, what of the 10 amendments, the first 10 amendments that the left stand for expanding, they're not many, they're not for free speech.
They're not for freedom of association.
They don't want you hanging around with people they don't approve of.
They don't approve of the Second Amendment at all.
Religious freedom they don't believe in at all.
They are fighting to expand dependency and restrict freedom, restrict individual freedom.
They fought hard and are continuing to fight hard to forbid a free market and insurance policies for healthcare.
On the other hand, they are desperate for a free market in marijuana.
They really want and they would love for the government to get involved in marijuana, in fact, and license it and produce it and tax it.
Until the taxes got too high, then they would join us in that.
Now, the idea of the Supreme Court was to make sure the rights established by the Constitution were preserved.
It's one of the many intended purposes of the Supreme Court.
But now the left even tries to use the Supreme Court to do the exact opposite of that, and that is to enforce their view on the restrictions of individual freedom that they support.
They're threatened by it.
They are threatened by freedom.
They're threatened by freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion.
They're threatened by it.
Stop it.
Do you care?
Are you secure in your life in your life?
You care enough.
As long as nobody's trying to tell you what you can't do, say, or think, do you care what anybody else does?
You get right down there.
I mean, you've got the moral code and you've got, you hope that people obey the law, this kind of thing.
But you're not, none of you run around demanding everybody agree with you about everything.
You're not demanding everybody live their life the way you live theirs or yours.
You're not demanding that people not do what you don't like.
I mean, if somebody wants to smoke, you can fine.
As long as they're not in your presence, you don't care for the most part.
But that's not who they are.
Now, the reason I brought up this app is to draw the distinction between the intellectual left and the hoi polloy left.
I knew I was going to do that.
You know, I should have followed my gut and not mentioned it.
Oh, they're thanking me for mentioning it.
Okay, well, it's now, folks, I don't want you to be confused on something here on this app.
You are all connected to the internet using it right now.
That's the point.
But if you're using the app on the nearby tab, that only applies if you have somebody you know who has the app and within 30 feet of you.
So, Snurdy, if I turned on my phone, if I fired that app right now, you would show up and I would show up in your nearby tab.
And you could tap on that and you and I could connect direct phone to phone, not through the internet.
That's what multi-peer connectivity is.
And that way it's private, by the way.
If you want, if you can have totally private conversations, nothing is on the internet when you connect that way.
There's all kinds of potential for this is why this app is exciting to people.
It's the multi-peer connectivity protocol is what it's called.
Anyway, I've got to take a brief time out.
My friends will be back and continue and roll right on right after this.
Do not go away.
There are loads of ditto heads out there on Fire Chat.
I just checked it during the break.
They're all saying, hey, all saying hi.
What's up?
They're all identifying where they're from and what station they're listening to.
And they're all across the fruited plane.
Dominating Fire Chat.
Here's Ian in Fort Myers, Florida.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Oh, pretty awesome.
Appreciate it, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
First of all, I just want to let you know that I truly appreciate your perspective and all the ideas you share every day.
I'm going to do my best to try to articulate the point I was making to the screener.
With regard to the Koch brothers article and just the message there that they're trying to communicate, I just think the Republican Party is struggling to connect with the average person.
Now, wait, but before you continue, I just want to make sure that we identify that this is Charles Koch.
The Koch brothers are Charles and David.
There are two other Koch brothers that are not part of the Koch brothers as the Democrats use them.
Sure.
And they're all, one of them lives in a castle in Europe.
One lives here in Palm Bays.
That's Bill.
And he's the winner of the Americas Cup.
Yadres.
Bill is his own.
They're all great guys.
And Bill and Charles, or Bill and David are twins.
Charles and David Koch are the quote-unquote Koch brothers, and they are libertarians, is what I wanted to tell you.
Okay.
Well, you're saying Republicans, but they are libertarians first.
Yes, well, just the conservative group that's out there.
I mean, obviously, we understand what they're saying, but I think when it comes to trying to persuade people about who they want to vote for and who they want running the country, to go out there and tell them that they need to distance themselves from the government, most people are afraid of that, in the masses at least.
