All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:16
July 22, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back.
Dependably back.
You can count on the fact that I am going to be here.
Happy to be here as well.
Happily so Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have utilizing talent.
On loan from God.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program 800 28288 to the email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
I was not making this up.
Bill Clinton reportedly has a buxom blonde mistress who visits so often when Hillary isn't home in Chappaqua.
That the former president's Secret Service detail has given her an unofficial code name, Energizer.
This is according to Ronald Kessler in his new book, The Fan First Family Detail.
Secret Service agents reveal the hidden lives of presidents.
It's due out on August 5th.
Kessler, no stranger to the controversies surrounding the Secret Service.
He broke the story that Secret Service agents protecting Obama in Cartagena, Columbia, hired prostitutes, got drunk, and put the president in jeopardy.
Richard Johnson reports here that he's seen portions of the book.
Says that none of the normal protocols are followed when Energizer arrives in her SUV.
Sometimes just minutes after Hillary has left.
Kessler quotes a supervisor informing a new agent.
You don't stop her.
You don't approach her.
You just let her go in.
Energizer is described as charming and friendly, sometimes brought cookies to the agents.
One agent told Kessler, yeah, it was a warm day.
She was wearing a low-cut tank top, and as she leaned over, her boobs were very exposed.
They appeared to be very perky and very new and full.
There was no doubt in my mind they were enhanced.
Kessler also reports that Hillary's Secret Service detail informs Bill's detail when Hillary is heading home so that Bill has time to get energizer off the property and clean up any evidence.
The story is that Hillary's so mean to her detail and uniformed military people and all that, that her detail helps Bill's detail with advance warnings.
Of when Hillary is on the way home.
Now the the only thing I question about this is I have been reading recently that Clinton has a bachelor pad.
This is in the Ed Klein book.
If Clinton's got a bachelor pad, a penthouse, at the library and massage parlor in Little Rock...
But I guess Energizer doesn't live in Little Rock, and I guess he doesn't travel with Energizer.
So Energizer is, I guess, one of the Westchester babes, and the and the library massage parlor penthouse for the Arkansas women.
Or whoever ends up there.
In fact, if audio summit number three, we'll get sound bites about this, in fact.
On Fox and Friends Today, Elizabeth Hasselbeck spoke with another author, Daniel Halper, about his new book, Clinton Inc.
She said some shocking information here, backed by a lot of quotes and accounts.
Do you think that Bill Clinton really would not want Hillary to win in 2016 if she were to run?
Bill Clinton, of course, has cheated on his wife before, and here's another case of him cheating on his wife.
I think the case in point is 2008 where he had reckless behavior continuously.
He had to be advised by aides not to bring his mistress on the campaign trail.
There's been some talk that there is still a mistress in play here.
If that were to be the case, how would that affect Hillary's run in 2016?
I'm sure it is, and I'm sure there are more stories and more scandals to emerge.
I try to cover as many.
When you cover the Clintons, you have to make hard choices about which scandals and which mistresses to cover.
Holy cow, did you hear that?
When you cover the Clintons, you have to make hard choices about which scandals and which mistresses to cover.
Hard choices.
That's a title of Hillary's book that's bombing out.
I think that is hilarious.
You got to make hard choices about which scandals and mistresses to cover.
Ah, this is uh do we really do we really want to hand the country over to these people?
I think some people would just for the entertainment value alone.
This some people, yeah.
Round two of the SOAR operators.
I think people, some people are harboring the uh uh secret desire that Clinton get caught again.
Just to just to see what would happen.
The British survey company Ipsos Mori has released its first ever global trends survey, summarizing opinion from 20 countries on issues ranging from privacy and technology to health and the environment.
And on the subject of climate change, U.S. citizens revealed themselves to be more divided than any other nation.
Fifty-four percent of Americans agreed with this statement.
The climate change we are currently seeing is largely the result of human activity.
It's a slight majority.
It ranks last, however, compared to the other countries polled, including France, Brazil, South Korea, Great Britain are all between 65 and 80 percent who believe that man is causing climate change.
