All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:24
July 7, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Fears expressed by the host in this program, documented to me almost always right.
99.7% of the time.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone.
A telephone number if you want to join us 800 282882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So I know that there are a lot of people.
Come on, Rush.
Elizabeth Warren, don't be silly.
They're not gonna have Elizabeth.
She doesn't even want to run for president.
She's too stupid to run for president.
Then nobody would vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Folks, you have to throw all of this conventional wisdom out now.
You just have to throw that all out.
The idea that she wouldn't run, throw it out.
The idea that people wouldn't vote for her.
Liberals would vote for her before they'd vote as fast as they would vote for Obama.
The thing about it is once again we're faced with a Hillary coronation in everybody's mind.
It's gonna be Mrs. Clinton, it's her time, it's her due.
She's owed this, just like she was owed in 2008, until skinny black guy came along and everybody fell in love with him, and Hillary's promise was relegated to see you later.
Now we're back.
And the same guy is prepared to undermine her again.
Let's go to Ed Klein.
And I look, folks, say what you want.
Ed Klein's book has been out there.
And nobody, but nobody has denied anything in Ed Klein's book.
I keep calling it blood clot, but it's not blood, it's blood feud, is what the name of the book is.
The Politico has an article today explaining why they've not discussed the Ed Klein book.
They say it's just a little hard to believe.
Well, that never stopped them from talking about Hillary's two autobiographies or Obama's.
You're talking about hard to believe.
But that never stopped the politico.
But now we've got an editorial joke, and a Klein book, it's extreme.
You know, it's just too hard to believe.
My guess is that if the politico could find somebody to go on record and deny things in it, they would feature those people.
But there isn't.
Have you heard anybody deny anything in that book?
I haven't either.
And before you say, come on, Rush, Elizabeth Warren, she's too stupid.
Don't forget Joe Biden's running.
She would not have a lock on stupid.
Oh, of course, Biden.
He's he's he's uh, you know, he's hiding in the shadows.
Well, no, no.
I can't really say he's in the shadows.
But but he's lurking out there, and he does want to run.
But let's go to Klein himself.
Klein was on Fox and Friends today about his book, and uh the uh fill-in host was Anna Coyman.
She said, You say that Obama's chief advisor, Valerie Jarrett, has been meeting in secret with Elizabeth Warren for weeks.
For several weeks, they've had meetings both in the White House and outside the White House.
And during these meetings, which are get together meetings, get to know you meetings.
Valerie Jarrett, who of course is the consigliary in the White House.
I mean, she really has huge power there, has urged Elizabeth Warren to throw her hat into the ring because Obama thinks the president thinks she would carry out his legacy a lot better than Hillary Clinton.
Now, again, if you if you read the Klein book, you you you say, can't believe people talk this way.
I can't believe people think this way.
I can't, but then nobody has refuted any of it.
And I do think, as I just clearly stated, that Obama is obsessed With making sure that his transformation is not undone, as I've already discussed.
The idea that Hillary would undo some of it, that's a bit of that's a that's a tough one for you, that he thinks that.
But that Elizabeth Warren would continue it is not a stretch.
So then Steve Ducey said to Ed Klein, look, when people look at this story, they're thinking, where did he where did he get that?
So, Ed, you're coming up with all these things.
Nobody's refuting it, but it's so far out there.
Who is your source on this stuff?
My source on that is somebody very close to Valerie Jarrett, and somebody who I've been talking to for the past couple of years.
But you know, it's interesting.
Today's Wall Street Journal essentially confirms what I've been reporting.
The journal front page piece says that Hillary Clinton is distancing herself now from President Obama.
This is part of that feud that goes all the way back to the McGovern era when you had the far left wing of the party in conflict with the more centrist wing of the party.
So what are we supposed to believe that Hillary is the centrist wing and Obama's the McGovern wing?
And the feud goes all the way back that far.
Obama doesn't go back to the McGovern wing.