I mean, you've got to understand these people follow the advice of these progressives for the last 40, 50 years.
No, I agree with you.
I think it's a scary thing for a lot of people to think of the government not being involved in their lives, particularly single women.
Absolutely.
And I think that to try and win, which this is what we need to do, is to win, there has to be some way of communicating without putting the onus back on the individual who is vulnerable and scared to be out there independently trying to achieve what you're doing.
Okay, well, let's take this down to the basic level.
How old are you?
Not yet.
How old are you?
33.
33.
Well, let's pretend for a moment that you have a son who is 12 or 13, maybe 15, just on the verge of getting a driver's license in a car.
And let's also, as part of our hypothetical, let's stipulate that you have spoiled.
You and your wife have spoiled your son.
And your son is way too dependent on you.
And you are worried that he hasn't learned and isn't interested in learning how to take care of himself.
Sure.
What would you do?
The reason I ask is you just said we can't confront these people with the idea that they've got to take control of their own lives.
No, I just think when it comes to trying to win the presidency, you have somebody that's in there like we have now that's not being honest about really what their objectives are, but they've been elected now twice to the White House and they've implemented all kinds of damaging things that are going to cause pain throughout the country.
So I'm just talking about on a basis of trying to win the presidency, that the messaging has to be not one where we're always telling people, you know, you're going to go at it alone, and that's going to be the best avenue.
I don't think we need to talk about that at all.
I think that's a good question.
Wait, wait, no, hold it, hold it.
Give me a chance to get in here because you're saying some provocative things.
Why do you assume that self-reliance equals going in alone?
Well, that's what these people are hearing.
That's what they're hearing.
And that's what they're being told then on top of that from the other side.
So they're telling them, you know, you've got nothing.
They want to take it away from you.
It's all you.
And that scares the average person, I think, away from voting for the conservative candidate.
And that's why we've just been.
There is not one conservative candidate who ever says he wants to take things away from people.
No, but they don't have to because the language that they use, the points they make are not clear enough to say otherwise.
And they're still being told that from the liberal outcome.
So you heard me read Charles Koch's piece.
Let me read to you the opening again.
He says, I've devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives.
It's those principles, the principles of free society, that have shaped my life, my family, our company, and America.
Do you think that is not appealing?
The idea of improving your life?
That is appealing to anybody that's there.
It's such a small percentage that's there that have achieved that.
What do you mean there?
What do you mean there?
That level.
Somebody who's achieved personal financial success, somebody who's achieved any level of success, maybe educationally, in a job, whatever.
That appeals to them because that's probably the route that they've relied on to get where they're at.
They didn't rely on the government to get them there.
They relied on themselves.
But we're dealing with a society now where that's not the masses.
And it's not going to be appealing to somebody to say, hey, guess what?
You know, the best way to do this is to rely on yourself and get the government out the way.
We know that it works.
I'm not saying that it doesn't work.
I'm just saying we've got to be careful, especially if you're not.
Well, that's why I ask you.
See, I think politics, if done right, is a one-on-one.
It's a one-to-one relationship.
You keep talking about appealing to the masses.
I'm like, that's the way to do it.
Look, it's my point.
But that's why I ask you, if you had a son who you feared was going to spend his whole life depending on you and you didn't want him to do that and you wanted him to improve his own life, what would you tell him?
What would you make him do?
How would you get the message across to him?
Well, I can tell you this much.
If you think that talking to people as though they're their children, that's not going to appeal to them.
And that's what I'm saying, is to win votes and for us to get somebody in there, they've got to stop making people fearful that they're just operating alone out there.
This is why we have stuff like Obamacare, because people are fearful of being alone.
They're fearful of losing their job.
They want some type of backup.
And I'm not saying that we need to provide a backup.
I'm just saying we need to quit making them think that they're at it alone.
That's what I'm saying.
And to tell them and talk to them that, you know, moving forward.
I want to know, you're going to have to help me understand specifically what you mean.
If you can, give me an example of a politician who says something that's making voters think like they will be on their own if they vote for the guy.
