All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 21, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:15
January 21, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh, the most talked about radio talk show in America, most talked about host, the most vilified, the most envied, the most hated, the most despised, and the most loved.
It's called Perfect Polarization in Inside Baseball Lingo.
And it's great to have you here, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light, your bulwark, your rock at 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Well, the plot thickens here.
Plot thickens.
It turns out that the Indianapolis Colts informed the NFL they had concerns the Patriots were playing with under-inflated balls all the way back last November.
The Colts played the Patriots, I think it was in New England in November.
It got blown out again.
Here are the details of the story.
One of the key moments of Inflation Gate, this came when the Colts, linebacker DeQuel Jackson, intercepted Brady.
This was in the championship game Sunday night.
And that's when.
That's the first time the Colts had touched one of the Patriots' balls.
Footballs.
And it went up the chain, and that's where this whole thing of the underinflated football began.
Turns out a published report today says that the Coates' suspicions about the inflation of New England's footballs dates back to the regular season, November 16th, and it was after an interception.
There were two interceptions in that game.
Adam Schefter of ESPN says that the Coates, as Phil Sims says, notified the NFL about potential under-inflated footballs after safety.
Mike Adams picked off Brady twice back in November, the 42-20 victory.
In both cases, Mike Adams took the ball to the sideline as a memento and gave the balls to the equipment staff.
And at that point, the inflation of the footballs came into question.
So this is not going to make the NFL happy.
This is not going to, of all teams, for this thing to pop up with the Patriots.
This is the last thing they want going into this.
Well, actually, it's going to cause all kinds of attention.
In that sense, it may not be.
It's an integrity game thing.
They've got a problem here.
And it's probably going to keep surfacing how widespread this is and how often this happens.
And it's going to call into question, well, look, okay, you guys say that every game ball goes to the refs two hours and 15 minutes prior to kickoff.
And the refs inspect those balls and pass judgment.
Stamp of approval.
Send them out.
Okay, if that happens, then something's happening to those balls after they leave the refs, which is going to give rise to questions like, what's happening to the balls and who's doing it?
Well, of course, who knew?
Not just who knew, who ordered it.
You don't think some little minimum wage ball boy struggling in Obama's economy is going to just take one of those little needles from a tire pump, stick it in a football, and deflate it for a couple seconds.
You don't think that's going to happen.
No, I don't think it's a rogue ball boy.
But oh, they might ask a ball boy to fall on the pump on this and take the heat.
Could be, by the time it's all over, could be a renegade ball boy.
Could, in fact, could be a kid used to say work for the Raiders who lied to the Patriots and got a job there and tried to sabotage to get even with the tuck rule game.
It could concoct anything they want here.
Okay, time to hide the women and children, ladies and gentlemen, and maybe grab a barf bag.
New York Magazine.
Let me give you a countdown here because if you, as I say, we don't want to shock anybody, and not our purpose.
Nor is it our purpose to offend.
That just happens naturally.
I'm going to count down from five to one.
And if you're still here, then you're on your own and you can't complain.
Complaints will fall on deaf ears because you've been given ample time to turn down the sound.
54321.
New York Magazine had the story.
Recently interviewed a couple who decided to remain anonymous for reasons that will become obvious.
It's an 18-year-old woman and an older man.
They live in upstate New York.
They are planning on getting married soon.
18-year-old woman, which means she's of age.
And the older man living in upstate New York plan to get married.
Here's the thing: the older man is her father.
The older man is her biological father.
In an article titled What It's Like to Date Your Dad, New York Magazine describes how father and daughter were at one time estranged.
And then, magically, they were reunited after 12 years.
And the magazine says sparks flew between a teenage daughter and her biological father.
They were attracted to each other, says the magazine.
The woman said that within days of rediscovering each other, within days of the woman rediscovering her father, for whom sparks were flying, she lost her virginity.
The interviewer for New York Magazine asked the 18-year-old about the taboo nature of their relationship.
This would be a natural question to ask.
Do you realize what you're doing here, young lady?
You lost your virginity to your father.
Sparks are flying between you and your father.
And the young girl said she doesn't understand why she's being judged for being happy.