I mean, he does, but he was he was he was I mean, if he'd have been old enough and been involved, he'd have been right there, but he wasn't.
Yeah, I know he makes McGovern look like a uh a pro-war second amendment, can't wait to fire the next gun kind of guy.
I know.
Anyway, that's Klein.
And you have to just remember that nobody is refuting any of it.
So back to one of the things I teased at the beginning of the program, and I got into some of it, so it's not a full-fledged tease.
Larry Page, who is the CEO of Google and one of the co-founders, appeared in an interview recently with Sergey Brin, his buddy and other co-founder.
And it was uh uh it was it the interviewer was Vinod Kosla, who was is a longtime technology investor.
He tried to buy Google when it first started.
So he's a Silicon Valley uh, he's in tight, highly respected.
He was able to get these two guys to come on his whatever it is, internet show and watch it.
And Larry Page said that the future of the American workforce could be part-time.
He thinks most people want to work, but that they would be happy working less.
He said, We've got plenty.
This is Larry Page, the Google CEO, and he said in this interview, we have enough resources to provide for humanity.
The idea that everybody needs to work frantically to meet their needs just isn't true.
Now stop and think of that.
Think of, you talk about a transformation.
Think of the fundamental philosophical change that represents.
I don't know about you.
I was raised to believe that whatever I wanted and whatever I needed, I was going to have to provide.
And I did that by getting a job.
And if there were something I wanted but couldn't afford, I waited until I could.
And I kept working hard, and I kept following my passion, and eventually, if I got good, I would be similarly rewarded and so forth.
And I was raised that you get out what you put in.
The harder you work, the more your reward.
And it may not be instant.
It may take a long time for the payoff.
But that there was value in that.
There was value in following a passion.
There was value in gaining experience.
There was value in work.
It was self-defining.
Uh it we it was work that provided self-esteem, not a teacher in kindergarten.
It was your work.
It was what you did, it was what you accomplished.
That's what spoke for you.
In addition to other things, I mean, you it wasn't just your work, but work was how you provided.
And I was also raised to believe that it was not nice to have other people pay for those things for you.
That it was not fair.
I was raised that it was selfish, greedy to assume that other people should provide for my wants, and certainly my needs.
And so much so that when I couldn't wait to leave home, I couldn't wait to leave home and get out and get involved and get in the mix, make my mark or whatever.
I couldn't wait to strike out on my own.
And at no point have I ever looked at, I mean, I've always, and I to this day I still think this way.
The less work I do, the less I'm going to get paid.
And the less I get paid, the less the fewer options I'm going to have.
I do not associate.
Well, as you get older, these things change, but somebody in their 20s or 30s, it was we were not programmed to think of sacrificing work, hard work, in exchange for the good life.
The good life is what came.
Now, there were things wrong with that.
I don't misunderstand.
Every life needs a balance.
In my case, my work is what I've always loved.
I didn't need a break from it, other than to recharge.
And that was always the challenge is to come up with a well balanced life.
Work can't be everything, but it makes many things possible.
It makes children possible, it makes a home possible, it makes marriage or a relationship possible, unless, of course, you inherit it.
But now look at every ever since Obama has assumed office, unemployment is called fun employment.
And whenever unemployment rises, we're told, well, you know, there are opportunities here.
You don't have to spend all day at work.
You can sit at home and you can rediscover your family and get in touch with yourself and with nature and commune with other people doing the same thing.
That just doesn't compute with me.
Here we have the co-founder of Google suggesting that we have enough resources to provide for humanity.
The idea that everybody needs to work frantically to meet people's needs just isn't true anymore.
In fact, he said today humanity does dumb things like destroy the environment, in part because people work when they don't have to.
The answer isn't to just cut jobs in mass.
The answer is to cut the amount of hours individuals work.
See, the thing is, socialists in France have always believed this.
They've always thought the 30-hour work week was it.
And the reason for this is socialists know that socialism doesn't create jobs.
It can't.
Socialism creates big government.