Can you give me an example of what you're talking about?
Well.
I don't mean to put you on the spot.
I'm not.
No, no, I mean, I understand what you're looking for, some type of concrete example of somebody saying something specific once that caused some type of fear or panic.
How about if a presidential candidate on the Republican side says, we got too many people on food stamps.
We can't afford it.
It's not the best way to improve your life.
We've got to cut back.
Are you saying that would be the wrong approach to take?
Because that would scare people, think, oh, my God, I got to feed myself.
Exactly.
That's what I'm saying.
And I can't think of an instance where that was specifically said by somebody, but some form of that type of comment, those types of things are the things that— Okay, all right.
All right, well, let's go from there.
Now, hang on a minute.
I got to take a break here at the top of the hour.
Check in with Fire Chat.
And I'll be back to you after the break.
Okay, back to Ian in Fort Myers, Florida.
Okay, have you heard of the term compassionate conservatism?
Yes, and the word compassionate scares me.
All right.
Well, we're running out of options here.
Be persuasive the way it works for you.
The thing that I just want to make a point about, if we've got one in five or one in six, whatever it is, on some form of government aid.
No, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Try a two and a half out of six.
Even worse.
So with these types of statistics, if we ever want to communicate the right message to get people to vote for the people who we know should be running the show, we just can't, we've got to recharacterize things so that it's not a message where they're going to feel vulnerable voting for this guy that's coming in.
And I'm not saying that anybody needs to promise anybody anything.
We just need to stay away from so much of this messaging about self-reliance and the government's just in the way.
We all know that to become successful, if you're a conservative, you've got to do it on your own.
You're not going to get a handout.
But when we have this many people in society now out there who are living off the government, how in the world are we ever going to win?
What are you even doing on the radio except entertaining if we're not trying to win?
And we're not going to win by telling people things like this.
It's just not going to happen.
The problem has already happened.
Well, now, wait a second.
So this is where I kind of have a differing opinion of yours from yours.
Why is it that people today are immune from lessons in life?
Why are people today somehow, we can't talk about taking care of yourself with this group.
We can't talk about providing for yourself.
We can't talk about making your life your own.
Why?
What is it about this group that that so scares them?
My point is, you would not raise your children that way.
Yes, but you keep going back to children.
These types of morals that you're talking about that would groom an individual to think this way, it's not being able to happen because...
No, I'm talking about education, and I'm trying to bring it down to the most basic level for you to explain to me how you would do this.
Well...
I'm not looking at these people as kids, children.
I'm just asking, in my example, I'm trying to get from you, if you were running for office, let's forget that you've got a kid that's gone off the rails and he's dependent.
You're running for office.
You want to reach these people.
Okay, you've said we can't make them feel alone.
We can't humiliate them.
We can't tell them we're going to take things away from them, but we still want them to vote for us.
So what would you do?
What would be your pitch?
I don't think there needs to be a strong of a pitch like you're assuming to get people to vote for the person that they're confident in.
I don't think Obama had a super strong pitch when he first won.
He was just somewhat of a likable person.
And even though these ideas that you share on a daily basis are pretty much the gospel to get yourself to a level... I disagree with you.
I think Obama did have a pitch, and it was he was going to take care of you.
And he was going to fix everything that was wrong.
And he personally was going to guarantee you that things are going to be okay.
And he personally was going to guarantee that the country would be loved again.
And he personally was going to do all these wonderful things.
Well, I don't know.
I think he made people feel comfortable.
You know, I think he did that.
Yeah, yes, absolutely.
But what I'm saying is from our side of things, the things that conservatives believe in, I just don't think that we need to be out there hammering it and browbeating people as bad as what's been done by telling them that the only way to make it is on your own, totally eliminate the government from your life, and the next year you're going to be a South African.
Who's telling people that?
I just think that the overwhelming theme.
No, no, give me a name.
Give me the name of somebody who's running around for office saying you're on your own.
The only way you're going to amount to anything is to get off of government.
Who's telling people that?
You must think the party's got somebody saying that.
Who is it?
It's not the conservatives.