She doesn't understand why she's being judged for being in love.
There's not enough love in the world.
And wherever there's love, we should celebrate because there's not enough of it.
There's too much hate.
There's too much racism.
There's too much bigotry.
There's too many grand juries doing the wrong thing.
When people love each other, we should stop and celebrate it.
She said that she and her dad are two adults who brought each other out of dark places.
She said, people don't get it.
People should research incest so that they will understand how often it happens.
Now, I know, I know, not only don't you get it, you don't really want to get it.
Understand that.
But you remember, folks, I mean, I could have done this.
I could have reported this story to you with a yin, yin.
But I, sensitive, compassionate host, didn't want to appear insensitive or jocular about this.
But you remember how everyone laughed when we warned you people about this very thing happening once society started to redefine marriage and redefine what it is that makes up a legitimate relationship.
Not enough love in the world, there's too much hate in the world.
And whenever there's love in the world, we should applaud it.
We should not judge it.
We should embrace it.
So, this actually does not surprise me.
This probably happens more frequently than you and I know.
The difference here is it's in New York magazine.
And there's in some instances, if you read the article, in some parts of the article, you might conclude they think it's cool.
Nothing that's wrong with it.
The happy couple, the father and daughter, for whom sparks are flying after 12 years of estrangement, plan to move to New Jersey.
Where, did you know in New Jersey incest is legal?
Did you know that?
Well, that's what it says here.
Is it?
I did not know incest in New Jersey is legal.
Look what happens if Christie leaves and goes to watch the Cowboys.
Look what they do in that state.
Anyway, the couple says that they want to have children now.
They have to try to find a best man.
They need a best man.
And the first name that comes to mind for me is Woody Allen.
I mean, this is right out of a Woody Allen, not just movie, but life experience.
And if that doesn't work for you, get James Taylor.
Have him come over, serenade you, come up with lyrics that make it work, and have a party.
All right, I finally said, I've been waiting for it.
I've been waiting for it, and I just saw it, folks, on CNN.
Chris Sims, I haven't been waiting for him.
I've been waiting for somebody, an NFL player or coach, somebody involved in the NFL.
I've been waiting for it.
Chris Sims, the son of Phil Sims, is just now on CNN showing an infobabe how to squeeze the balls, how to properly grip the balls and what it might mean if the balls are hard or soft.
I've been waiting for it.
I knew it was going to happen and I just saw it.
Surprised it took this long.
You remember Jeremy Irons, great actor, Jeremy Irons, Jeremy Irons, he got grief like you can't imagine for saying that gay marriage would open the door to incest.
This is back in April of 2013.
I'll never forget.
He made that.
It's kind of an off-the-cuff statement.
It seemed very out of place as an actor.
Wouldn't think actors would have that attitude about it.
He caught grief like you can't believe.
And it was I, your host, El Rushbow, back August of 2005, subject of gay marriage.
I asked the following question.
Where would the line be drawn?
Where would the liberals draw the line on right to privacy?
I mean, if you can marry somebody of the same sex, can you marry a third person of the same sex?
What are the limits going to be?
If you're going to redefine marriage here, folks, then all bets are off, right?
Marriage is like anything else now in morality, individual choice, whatever you want it to be.
If you can marry somebody of the same sex, can you marry two people of the same sex?
Can you marry one of the opposite sex and one of the same sex and do a troika and draw straws every night or afternoon, depending on your preferences?
What limits are you willing to go for on the right to privacy?
Bigamy, polygamy, incest?
Where are you going to draw the line on this?
Once you start changing the definition of marriage, that was me, your host, 10 years ago, 2005.
Back to the phones we go.
James in Houston, your next sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing today?
Quick comment, listening to the whatever that was last night by our president.
Yeah.
You know, I remember a Democrat very boldly said, don't ask what your country can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your country.
And then this guy's up there saying it's how much the government can hand out to people at the expense of breaking the rich at some point.
Isn't it amazing?
Yeah.
I mean, that's John F. Kennedy.
That's 1960.
So that's, what, 60 years ago?
It seems like the Democrats.
65 years ago, ask not what you can do, or ask not what your country can do, ask what you can do for your country.