Government gets big by absorbing little bits and pieces of the private sector, which is where jobs are.
So in exchange for that, the government will provide for people.
So what the socialist view here is okay, we've got a hundred million people not working.
Okay, we don't have to add any new jobs.
We can just convert a lot of those full-time jobs to part-time, and we can have three people doing every job, and we're putting two people back to work.
We're not creating any jobs, and we're giving people much more free time.
We've got plenty of resources over here in government to give them what they need.
They don't have to work to provide everything they need anymore.
That's what he's saying.
Because we have enough resources and we got a big enough government and we got a benevolent enough president to redistribute all this wealth so that nobody has to work anymore, really, to provide what they need.
They need to work to get things done, but not too much, because working too much is why we're destroying the planet, is essentially what he said.
He's the CEO of Google.
Now, I don't know how many full time jobs he's converting to part.
I don't know how much of this he's actually putting into play at his own company, but it's not the point.
Again, the point is not what these people do.
Not entirely.
Oftentimes, that's what you do have to look at, but in this case, people are responding only to PR and buzz.
Substance and reality escapes people.
So if there comes a massive push to re-characterize work as something that people are doing way too much of, and that you can have a much more happy and well-rounded life by working half the time, and then let us take care of what you need after that.
And then we're going to have many happier people, and we're going to have just as much productivity, but we're going to spread the productivity around.
We're not going to be creating any new jobs, but that's because we can't as socialists in mass.
And so you justify this by saying this is how you save the planet from global warming, and people believe all that is happening.
And so people will, I don't know how widespread it's going to get.
Again, I'm just interested in alerting you as often as I can, which is what I've always done to who liberals are, what they believe, and what will happen if they succeed in implementing those beliefs.
Now, I don't know how many of you in this audience raising children find it attractive to say to them, you know what, you don't need to work full time.
You don't need 40 hours.
That's crazy.
You know, find a job you can work 20 hours and then and then, you know, get health care and get food stamps, uh, whatever, and if you're a devant daughter, go over there to get your contraception pills and enjoy life.
That's something your mother and I were never able to do because we we bought this silly notion that we had to work ourselves to the bone in order to get things.
And you we don't want that for you.
And then if your kids say, but but wait, Dad, if we don't work, we're not gonna have uh maybe like dad, if you'd done what you're telling me to do, then you might not have a house I could live in when I can't afford my own.
Son, don't look at it that way.
The way to look at it, your mom and I were wrong.
Uh believing in all this uh hard work and achievement and accomplishment and economic growth, that's that's that's for suckers.
And and son, your mom and I fell for it.
Hook, line, and sinker, but you have a chance now to have a new kind of life that we Americans have never seen before, where you can work 20, 30 hours a week and then play the rest of the time.
But Dad, how am I gonna afford?
Don't worry about it because see, Larry Page says that the government, we've got plenty of resources to handle what you need.
We've done that.
How many of you are raising your kids that way?
How many of you have kids in med school?
How many of you have kids in law school?
How many of you have kids that want to go to both, or whatever it is they want to do?
How many of you are raising them to believe that they're working too hard, that they're falling prey to a trick, it's not necessary to enjoy life.
In fact, you'll enjoy life a lot more if you have more free time.
Okay.
There was also a discussion of robotics and how robotics are gonna end up replacing people, but that's okay too, because any job that a machine can do, we don't need a human being to do.
We need human beings to do other things, like protect the planet and vote Democrat and enjoy their lives and become dependents of the giant state so that the state continues to have support.
Now, I I must say Sergey Brynn, the Google.
I got to take a break.
I just saw the clock.
Since we are talking about the Google guys, there's one more.
Sergey Brynn, co-founder of Google, in the same interview with Larry Page, talking about how we got people working too hard.
We don't need this much full-time work.
We can spread the wealth around and not work as hard anymore.
People would rather do that.
And remember one of the things he said.
All this hard work.
People are destroying the planet doing this hard work.