It's not the conservatives that are doing that.
It's the seeds that are planted from the Democrats that are making people believe that the only way to live a comfortable life is to have some support there from the government.
And all I'm saying is when you read the letter like Mr. Koch wrote, and they talk about the individual and place the emphasis on the individual to achieve some level of success, that makes people feel vulnerable, Rush.
It makes people feel as though they're on it them own, on themselves.
It's all on themselves.
They've got to make it or break it themselves.
And I think that that type of message is not going to win.
Well, I don't.
I didn't.
I didn't.
I read the talk piece.
I don't.
The word individual isn't even in it.
You heard something in it that was that you heard a Buds phrase or something.
It's caused you to have a knee-jerk type reaction to what he said.
No, it's just the fact that, oh, I just get so tired of these things that you see and you hear every day.
And the problem is the conservatives are just not communicating.
They're not communicating with the average individual in society.
And it's because we think that the stuff like Mr. Koch wrote is going to relate to the average person, that they're going to find some type of comfort in the fact that the best way to get to his level is to do it how he did it, and that the government is just nothing more than an obstacle.
And the government is an obstacle.
We know this.
Yeah, see, this is the problem.
The problem that we have, based on what you're saying, is that, if I'm hearing you right, for us to win, we're going to have to acknowledge that people are, for whatever reasons, deeply flawed and cannot ever agree with our message.
So we're going to have to change our message and adapt it to the way people are to make them think we get them and care about them and understand them.
The problem is, from every message.
No, it's not about, well, you can look at it that way, and we can go to the grave never winning another election, but what's it going to do to the country in the meantime?
Okay, if they were to bring up George Bush, who was president for eight years just six years ago, how did he do it?
You know what?
The guy was likable.
I don't care what people say.
He was likable.
I think he was a likable person.
I think he had a likability about him.
He was came across as a bad person.
I'm starting to hear things now.
So Romney wasn't like, you think Governor Christie's likable?
I think Romney would have came across as a little bit more artificial than a Bush would have.
Christie, I think Christie's just trying to say the right thing in the right moment.
Well, is there any Republican out there right now that you think has a chance of reaching people in the way you think they need to be in order to get their votes?
It's tough, Bush.
I mean, I think it's really tough right now.
The answer is no.
As far as you're concerned, there's not a Republican you know of that wants the presidency that has a chance for it right now.
Rand Paul?
I mean, I don't know.
Rand Paul.
Aha, Rand Paul.
See, if you stick with this stuff long enough, you'll finally get your POE layers back from the onion.
So you like Rand Paul?
Well, I mean, there's not a whole lot of inventory out there.
Don't be defensive.
Don't misunderstand my tone.
I'm just, I'm trying to draw things out.
When I pick on this article here from the Koch brothers, I mean, that's just one area of society that, or one area of things going on in society that is preventing.
I know what you're saying about that.
I know exactly what you're saying about it.
And I'll admit to you, it troubles me.
Here is somebody who is an excellent role model, and you're saying he doesn't qualify because he doesn't know what he's doing.
It's a sad reality.
If a guy like Charles Koch doesn't qualify as a role model, it's just, it's, okay, maybe he's got $50 billion and nobody else is going to have $50 billion.
But that's not his message.
His message isn't, you too can have $50 billion.
He's talking about a wholesome life.
He's talking about a rewarding life that is filled with improvement and getting better.
Standard of living and all of that.
Rush, the other areas of society that would have reinforced his values and beliefs, such as the education system, that's no longer there.
So children these days are not getting that.
That's exactly what you're saying.
Okay, so there are those of us that are trying to deal with that, which is one of the reasons why I've indulged my patience and hung in here with you.
I'm trying to do it in my own little way with the books that I'm writing here on the truth about American history.
And I do it every day on this radio program.
And I can tell you that this radio audience is filled with converts.
People that used to be dependent liberal Democrats who now listen to this program.
You think that might not be possible because of the way they're being approached, because I make them afraid or feel vulnerable or whatever.
But nobody that I know of anywhere is demanding that people be alone.