And you'd be laughed out of the place today.
JFK would not be at home in the Democrat Party today.
Yeah, it seems like the Democrats have changed to, you know, trying to best run the country.
Well, you know, that's true.
Hey, James, it's not just the Democrats of Change.
There are a lot of Americans who've fallen for it.
There are a lot of Americans who, hey, I don't want to, you know, what are you going to do for me?
Entitlement means being an American, or American means being entitled.
The Democrats have done that.
They have succeeded in persuading a whole lot of people.
I don't think we've reached a tipping point on it, folks.
I really don't.
The election returns are one bit of evidence, but I just, I don't.
I think more and more people are repulsed by this.
I think more and more people are cynically turning away from Washington.
You talk about overkill.
My point is, all is not lost.
What was that?
Hillary teach Hillary about deflating?
No, no, no.
She already knows that.
You haven't forgotten the lockbox.
Hillary's got a testicle lockbox.
It doesn't matter about deflating or inflating.
My question is: will there be Senate hearings on this?
The Senate has conducted hearings into steroids and baseball.
Why not conduct an investigation or hearings on deflated balls?
Hey, Joe Bite Me weighed in on this.
Grab audio soundbite number 29 this morning on CBS this morning.
Bite me, the vice president was on, and Gail King said, hey, before we say goodbye, Mr. Vice President, what do you make of deflate gate?
Allegedly, 11 of the 12 balls the Patriots allegedly used in that alleged championship game were allegedly underinflated.
What did you allegedly think of those allegedly soft balls?
Well, I tell you what, hadn't been a receiver, I like a softer ball.
That's all I can tell you.
Well, there we have it, Vice President wannabe Joe Biden.
After having been a receiver, I like a softer ball.
I like a soft ball.
Stand up, Joe.
Let's see you catch one of those balls.
You know, folks, speaking of that, we watch these guys throw passes in the NFL.
I don't think most of us would even want to be in the way of one.
You have no idea.
You got Tom Brady, John Elway.
When they put mustard on it, you don't want to be, you need pads.
You don't want to be anywhere near that ball.
It's at the level they play, I guarantee the precision, they know inflation, deflation.
It matters to them.
It's like golfers and the precision in the shafts they use in the golf clubs and the elevation in the it's.
It's a science to these guys.
Here's, uh.
Here's Chris in Pittsburgh.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the EYE Network.
Hello, hi Rush.
Good afternoon, how are you i'm?
I'm great, thank you.
Thank you.
I've been wanting to call on the subject for a long time about this rich and bashing the rich and this uh, everyone seems to want to go against the rich.
Uh well, i'm a private chef and i've worked for the rich for the last 23 years yeah, and I have a uh, shall we say, personal insight onto how things really work for these people.
Um, it's interesting that, for example, the person I work for now, who employs 37 000 people within his corporation oh, uh well, if taxes go up for him, he will not be hurt.
However, all of those employees probably about 80 percent of whom are union will be impacted and hurt.
How?
So well?
Well, if he decides to not take some of his uh money and grow his company because tax is and tax and regulation, that's exactly right.
That's exactly, exactly exactly what happens.
They don't they?
They look, I say they failed.
The democrats know the dynamics of this.
They know full well what's going to happen with these tax increases.
People are going to get hurt, doesn't matter the image they be they.
They they create for themselves.
Caring for the little guy, that's all they care about, not reality, it's the image of it all, it's the pr that they want the credit for.
You know folks, something about this?
This, here we have the state of the union last night and we got Obama proposing all these things.
And look at what Obama's done to the constitution.
The constitution's our rule book essentially, and he you talk about monkeying with the rule book and ignoring it and flouting it and flaunting it.
Now compare that to how upset everybody is over this ball deflation in New England.
It's funny to me how, in sports, there's this overwhelming concern for fairness as it relates to the written rules and those rules being enforced as close to accurately as possible and consistently all the time.
No, looking the other way, the rule is the rule.
You got evidence that somebody broke the rule.
You penalize them, but in politics, Hardly anybody has anywhere near the same concern.
In politics, fairness is a moving target based upon the needs of the Democrat Party.
Now, in professional sports, college sports, any sports, the rulebook is about fairness.
The rule book is how you establish the way the game's going to be played and how you met out punishment for violation of the rules.
And the purpose of the rules is to obviously guarantee an orderly playing of the game.
And much as I hate to use the word, it applies here.
The rules are about making it fair for both teams, right?
That's why this ball business got everybody so out of been out of shape.
One team decided, apparently, to flout the rules to make it easier for them on a bad weather day.
And we're learning that other teams have taken same similar type measures.
And everybody's outraged by it.
Now, we've got people on TV demanding that Bill Belichick be suspended for a year if he's found anything to do with this.
I kid you not.
There are other people out there who think the Patriots ought to be penalized with a lot of money and losing draft choices and that Belichick be suspended for a year.
But is there any similar kind of concern or anger or demand for fealty to the rules in politics?
If our Constitution and laws were treated with the same respect as the rules governing major professional sports, do you realize how screwed the Democrat Party would be?
Do you realize what a mess they would be in?
I mean, voter fraud is one example, but look what dingy hairy and flouting the rules of the Senate vis-a-vis the nuclear option and whether or not we're going to need cloture on a particular vote or whatever.
I mean, the Democrat Party punts the rules as often as they can and dares anybody to do anything about it.
And then when the Republicans, somebody stands up, they say, get with it.
Be an adult.
This is politics.
This ain't beanbag.
But nobody's saying that about the deflated footballs in New England or about Spygate.
Nobody said, come on, Jets, man up.
Okay, so they broke the rules, but if you can't beat them on the field, hell with it.
Stop complaining.
Stop.
No, everybody came down on the side of the rules.
I'm telling you, here and now, if the people of this country were as concerned about the rules and the laws, the Constitution and the laws of this country, as they are about them being enforced in professional and amateur sports, the Democrat Party would be in major trouble.
Let me prove it to you.
If the New England Patriots were considered to be the progressives and the, let's say in this case, the Indianapolis Colts were the conservatives, and it was learned that the liberals, the Patriots, the Liberals, well, what are they?
Well, they're compassionate and they try to help people and they only want to do good and they help.
Okay, so but stop complaining.
Grow up.
The Colts would be told to shut up and get with it and focus on their own problems like racism and bigotry and so forth instead of complaining about the Patriots breaking the rules.
If the Patriots were the progressives in this circumstance, do you think the media and the blogs covering them would do so with the same intensity and hostility?
I mean, the Boston media is going after this team like crazy right now.
The Boston media, Indianapolis, they're going after the Patriots.
They want to get to the bottom of this.
But if the Patriots were Barack Obama, no big deal, right?
It's like the IRS taking out organizations with the word Patriot in their names.
If the IRS were focusing on the Patriots, if the IRS were demanding that the Patriots change their name because it was offensive to British people, and the Patriots said, screw you, we're going to do what we want to do.
People would be up in arms.
What receives more media coverage, Patriots' rule violations, or election fraud?
But look at how, look at even I, ladies and gentlemen, I'm here talking about the integrity of the game and how the NFL has a problem.
This cannot be allowed.
I mean, the NFL, and this is true, the NFL's got to handle this somehow.
And what started out as a drip from a faucet has become a pretty powerful waterfall now with everything that's come up here.
This goes directly to the integrity of the game.
Why does the integrity of the country never seem to matter?
The integrity of the Constitution, the integrity.
Why is it in politics, the stupider the fans, the better?
But in sports, we want informed fans.
We want them playing fantasy football.
We want them being involved in all this sort of stuff.
But it's really no more complicated than this.
Just imagine if the people of this country demanded as much fealty to the Constitution and the rules in politics as they do in sports.
And I'm telling you, the Democrat Party might not.
Well, they would be up the proverbial creek.
I'm just telling you.
Here's Terry and Nashville.
Terry, great to have you in the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, great.
Bumper Music Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Well, thank you.
First time calling.
Never dreamed I would have the opportunity to actually speak with you, but I'm honored and thank you for the opportunity.
Listen, I was only able to catch the last part of the state of the scheme speech last night or whatever.
Wait a minute.
Wait, I like that.