Global warming, climate change.
That's one of the things he said.
So here comes Sergey Brynn, who says that individual car ownership has to go.
Just has to go.
They see a world.
Brynn and Page see a world in which there's a lot broken.
And a lot needs to be fixed.
And one of the things that they're pushing is self-driving cars.
They're safer, they think they're less polluting, so forth and so on.
Sergey Brynn believes that ownership of cars is inefficient.
It just is a waste of time.
It costs people a lot of money that they don't need.
There are other ways to get people around.
There's mass transit.
There's Uber, there's any number of cabs, but individuals owning cars is a waste of resources.
It's a waste of money.
It is also the automobile, there's a reason why the American people have had a love affair with the automobile.
There's a reason why we invented the mass production, the assembly line.
Henry Ford, he didn't invent the car, he invented the assembly line to mass produce them.
And the reason why is there was a phenomenal demand.
Because the automobile in America is inseparable from our freedom.
It's inseparable.
So if you take the ownership of automobiles away from people, you are taking away a lot of mobility, a lot of freedom, and you're forcing people into other systems of transportation, and in so doing, folks, it is much easier for governments to control people.
Now I can imagine, you know, one of the things that I have in abundance, a characteristic I think is required for success in doing what I do is empathy.
Meaning not sympathy, empathy.
I I have to be able to feel, sense, understand how people react to things that happen on this program.
And I can imagine that with a certain segment of this audience, what I just said is considered some of the wackiest stuff they've ever heard.
Americans' freedom is related to the car.
What do you think you ever heard of civil rights movement?
And that taking cars away from us would limit our mobility and make it more easy for governments to control us.
I can imagine that people that don't look at government as anything but benevolent are probably having reactions like they can't believe they're hearing this.
But I am willing to run the risk of sounding extreme whack or whatever, because at some point all of this is leading to one inescapable location, and that is government and more government and bigger government in more and bigger control over everybody's life.
And that is the antithesis of our founding.
We are not a superpower, and we are not the greatest nation ever on the history of Earth because of what governments done.
It's because of we as a people collectively, using our freedom, our initiative, our passion, our desires, our values, our morality, this is what made us the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Not government controlling things, not government assigning things, not government providing things.
But if there is one instance of suffering or uncomfort, discomfort or misery, then that is intolerable.
And we must do something about it, and the only place we can turn to have something done about it is government.
And then the conclusion is well, the only reason there is suffering and misery is because the person suffering and in misery doesn't have as much as somebody else.
And we can fix that by taking away from who has more than we think they should.
A little more nuanced than that, but, I mean, this is where we're at.
Why do you think Obama has so much support for it?
But there are people that know exactly what he's about.
There are people that know exactly what he's doing.
And notice the people who support all this already have theirs.
They've already got more than they could possibly need, and nobody's making a move to take it away from them.
So it's easy for them.
They've made it.
They've done whatever they had to do to get where they are.
And now they're smarter and brighter, and they care more, and they are far more capable of managing massive systems of human beings in order to engineer and program the correct outcome.
We can't trust it to individual liberty or freedom because people won't do the right thing as we see it.
People will spend their money in wasteful ways, or they'll destroy the planet, or they'll buy a car that they don't need, or they'll live in a house that's too big, or what and don't doubt for a minute that people support Obama are the same people that think that way.
They're superiorists, they think they're smarter, and they view average people down their nose.
There's a little contempt.
And all of this just really rubs me the wrong way because it's like this story today with the woman who thinks the Declaration of Independence shouldn't have a period in there, and if it didn't, it would have meant that the founders really knew we needed a giant government to run things, and that that's what they really intended, but somebody snuck a secret period in there.
It's just an all-out assault on the whole concept of individual liberty.
There's an assault on the idea that people are going to end up in different places.
People are different, and some compassionate people just can't deal with that reality.
Who's uh who's next?
Alan in um St. Bonaventure, I guess uh I don't know.