That is not what self-reliance and individuality means.
It doesn't mean alone.
It doesn't mean with no help.
It doesn't mean with no assistance.
What it means is be yourself.
Find out what you love.
Find out what you really want to do and go do it and don't depend on people who don't have your best interests at heart, i.e. Democrats and the government.
If we've gotten to the point where we are literally destroying people's futures by creating this dependency and then we can't wean them off of it because that's going to make them vulnerable, then it's not just we're going to go to the grave never winning an election.
We're going to go to the grave with the country never recovering.
And that for me isn't an option.
Tough love, you may think that's too direct and so forth.
But I'm telling you, the question I asked you about how you would take care of somebody in your immediate orb that you feared was ruining their life is relevant here.
If you love people, if you love the country, if you believe that everybody in the country contributes to making it great, and you love everybody and you want the best for them, and if you know how they can achieve the best for them, you can't be afraid to tell them.
And if it's going to take baby steps because we're worried about people feeling vulnerable and being thinking thrown to the wolves, nobody's advocating that.
But it sounds to me like what you're really saying is Republicans aren't cool and nobody likes them and they do like the Democrats.
And it's no more complicated than that.
If somebody came along that was likable on our side, then they would listen to whatever the person said.
They wouldn't feel vulnerable because they would trust the guy because they would like the guy.
We just don't have anybody likable.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
I'm way long here, but I've got a yeah, I'm too long.
I wish I could continue.
Look, Ian, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I'm glad that you hung in.
Now I got to go deal with people in the email who think I hang on too long with you.
So sit tight.
We'll be back in a second.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
Welcome back.
I tell you, folks, I don't know.
After that last call, I don't know.
I don't know whether to blame the Republican establishment, the media, or the culture, but we just had a conservative on the air who does not think conservatism will work as a message.
Well, he does not think that liberty and self-sufficiency can win.
Now, also, he's 33.
So he has never been alive during a successful conservative presidential campaign.
He does not know.
He did not live within the awareness of the Reagan years, which is why I didn't ask him.
When I found out he was 33, it wouldn't have mattered.
But I think Ian is a great example of what we're up against on our own side.
He just can't deal with hurting people.
He can't deal.
He thinks conservative.
He's a conservative, but he thinks the message is harmful.
He thinks it's intimidating.
But it's a classic example of what happens when you have people coming of age who do not have any life experience relating to victory, to winning.
Lord knows you would not want this guy as a football team coach, for example.
Nothing against him, but he basically thinks people need to be coddled.
Now, that's why I kept asking about how he would raise his own kid, because I think that's often a very telling point.
He didn't want to go there because he thought it wasn't relevant.
But when you have conservatives who are afraid of the message itself, you have conservatives who think that the message itself is the problem.
That's one of the things that we're up against.
I just don't think he's heard it properly articulated by anybody, other than me.
And when he heard the Koch piece, he heard things in it that Koch didn't say, which is really fascinating.
Yeah, he read the Charles Koch piece.
You are on your own, and you can forget any help, and you can forget anything.
And that's not anybody's message.
But, you know, you've got this, this, well, no, no, I, that's the difference.
I wanted to be on my own.
I couldn't wait to be on my own.
It did not scare me.
And I was dependent on my parents.
I wasn't dependent on government, but I was dependent on my parents.
I started working when I was essentially 16, but I was still dependent on my parents.
I couldn't wait to be on my own.
A message of being on my own was liberation.
It was liberty.
It was freedom.
It was responsive.
It was the greatest thing in the world, getting old enough to be on my own.
And today, we have to deal with the fact that being on your own is so frightening and so scary and makes you feel so vulnerable.
I wouldn't be where I am today if I had that attitude.
If I had been afraid to be on my own, and that's the point.
Anyway, another obscene prophet timeout has approached us.
We must do it.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Yeah, my Wi-Fi's still dead.
Oh, sorry.
We're back.
But not for long, folks.
We have just enough to say, hang in there be tough.
Do we have we do?
Some people don't want to react to Ian.
We better have.
And we'll be back.
Don't go away.
▲
Export Selection