Now, I I don't believe the percentages here.
But why would the U.S. be the leading nation with the highest amount of doubt about the conventional wisdom of climate?
Why do you think that would be?
I think that's exactly right, me.
I uh there's just no for twenty five years, 26 years.
This has been a seminal issue, a forefront, front page issue.
And uh the well, the weather has been helping me out.
And of course, it doesn't hurt to have the the gore phenomenon.
You know, when he goes anywhere to make a global warming appearance, you can count on it snowing.
You can count on record low, unseasonably low temperatures to greet an Al Gore global warming uh conference.
It's just it's it's it's ironically humorous.
Australia, the great things are coming uh out of Australia on climate change.
Australia's renewable energy industry has now ground to a halt.
Uh their investment in renewable energy has all but dried up in the first half of this year.
On amid uncertainty fueled by the government's latest review of the mandatory target.
So the six months to June, just 40 million dollars was invested in large-scale renewable energy like wind farms, which is the lowest level since the first half of 2001.
Um the the Australian prime minister is is great big basically just shutting down the entire global warming argument.
Leading the world on resisting the uh the conventional wisdom of climate change and now their renewable energy.
And there's no such thing, by the way.
Renewable energy is one of these uh word games that the the environmentalist wackos use to make unsuspecting dullards think that there's some magical energy source out there that never gets used up.
Now you might, well, Rush, we're never gonna run out of wind and we're never gonna run out of the sun.
Yeah, but they they don't do anything for you except kill birds.
You can't fly an airplane on solar power or wind power.
You just can't do it.
You can't drive.
You can't ship a uh cargo load of uh goods and services over the ocean.
You can't do anything that is necessary for economic commerce.
And you're never gonna be able to.
There's never going to be an airplane that flies with windmills in it.
Or solar panels on it.
It's just, it's it's pately absurd.
Which the wackos say, good, we need to get rid of airplanes.
They're too polluting.
Anyway, it's uh it's a great bit of news out of Australia that the whole movement is falling apart there, and it's happening because the leadership of the country is fearless in telling the truth about it.
Get this.
This next story is from the St. Louis Business Journal.
And I want to read to you the headline.
Fed study, colon, shorter jobless benefits lead to higher employment.
Did you know that?
If unemployment benefits were cut off earlier in 2013, the long-term unemployed would have been more likely to be re-employed, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis.
If the benefits called the emergency unemployment compensation program expired earlier in 2013, workers with 46 or more weeks of continuous unemployment would have been 1.2 to 2.1 percentage points more likely to become re-employed.
So what they're saying here as the result of a massive Federal Reserve study.
Just to make sure that we've all got this straight.
If you don't pay people to not work, they'll start working.
Who would have thought?
Who would have ever thought of that independently?
That if you don't pay people to not work, they'll go out and find work.
Now, folks, I know this is funny and it's in its own little self-contained universe.
It's it's what it is.
But stop and think for a minute.
This is nothing more than what was for centuries common sense.
This is nothing more than A plus B equals C, one in one is two.
This is simple mathematics.
There's nothing complicated about this at all.
And yet, there are people shocked to learn, and it took a federal study to convince them that if you don't pay people to not work, they'll go out and find a job sooner.
Which must mean that these people think that if we keep, you know, we gotta be compassionate and thoughtful.
So if we just keep giving them unemployment benefits, it will help them find work.
To me, this is uh I mean, take some of this seriously, is a big indication of just how out of whack and how far and distant common sense has become.
Mentioned at the top of the program that Chris Selizza has written a piece in the Washington Post, it's virtually impossible to be a successful modern president.
It's the most powerful job in the world, at which you will most certainly fail.
It's just too big.
The bully pulpit has declined as a persuasion mechanism.
There is no such thing anymore.
The president just doesn't have the power he used to have.
It's what it's more than one man can do.
It's just so bad, it's so sad.
It used to be that the presidency was really, really, really cool and powerful, but now it's just so complicated that not even Obama can do it alone.
It's right on schedule.
Right on schedule, whenever you have a Democrat president at the point of no return, and that's what this means.
It means that at least Silizza and some of the Democrats in the media have figured out that Obama's not going to turn this around.
Okay, time to bring out nobody could do it then.
If Obama can't make this work, if Obama, who's the best and the brightest and the smartest and all that that there's ever been, if he can't make the presidency a successful thing for himself, then no other human being can.
They wrote this about Jimmy Carter, by the way.
Back in the 1970s.
I forget who the reporter was, but this is nothing.
Nothing new.
When Jimmy Carter was president, Newsweek in 2010 also attempted to explain the disappointment of Obama's presidency with a headline, is the presidency too big a job.
That was by Daniel Stone.
Four years ago.
Oh no, I don't think any single human being can do this job.
And now Silizza has hit it.
Get this.
The economist.
Is it the economist?
Yes, it is.
The Economist, the British version of Time Magazine, has found out that socialists and communists lie much more often about what they believe than capitalists do.
Lars Horniff of the University of Munich and Dan Early.
And Zemina Garcia Rada and Heather Mann of Duke University ran a spearmint last year to test Germans' willingness to lie for personal gain.
Some 250 Berliners were randomly selected to take part in a game where they could win up to $8.
The game was simple.
Each participant was asked to throw a dive 40 times and record each role on a piece of paper.
A higher overall tally earned a bigger payoff.
Before each roll, players had to commit themselves to write down the number that was on either the top or the bottom side of the dice.
However, they did not have to tell anyone which side they had chosen, which made it easy to cheat by rolling the die first and then pretending that they had selected that side with the highest number.
If they picked the top and then rolled a two, for example, they would have an incentive to claim falsely they had chosen the bottom, which would have been a five.
And it turns out that there is a link between socialism and dishonesty.
That socialists and communists lie about pretty much everything, but particularly about the economics of their belief system.
They lie about how well they're doing.
They lie about how well other people will do under their system.
And of course, when you stop and think about it, of course they do, they have no choice because socialism itself is a lie, just as liberalism is a lie.
In fact, the headline of the it's a little story.
The headline of the story is lying commies.
New research suggests that the Soviet system inspired not just sarcasm, but cheating.
In East Germany, communism appears to have inculcated moral laxity.
It's just a great piece.
And what did I just been handed something here for?
Ooh.
Ooh.
An update on the Tony Dungey story.
And where is it?
ESPN.
Details when we come back.
Well, I just read this clarification piece from ESPN.com on Tony Dungey, and it's it's what it is.
It's pretty close to what I thought he would say.
And it's pretty close to what I thought his viewpoint on this is.
He says, I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL.
He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a role in the evaluation process.
It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team.
I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months, and I've always answered them the same way.
By saying that playing in the NFL is and should be about merit.
The best players make the team.
Everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play.
That's my opinion as a coach.
But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction.
Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now.
And I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
Because this is here's the he what he was saying, I knew this was what it was going to be.
He says, look, we're talking about a seventh-round draft choice here.
Not a first round or second round choice.
A seventh round draft choice.
You don't want this kind of attention to a seventh-round draft choice.
It's just not.
I wouldn't want to put up with that mess.
Or not mess, I just wouldn't want to put up with the distraction, whatever it was he said.
And I made I even observed that he has made his own point here.
That all he has had to do is characterize it as that and look.
Here's a media circus.
And I just wouldn't want to be dealing with this as a coach.
So I would not have drafted him.
Because I don't want to deal with the distraction.
It's not that I don't approve of homosexuality.
It's not that I think he's going to be a distraction in a locker room.
It's not that I think he's going to be a distraction in the field.
It's because I don't want the media circus.
No, this will not be good enough for the I mean that there are there are some real in the sports writer community.
There are some genuine activist really mean social warriors.
And this is going to be viewed as a cop-out.
And come on, he didn't mean to be this fine print about it.
This is this is an escape act, but he's not fooling us, will be some of the reaction you'll get.
So my staff, always excited by the exclusive opportunity they have to ask me what I think.
And face it, you would love that chance too.
So Russia, is this enough?
Is this enough?
Will this put out the fire?
I said, no, it is not going to come close to putting out the fire.
Why not?
Because he blamed the media.
That's he just threw gasoline on it.
What he essentially said was, Sam's great.
Sam's not going to be a problem anywhere.
Not for his teammates, not for his organization.
He's not going to be a problem in the locker room.
He's not going to be a problem on the field.
The media is going to cause the problem.
Didn't he over and out.
That's all it.
Oh, it's right here.
It's right here.
I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction.
Unfortunately, we are all seeing this play out now.
So he is saying he predicted that the media would make a circus out of it, and it's happening.
And he feels bad to have played a role in it.
But he's saying this essentially proves that his point.
That's just throwing gasoline on this.
Blaming them.
They are the saviors.
They are the arbiters.
They're the guarantors.
They're the protectors of the victimized and the aggrieved and the taken advantage of and the victimized and all of this.
They dungey.
And you know another thing they're going to say.
Guarantee you.
They're going to say, hey, Tony, where do you work?
We're in NBC, right?
What's NBC, Tony?
It's the media, Tony.
You are the media.
Now, tone, that's what they're going to say to you.
You wait.
Headline.
Hey, Tony Colin, you dot, R dot, the dot, media exclamation point.
That'll all be said.
I have a couple tweets to back this up.
Alberman has tweeted.
Tony Dungey responds, tries to clarify Michael Sam comments, comma makes it worse.
Bingo.
TMZ calls Dungey's statement double talk.
It wasn't double talk.
See, you can't be precise.
He was being, that's another reason he's not going to get away with it.
He was engaging in precision.
I was asked about drafting philosophy.
I said I wouldn't draft him because I don't want.
Now what he didn't throw in there, which I think I shouldn't do this, because I'm I'm putting words in his mouth, but I I you can't you can't talk about this without mentioning that that the guy was barely picked.
He's picked near the end of the last round.
He's a seventh-round choice.
Seventh-round picks are anonymous.
Nobody cares about seventh round picks.
And you as a coach, you don't want anybody.
The seventh round picks round out preseason rosters.
It's just, you don't.
They're right up there with with undrafted free agents.
In terms of their likelihood to make the team and all that.
What what does I'll tell you what else he's not saying?
Well, I can't say that.
I don't know what else he's thinking, so I shouldn't I shouldn't go there.
But what does media pressure or circus mean in this case?
What it means is that, and everybody knew this going in, that if you if you pick the guy, he'd better make the team.
Because if he doesn't, you're gonna have hell to pay with the media.
You're gonna have questions coming at you left and right.
Were there any homophobes in the locker room?
Was it uncomfortable for him?
Did you never give him a chance?
What do you mean he can't play?
We watched him in the preseason look just as good as your third round pick.
What do you mean he all of that?
I guarantee you no coach wants that.
So I don't know.
I don't know if Dungey was thinking like that.
I can I refuse to put words in his uh in his mind or certainly his mouth, but that's what media circus means.
That means, okay, I'm I I'm I'm now part of a social experiment.
And there is only one right thing that can happen here, according to the media.
And it is not the player being cut.
Let me grab another quick phone call.
This is uh oh, Terry in Paducah, Kentucky.
This is close to where I grew up.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, as with all your callers, it is a great honor to talk to you.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I appreciate that.
When I heard you talk about intolerance and tolerance earlier in the show.
Yep.
Over this Tony Dungey thing.
Yeah.
And the intolerance of the left for Tony Dungey, and they're calling out for tolerance from everybody.
Well, Tim Tebow is not in the NFL now because of the intolerance of the left.
Just because the man is a Christian that nobody no team wants to touch him with the media circus they would have.
And he where's the tolerance there?
It's called hypocrisy, Rush.
And it's killing our country.
It is destroying us.
That and political correctness are destroying us.
I just, yeah, though I I think a simpler way, I agree with you, but a simpler, more direct, and obviously much more controversial, which is my choice way of saying it, is liberalism is destroying the country.
Yes.