In New York, is that right?
Well, hell, Alan, welcome to the call.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Thank you, Russ Megadiddos.
Always been a lifelong dream to talk to you.
Uh well, great.
Thank you very much.
Um, something that I wanted to comment on, and something that may have been overlooked intentionally or unintentionally, but with all these illegal immigrants coming across our borders from the contiguous countries, non-continue, non-contiguous countries, why hasn't the why hasn't the UN been on anything in their home countries to get?
If things are so bad in their home countries that they need to come here, why hasn't the UN been on this from the get-go to help improve their lives in their home country so they don't need to come here?
Well, you see, that's what NAFTA was to do.
NAFTA was supposed to establish uh self-reliant, self-sufficient Mexican economy so that Mexican immigrants wouldn't come here.
But it got convoluted and bastardized a little bit.
So it didn't, so it didn't work.
The real answer to your I just had to throw that in about NAFTA because I love to tweak people with it.
But answer your own question.
Why doesn't the UN go to El Zabador and try to straighten them out so the people who live there could maybe enjoy an improved lifestyle.
Same thing with Ecuador, same thing with Nicaragua.
Why don't why doesn't the UN do this?
Well, I you know, deep down I think that the UN has a hatred of American exceptionalism.
That's my own personal opinion.
But it could be wrong, but in the end of the day, they've um they hate American exceptionalism.
I think you you well, you're you are closer than you know.
It's not just a resentment, it's more a resentment for American exceptionalism.
What is going on out there, worldwide left, Is an effort to cut this country down to size and eliminate it as a superpower.
That's always been the UN objective.
That's nothing new.
The UN is always you go back as long as you want.
Every UN program involves the U.S. paying for more and more to solve the miseries of the rest of the world.
The U.S., we should have a world tax, we should have a carbon tax.
We should have a wealth tax, we should whatever.
We need to get more money out of the United States.
And the reason for it is we just can't have a lone superpower.
We just can't, not one that is made up of free individuals.
A free United States is a bulwark against a world government.
A free United States provides a beacon of hope and economic aspiration for everybody in the world to want to come to.
What if they destroy that?
What if there is no place anymore for people in El Salvador to escape to?
Then they'll stay.
What if there's no place for Mexicans to escape to improve their lives?
What if the United States is turned into something no different than anywhere else?
Then they'll stay.
They'll stay where they are.
And they won't move.
And the United States will not be what it was.
One of the things that I have found the most difficult to do in talking to young people is to make them believe this.
My dad, as I've I've regaled you countless times, my dad warned my brother and I, my brother and me, he warned us of this every day.
He told us that this is exactly where certain kinds of people wanted this country to end up.
And he told us it was an it was an ongoing everyday battle to stop it.
That's what we are the exception.
That's what American exceptionalism is.
It's not just economic prosperity above and beyond the rest of the world.
It is the exception to the way we are governed, the exception to the way we live.
We're the exception to the notion that people live under authoritarian regimes or under monarchies.
We're the exception to it.
And we have not, for a lot of places do not look at us.
Some do, but the leaders of the world who are threatened by don't want to emulate us.
They don't want their countries to be turned into things like this.
Because this is a threat to them.
So there's always been, there has always been this assault.
Don't forget the founding of this country was to escape what was the norm for everybody.
And just because we escaped it in our founding has not erased the fact that people have resented that.
We face it each and every day.
The U.N. is more motivated to eliminate the United States as a destination for people in El Salvador than they are to fix El Salvador.
store.
I got to take quick time out.
We'll do that and be right back.
Don't go away.
And that's it, folks.
Another exciting excursion.
Oh, there's one I didn't get.
University.
It's Arizona State University, feminist professor.
Get this.
Ten weeks of course credit for women who sh who do not shave their underarms and their legs to show what a patriarchal society we have.
I'll have more details on this tomorrow.
It's at the top of the stack, and I didn't get to.
So you hang in there and be tough, folks.
Thanks for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection