All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:37
November 4, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
How are you?
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And I'm watching CNN here today.
I don't have PMS NBC on ever.
But I've got CNN here on one of my two monitors.
And it's actually kind of hilarious.
All day long, they've had a running theme.
And they've had a wide assortment of analyst guests to come in and answer the question, what will a Republican victory mean for America?
What will a Republican victory mean for Obama?
As though we are on the verge of a national tragedy.
As though we are on the verge of a national emergency.
The Republicans might win.
There is clear, unadulterated fear from Wolf Blitzer to David Rodham Gergen.
It's all over the place.
No matter what segment, they have somebody come on and talk about what this will mean.
And it is hilarious to listen to them.
Now, my point here is these people are doing everything they can today and yesterday and the day before, Friday, Thursday, last week.
They're doing everything they can to shape the interpretation of the win that they all think the Republicans are on the verge of having.
And they're doing everything they can to diminish it and say it doesn't mean anything.
It has nothing to do with Obama.
It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party.
It's just an anti-incumbent vote.
It's this or it's that.
But they're doing everything they can to spin this before the results are in to deny anybody perceiving that the Republicans have won anything.
They're looking at, okay, what message do the Democrats need to take if this turns into the blowout that people are expecting?
What's the message that Democrats need?
What do the Democrats need to do?
What are the next steps they need to?
Everything is being done within the framework and the prism of the impact on the Democrat Party and on America.
We're on the verge of a crisis here.
And that crisis is Republicans winning.
To them, and I'm only exaggerating a little bit, to the people at CNN, Republicans winning is about the same as a bunch of people from Mars landing here and taking over the political system.
It's got them bamboozled.
It's got them hyperventilating.
It has them scared and in shock already and in some cases paranoia.
And it's just, it's funny to watch this.
Did you, unrelated matter here, you remember, or do you know, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, came out.
And he admitted that he's proud to be gay.
And he admitted that being gay is one of the greatest gifts that he has received from God.
It was well known in tech circles that Tim Cook was gay.
It was just that he hadn't announced it.
He hadn't confirmed it.
But to people in that industry, it was well known.
Now, of the many reactions to this, and they haven't been at it, it wasn't earth-shattering, except in Russia, a Russian company has removed its memorial to Steve Jobs because Tim Cook came out as gay.
This is a Reuters story.
A memorial to Apple Incorporated founder Steve Jobs has been dismantled in the Russian city of St. Petersburg after the man who succeeded him, Tim Cook, came out as gay.
The more than six-foot-high monument in the shape of an iPhone was erected outside of St. Petersburg College in January 2013 by a Russian group of companies called ZEFS.
Citing the need to abide by a law combating gay propaganda, Zeph's said in a statement on Monday that the memorial had been removed on Friday, the day after Cook announced he was homosexual.
Zeft Group's companies offered a range of products and services in areas such as real estate, construction, advertising, and microfinancing.
And Zephs said in a statement, in Russia, gay propaganda and other sexual perversions among minors are prohibited by law.
After Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly called for sodomy, the monument was taken down to abide to the Russian federal law protecting children from information promoting denial of traditional family values.
Now, this is a communist country.
And liberals love this place.
Liberals love communists.
For some reason, liberals prefer communists over conservatives.
Liberals think communism just hasn't had a fair shot yet.
The right people and enough money hasn't had the same moment in time.
These are the people that didn't want any opposition to the Soviet Union, thought Reagan was a kook and a nut, might blow up the world.
It was Reagan that was the cowboy.
The Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, these are reasonable people.
This is where equality and sameness exist.
This is where there's no discrimination.
This is where there isn't any bias.
These people have a romantic attachment to communism.
You know it as well as I do.
And yet look, these people that love communism oppose any effort to do away with it.
Look at what the apple of their eye do.
Come out and condemn the CEO of Apple because he's gay.
I mean, here's a by the way, it's not just this company.
There's another Russian government leader that's come out and said some really outrageous things about Tim Cook, really outrageous things about homosexuality, which then led to this memorial to Steve Jobs being pulled down.
So here you have a system, communism, and other related forms of government all over the world, which routinely do more than just discriminate against homosexuals, and the left embraces them.
And then you have conservatives who don't do anything of the sort, but yet it is perceived that they do.
And conservatives end up being a greater enemy to the left than communists, who they love, even after something like this.
To me, it's just another sign of the irrationality of the people on the Democrat side of the aisle, the people that we oppose.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, way, way back, we're going to go back maybe a year or more, when the attention of concussions or the incidence of concussions in the NFL begot a bunch of concern.
And there became an organized movement to ban football at various levels, high school, college, the NFL.
And it has manifested itself that there is now an entire political movement oriented toward changing and ultimately, if some of them get their wish, eliminating football because it's too violent and it's too dangerous and it causes people severe injuries and brain concussions and it's not good at children and all of this.
And during the course of all this, I tried to make everybody as aware as I could of how politicized the sports media is.
They're just as politic, just as liberal as the news media, and how that there is an all-out assault on the NFL that the NFL may not even realize is coming its way.
And as is often the case, I was met with some people that thought I was a little over the top on this.
I can remember when I warned people that the SUV was going to become a target of the environmentalists.
They thought, come on, Rush, that's a little overreach.
I said, no, look at the Sierra Club.
I mean, they're telegraphing their move.
And the SUV became a great target, became one of the big reasons for global warming and climate change.
Same thing is happening here with the NFL.
Right here we have it in the New York Times today, November 4th, story by David Leonard.
He might pronounce it Leon Hart.
It's Leon Hart.
It's L-E-O-N-H-R-D-T.
I don't know how he pronounces it.
I'll just short say Leonard.
Football, the newest partisan divide.
This is a story.
It has a story that concludes, remember boxing?
Oh, you don't.
Let me tell you what happened to boxing.
And then they talk about how it ended and they're predicting the same thing for football.
Here's a pull quote.
Blue America, highly educated Democrats increasingly are deciding it doesn't want their sons playing football.
And that's what the story is about.
Educated, sophisticated, blue state Democrats do not want their kids playing football.
And they have a poll result here.
It says nationally, only 55% of Americans support their kids playing football.
Boys participating in football is down 15% in Minnesota and Wisconsin, down 8% in Massachusetts.
And the New York Times says this is only going to continue.
And I remember how I was not taken seriously when I cautioned that this was on tap.
I mean, I know the left.
I know how they start things.
I know they never give them up.
And they pursue things as much to demonstrate their power as they do the substance of whatever it is they're promoting.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
This is NPR.
This morning, a program called A Takeaway with John Hockenberry.
And he spoke with the managing editor of The Upshot, which is a New York Times website covering politics and policy.
And they talked to the guy that wrote this story.
This story runs in the politics and policy section.
This story on the NFL runs in the politics and policy section, the New York Times website called The Upshot.
And during the discussion, we had two soundbites.
And the first one, Hockenberry and the New York Times writer, have this discussion.
Is there a divide here in America, or is this Limbaughan show biz?
There is a divide.
Rush is right, at least about some aspect of this.
There isn't a divide about watching football.
Blue America and Red America are both watching football in enormous numbers.
But it's clear that Blue America, and particularly college-educated Blue America, in many of the big metropolitan areas across the country, is getting much less comfortable with the idea of letting their kids play.
So you mentioned Minnesota and Wisconsin.
High school participation in football is also falling in California, in New York, in Maryland, in Massachusetts.
And when you line up all the states and look at them, you see a pretty clear pattern.
High school participation in football is falling more in blue states than in red states.
Which, as we all know, are, and I'm speaking in the NPR-approved manner of broadcasting, the thing we all know is that the blue states are made up of the educated, sophisticated Americans, naturally.
And they have seen the light.
And as such, their children are not allowed in increasing numbers to participate in this barbaric, unnecessarily violent sport.
You can see it everywhere.
It is limboyan.
Rush is right.
There is a divide.
I could do NPR if I had to.
If all else failed, I could do NPR.
Anyway, well, I don't know.
Snerdley's, what is this?
Is it rich kids, poor kids, white kids, black?
I don't know.
It says, Snerdley, blue America.
The college-educated blue America.
The children of college-educated blue America not play football.
They're down 55%.
Now, would that demographic eliminate some kids, the children of college-educated, blue America?
Well, it could well be.
If you're talking college-educated blue-state Americans, it could well mean that we're not talking about many African Americans.
Not that there's anything wrong with uneducated African Americans, but we're talking about where they live, blue states.
And so quite possibly, we are talking primarily about white children of sophisticated, educated, blue state Americans.
Yes.
Any other questions for me?
Or does that cover it?
Well, here was one more sound bite here.
Again, this is on NPR today to take away with John Hockenberry speaking to the managing editor of the Upshot, David Leonard, about football in America.
And Hockenberry says, okay, are you suggesting?
Listen to this question now.
You just heard this.
College-educated, sophisticated, blue state parents, their kids are increasingly not playing football.
The next question is, are you suggesting that Republicans are pro-concussion?
That is the question that the author of this New York Times piece has asked.
Are you suggesting that Republicans are pro-concussion?
I am not.
We asked the Rand Corporation to do a poll on this, and what they found is that there's only one group that is notably less comfortable, and it's Obama voters with college degrees.
Democratic voters without college degrees look a lot like Republican voters with or without college degrees in terms of their level of comfort with football.
There's sort of a classic pattern here, whether it's smoking, whether it's seatbelts, that start in a certain corner of society, a more educated, more liberal corner of society.
I told you, folks!
The science continues to show that this is a real public health issue.
I told you we're seeing a change in which more liberal, more educated areas are saying, we don't want our sons playing football, even if we still watch it on Saturdays and Sundays.
That's right.
We'll go to the Coliseum, but the Christians will be given to the Lions, not our kids.
We'll comfortably, we'll watch the Christians being given to the Lions, but our children will not.
Our children will remain in the citadels of sophistication and education.
Did you hear this?
Did you Democrat voters without college degrees?
They look a lot like Republican voters, with or without college degrees, in terms of their level of comfort with football.
Meaning, Democrat voters without college degrees are just as unsophisticated, just as violent, just as brutal, just as mean-spirited and extremist as Republican voters, with or without college degrees.
So a Republican voter, whether educated or not, is still a barbarian and sends his kids out to the Coliseum to do battle with other gladiators and to hell with what happens.
But the sophisticated blue color.
I have to take a break.
Unlike NPR, we have to earn a profit.
Okay, so the question is, given the New York Times story on liberal, blue state, sophisticated, educated parents not letting their children more and more play football, what is the impact of the game?
Well, that's easy.
If this is all right, the impact of the game is very simply expressed.
Yes, well, the ultimate impact of this would be, quite clearly, that future football players, even all the way up to the pinnacle, NFL, will be less and less the children of educated, blue state, sophisticated liberal Democrats.
Those children will simply not experience the game.
They'll not play.
And therefore, the NFL will essentially be made up of blockheads, uneducated, red state, conservative, Republican barbarians, concussions.
Concussions will be widespread.
There'll be fewer punters, of course, because the majority of kickers come from educated, blue state, sophisticated liberal parents.
Kickers, of course, eschewing the just the repulsive violence that's inherent in this game.
So looking forward, the game will become more barbaric and more brutish, more punishing, more brutal, more concussions, as there will be fewer and fewer sensitive, educated liberals playing the game.
That's obvious.
And so that's the conclusion that we should have to draw the impact of the game.
If liberal kids continue to not play the game, it'll be left to the true barbarians of society, the children of educated and uneducated red state conservatives.
Here's Matt in Jacksonville, Florida.
Hi, Matt.
Glad you waved.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
Hey, how you doing, man?
Been listening to you since I was five, six years old, you know, my daddy.
You know, yeah, I'm beyond myself right now to be able to tell you.
It's an honor, sir.
I got giddy when I heard Sir of these voice.
So what I want to bring up is I want to bring up the issue, and it goes deeper, and I want you to understand that this issue goes deeper that I'm going to speak on than just the surface of, oh, it's medical marijuana, and that's the issue.
Why is it, because after a lot of reflection, I've considered myself, and I hate labels, but I've determined two labels for myself.
But you know what?
Hey, dude, hang on.
I just discovered, I misread the clock.
I've only got a few.
Can you hang on through the break?
I thought I had more time than I have in this segment.
Okay.
Can you hang on, dude?
Okay, cool.
Don't go away because we'll be back.
We're talking marijuana here, I think.
By the way, before we get back to Matt in Jacksonville, I just discovered CNN actually has a countdown clock on their screen counting down until the first wave of the exit polls are released.
That'll be at 5 o'clock.
So their countdown poll right now would be about 26 minutes and a few seconds away.
They're in commercial now, so I can't really see what it says, but the first wave is at 5.
But they've got a countdown clock to the first wave of exit polls.
Now, what does that mean?
They're doing that for themselves, not their audience.
They never do anything for their audience.
Why?
There isn't any.
I'm telling you, they're scared to death today at CNN.
They just, they don't know what to do.
These guys are looking at personal rejection.
You would think they'd know what that's like looking at their audience ratings every day.
But they're so tied to the Democrat Party that as long as the Democrats are doing well, they don't care if they don't have an audience.
Now it's all going to hit them.
Okay, back to Matt in Jacksonville.
You basically, medical marijuana, you want to know why it is a liberal issue?
You want to know why there's politics attached to it at all?
Is that your question?
Well, my thing is, Rush, is that it's like, as I said, I'm a constitutional libertarian.
It took a lot of reflection and it took a lot for me to even give myself any kind of label.
Christian, constitutional libertarian.
Politically, that's, you know, I'm a millennial.
I'm 26 years old.
And it seems like every, you know, because I watch Fox News all the time, every time it's an issue about social issues, it's like, you know, the conservatives, you know, all these talking ads.
It's, oh, medical marijuana.
Why is it such an issue?
It's about more than just medical marijuana.
It's about liberty.
It's about liberty to do what I want to do.
As long as I don't affect anybody else, as long as I'm not affecting anybody else, it can be controlled, you know, 18 years old if you're caught with it before 18 and, you know, all that, just like cigarettes.
18 years old, you make your own decision.
Let me tell you, I'm going to answer your question for you.
In the first place, Matt, learn something, please.
Everything is political to political people.
Everything is.
The reason medical marijuana is not, medical marijuana is seen as simply a ruse to be able to get marijuana, period.
Now, if you'll notice, nobody ever mentions how having marijuana on the ballot in a lot of states in 2012 helped drive the millennial turnout.
But it did.
Having medical marijuana or marijuana, period, on the ballot in 2012 really ratcheted up the turnout of people your age.
To people in politics, that's politics.
There's a political reason why you showed up.
Therefore, there is a political appeal they think will resonate with you.
Now, to you, if you're being honest, you just want the freedom and liberty.
If you need some marijuana for medical reasons or whatever, you should be able to get it.
It's your life.
It's your body.
You're not hurting anybody.
You're not harming me.
I'm free.
I'm a free citizen.
What I put in my body, I don't, okay, drug dealers dealing with kids.
Yeah, that's bad.
You know, that's, but when you get rid of the criminal element and it's improving, when you get rid of the criminal element, people don't, it doesn't become as a spot.
It's not like a big issue.
It's not like, oh my gosh, oh, I'm doing something bad.
No, it becomes, you know how many people older than me.
I'm 26 speaking as, look, I don't do it all the time.
When I do, it's for reasons, but I can go to bed every night without it.
My point is, is it's my choice whether I do it.
But keep in mind, this goes beyond just medical marijuana.
It's the biggest issue right now.
Obviously, you're afraid of the money.
Okay, what about if you liked heroin instead of marijuana?
Would you have the same attitude about it?
That becomes debate, and there's debate.
I don't agree with it, but I believe someone should be at liberty to make their own choice.
And that's why you're a libertarian.
Liberty is to make your own choice without government intervention.
Right.
I understand that.
It's an age-old argument, and it often delves into the role of public morality.
And the most common refute or refutation to your argument would be, but it's not just affecting you, Matt.
By your using this drug, it's affecting your employer, if you have one, because it's going to impact your performance.
This is what they say.
It's going to impact your family.
You don't do anything in a vacuum.
Nobody does.
And whereas you may think it's a totally personal choice, it has no effect on anybody else, public morality says otherwise.
But regardless, whether that is something you believe or not, if government realizes that there's money in it via regulation, then they'll turn it as political as they necessary to get the money out of it.
And if they see that the primary constituency group that wants this is young people, then Bamo, they're going to really politicize that.
They're going to turn it into an issue to make you a voter.