Because all of those factors uh are part and parcel of it.
Now, in T beau's case, it must also be said that everybody, except one guy who was the coach that drafted him, uh metal block on the name that he's now the offensive coordinator for the Patriots.
Josh.
He thought he could play.
He drafted him in the first round.
But practically any football expert you talk to says that T Bow just can't play quarterback.
His throwing motion, you've heard about the quick release that Dan Moreno has.
Tebow winds up like a windmill to throw the football.
Apparently, NFL experts tell you that that's that that can't hold up.
Uh it is that not accurate and so forth.
A lot of teams, if this guy would willingly switch to tight end or H back or something, that I mean his his heart and his desire and his work ethic is what everybody wants, but that he can't play quarterback, and that apparently is all he wants to play.
But even saying all that, you're absolutely right.
There was a bias against Tebow, and everybody knows what it was.
He was all God all the time, up front and first.
And that just defends the sensibilities of the same people who are all wound up about this current circumstance.
And believe me, Dungey is an all-god guy.
And there's always been, nobody will admit it, they've probably always been underneath the surface.
A little bit of unease about that.
Lovey Smith, good friend of Dungey, coach at Tampa Bay, uh, have been they're both very upfront about their Christianity and how it is the most important thing in their life.
That's just to some people, you know, this is liberalism today, that's unacceptable.
There's no tolerance, uh, or very little for that.
If it's a sleeve, if it's an on your sleeve, wear it on your sleeves.
If you keep it hidden, if you don't proselytize about it, that's cool.
But if you do anything other than you're marked, and they're laying in wait for you when you screw up.
Syracuse, New York, this is Patrick.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
A little while ago you were discussing the court decision regarding the Obamacare subsidies.
That's right.
You said that you said the White House will try to argue Framer's intent, and they'll say it was obviously the intent of Congress that the federal exchanges should be included.
There's a strong counterargument, though, to congressional intent.
And in fact, you've actually played the evidence of that counter-argument many times on your show before.
And the evidence against intent is the recording of Nancy Pelosi saying we have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it.
You know.
How could it be congressional intent when the speaker of the House at that time openly admitted they didn't know what provisions were even included in the law?
Well, you know, I like that.
I like that.
I can I can just see the players.
What do you mean intent at Congress?
The Democrat leader of the House, the Speaker of the House, when this thing was written, said they had no idea what was in it, and we had to pass it first to find out what was in it.
So how in the world can you impute intent?
By the way, folks, as a legal premise, there's no such thing as the intent of a legislative body.
There's only what they write.
When you start getting into the intent of a legislative body, then you're off the path.
I mean, you can do it.
Some people can be persuasive arguing that way, but in a in a strict legal sense, of course, Josh Ernest in the White House is, eh, this law, this is for legal beagles, academics want to argue about it, we don't care.
You get your subsidy, you're gonna keep getting your subsidy.
You like your subsidy gonna get it.
It doesn't matter what the law says, these people argue about it.
Um the the intent of Congress, I mean, there is in in a legal sense, you hear the phrase used, but it is not it is not a way of substituting meaning, which is what these people are trying to do.
But it really only matters as far as the judges who hear the case and what they think.
And sadly, that's where we are.
The rule of law is really not the rule of law, it's the rule of judges and their party, more and more, it seems.
But Patrick, I appreciate the call.
That's an interesting observation.
Pelosi, what do you mean?
We didn't know what was in it until we passed it.
That was one of our selling points.
We have to pass it to find out what's in it.
It's so complicated, it can't possibly know what's fully in it until it starts being implemented.
I don't know.
There's these you talk about moral authority and moral high ground, these people don't even try.
That's the they're They're just thugs.
They just want to use the full force of the power of the state to just force things on people.
Rule of law and decency, what's right, what doesn't matter at all.
It's just what the state, the regime, happens to uh happens to want.
We've reached that sad moment in time each day when the busy broadcast comes to a screeching halt.
But it's not a screeching halt.
It's a little pause, and we resume in 21 hours.
Thanks so much for being with us, folks.
▲
Export Selection