The state of the scheme.
You can use that, my friend.
But the most telling thing I heard came toward the end when President Obama clearly stated that he took an oath of office to do what he thinks best for the American people.
And I submit to you that therein lies the problem.
Now, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I did not watch the speech.
This is the first I've heard it.
He actually said that?
He actually said, I took an oath of office to do what I think best for the American people.
No, he did not.
Well, now, you know, I do have moments where I don't think, but I am fairly certain, because I looked at my wife and I said, no, he didn't.
And so, but I tell you, you have a cracked staff, and you guys, I mean, look that up.
But, I mean, I submit to you that that's the problem there, right there.
I mean, that's not the oath he took.
And you dovetailed into it perfectly with your previous comments.
I mean, he took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Damn straight.
And it also lies at the heart of the debate that needs to continually take place in this country.
And I think especially in the Republican Party, if they hope to offer a clear, alternate vision of governments to the people, because Russia, this country was founded by men who were familiar, all too familiar, with living under a government where one person was entrusted with power to control the lives of the masses.
And they were brilliant enough to design a system that ensured that no one had that power.
They were opposed to it like, you know, today there's some, and there's always been people who believe that American people that the average American's not smart enough, left to themselves, to control their own lives or their destinies.
And we need a large bureaucracy, a nanny state, if you will, that would reach into every aspect of our lives.
But I happen to belong to the camp that believes that people are largely at their best.
They're most creative and inventive and purposeful when government just gets out of our way and lets us make the decisions that's best for our families, our communities, our neighborhoods.
And that's what makes us great.
There's no question about that.
You're actually right.
And you happen to hold the traditional view of the founders, the traditional view of the majority of people in this country.
But I'm going to go back to this oath because that's an excuse.
When he says, I took an oath to office, do what I think best.
How many people have you seen get in trouble and they've had to come and publicly apologize?
And one of the things they say, I was just doing what I thought best.
And you can't blame me for that.
I was just doing what I thought.
It's an excuse.
It is a get out of jail free card in a sense.
It's a free pass.
But that's, you're right.
That's not what the oath of office is.
It's not nowhere near that.
He doesn't get to judge what's best for the country.
He has to fight for it like everybody else does.
And he has to fight for what's best for the country in formal legislation, debating other branches of government, convincing the American people.
He does not get to impose it, which is exactly what he's been doing.
He is imposing his view on the basis that he knows and he alone is doing what's best for the country.
That's exactly his attitude.
Yeah, and I understand that one of the principles of government is that governments tend to grow.
Power seeks power, more power.
And studies have made it clear that government grows under Republican administrations as well as Democrat administrations.
But it is up to us as a people.
We as a people have to stand up and say enough is enough.
Otherwise, government will continue to grow.
And with power comes responsibility.
But we as a people have that responsibility.
Well, I'll tell you what, government grows and it corrupts.
You have to draw the same conclusion.
Okay, I've got the full quote here, Terry.
It's even worse than you led me to believe.
Here's the full quote from the guy.
If you share the broad vision I outlined tonight, I ask you to join me in the work at hand.
If you disagree with parts of it, I hope you'll at least work with me.
Now, wait a minute.
Sorry.
My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I've had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol to do what I believe is best for America.
Now, if we want to parse that, we have to let's break that down.
Where is it?
Damn it, I keep scrolling.
Yeah.
My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I've had since the day I swore.
He's separating his agenda from the oath there.
His agenda is to do what I believe best for America, and it's not changed since the day he swore an oath.
Now, that's what the Democrats would tell you, and the media would tell you.
No, he's not saying his oath was to do what he believes best.
He's saying that's his agenda.
But I will guarantee you that everybody heard it the way you did, Terry.
Everybody heard it that his oath is to do what he believes best for America.
But that, even as an agenda, that's totally indicative of who the guy is and how he approaches this.
I'm really glad you called because that I missed.
I have had so much fun here today, folks, and it's because I did not watch this stupid presentation last night.
I'm here to tell you.
May have turned over a new leaf.
Anyway, have a great rest of the day.
We'll be back here tomorrow, same time, same place, and do it again.
▲
Export Selection