If they determine that's all you care about, then there's going to be a political party come along to make you think that's all they care about, you getting your marijuana.
And they'll promise you and they'll do whatever they can to get you to turn out and vote.
Everything becomes political in that regard.
In this country, the image of a marijuana smoker is liberal Democrat, not constitutional libertarian.
It's liberal Democrat, radical activist.
This is the image that's associated with it.
Most people interested in marijuana are assumed to be voters of Democrats or for Democrats.
Now, there's a story here about this.
It's in USA Today.
And basically, it's about how the government can't wait to just start taxing the hell out of this.
More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that even those who make their money illegally have to pay taxes.
And under today's tax code, the government stands to make more money from the sale of marijuana than those selling it legally.
Voters in Oregon, Alaska, Washington, D.C. will decide today whether to legalize the sale of recreational marijuana.
But any new marijuana shops that voters approve may not be able to survive a drug war era tax code that already threatens many businesses in Colorado and Washington State.
Under this tax code, the federal government stands to make more money from the sale of marijuana than those legally selling it will make from it.
And that could be enough to shut down many shops.
Here are the pull quotes.
West works for an association of more than 750 cannabis-related businesses across the U.S. and says that 280E results in her clients paying more than 70% of their profits in taxes to the federal government.
A lot of times, instead of paying a tax rate that should be 30 to 40%, they are paying rates between 80 or 90 percent, said one accountant.
I even have a client right now that's paying more than 100 percent effective tax rate.
Bottom line is that people who sell marijuana legally, the government's going to make more money off of them in taxes than they're going to make selling the product to customers.
Drug war era law gives the government the right to tax it at 80, the profits of the sale of it, 80 to 90 percent.
And if you want to know why there are efforts to legalize it, that's all you need to know.
It's not about you exercising your freedom.
It's not that people want you to be able to get it, Matt.
It's not that people want you to get medical treatment.
That's all a bunch of BS.
They're looking at it as a source of new revenue because we're out of money.
And they're going to exploit you and everybody like you as best they can.
So now we're not talking about just medical marijuana in these states that's on the balcony.
This is recreational because the federal government, the IRS, is looking at a tax rate of 80 to 90% on it on the profits in legal marijuana stores.
Follow the money, Matt, particularly in politics.
And practically every question you have will be answered.
No, no, I have to tell you, I drove by my polling place this morning.
I never vote in the morning.
I always go at the end of the day when there's nobody there.
And there's always a line.
I don't care what election.
There's always a lot at the time I drive by.
And there wasn't today.
There are a lot of cars, but I didn't see a lot of people like I usually do.
And I have no idea what it means in terms of turnout.
Zip zero nada.
I couldn't possibly analyze it.
I just know that there weren't any bodies outside the place.
Maybe they got a new holding tank inside.
I don't know.
But it was different.
Here's Gary in Illinois.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I'm feeling kind of optimistic.
I come from a real small farm.
I guess we lost the cell call.
He's very optimistic.
He's in a farm community in Illinois.
I didn't recognize his town.
That's why I didn't pronounce it.
But he was going to tell us why he felt optimistic.
No, no, I'm not trying to create any panic here.
I'm just telling you, there wasn't.
Normally when I pass by the place where I vote, there are always a lot of people, and there weren't today.
So now, no, no, now people are saying, Rush, maybe, maybe that theory is right.
Maybe this is all a giant scam by the pollsters and the Democrats, and maybe it isn't going to be so bad for the Democrats.
Folks, that's entirely possible, I guess.
But that seems so out there.
It's like I always say, it's ridiculous to predict outcomes on something like this, even with all the polling data you have, because it's just too many people involved and too many extraneous circumstances that you can't even know.
Just CNN is doing their countdown to the exit poll release, which is now about two hours, eight minutes, and 30 seconds.
Now, one note on these exit polls.
I want you to remember they have been wrong.
The exit polls are used by Democrats and the pollsters to shape turnout later in the day.
For example, Iowa.
A lot of important polls like the one in Iowa don't close until 10 p.m.
And here's CNN at 5 o'clock talking about exit polls.
And if they're bad for the Democrats, they'll start trying to depress Republican turnout.
So whatever they tell you the exit polls say, just ignore it.
They're used to shape turnout later in the day.
▲
Export Selection