Great to have you here, Brush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, the doctor of democracy, the truth detector, all combined in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball package here.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the programs, 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
If you're still in a kind of a state of disbelief over what you heard me read from Camille Paglia, I did have to kind of hurry through that because of the constraints of broadcast time.
Let me deal just a little bit more time with this here.
This is an excerpt, a transcript excerpt of a recent interview she did with Reason Magazine.
It's a libertarian publication.
And they released it as a podcast, a video podcast.
And it got transcribed and they put it in a magazine.
And she was asked about the rape culture, the UVA story from Rolling Stone and this idea now that rape is prevalent and is a crisis and is happening all over the country on every college campus.
Women are not safe.
Women are at great risk.
She said, I was in a girl's dorm.
We had a sign-in at 11 o'clock at night.
The boys could run free.
They had panty raids.
We threw water at them out the windows and so on.
My generation of women rose up.
Camille Paglia is, what, 60 in her 60s now.
So she's not a current college student.
For those of you unfamiliar, just to specify her generation, baby boomer probably is what she is.
If I had to make a wild guess.
She said, my generation of women rose up and said, get out of our private lives.
And the university said, no, the world is too dangerous.
We can't leave you alone there.
We must protect you against rape and attack and all of those things.
And we said, she writes, give us freedom.
Give us the freedom to risk rape.
That's true freedom.
This is clearly a different generation of feminists thinking, just with that alone, that back in her day in college, rather than all this protectiveness and coddling and being treated like helpless little girls, they wanted freedom.
And said, give us the freedom to risk rape.
This is true freedom.
She writes, I think that they believed, the administrators at the universities, that they were acting for the parents, that it was their obligation to protect.
And this is why I went so much against the grain of contemporary feminists.
And when I wrote about the date rape hysteria, I wrote this inflammatory piece for Newsday 1991 that still, I'm still being persecuted about it everywhere.
People are still angry about something I wrote in 1991.
And basically what I said was, free women must take personal responsibility for their own sex lives and keep the authority figures out of your sex life.
I'm talking about date rape, what everyone's talking about right now, about this so-called rape culture.
But the essay that I wrote back in 1991 begins, rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.
But that's not what I'm talking about here.
I'm talking about this new reclassification of people getting drunk, going on a date, going to frat houses, and women not taking responsibility for their own behavior.
I said that gay men for thousands of years have been going out and having sex with strangers everywhere.
They know they can be beaten up.
They know they could even be killed.
What is this where women are, oh, we must be protected against even our own foolish choices.
It's up to men to, dot, dot, dot.
Camille Paglia, she says, this is ridiculous.
Do you get her point here?
She's drawing an analogy, a comparison between the feminism of her day, which was raw, which was gutsy, courageous, which was based on true liberation.
Liberation from authority figures, liberation from protection, liberation from the notion that women needed to be coddled and protected, defended, and all that.
We wanted the freedom to put our lives, everything we do.
We wanted the kind of freedom where your actions sometimes are at risk.
It's what life is.
Well, that's not going to, that is not.
Those are controversial.
Those are controversial words to the modern era of feminism, because her point is that we've done a 180 now.
And what is now called feminism is what she and her group of women wanted to be liberated from.
They didn't want authority figures protecting them.
University presidents and so forth.
They didn't want to live under the idea that they were incapable of taking care of themselves.
And her belief is that everything's now gone back to what they were trying to escape.
And she thinks date rape is a far different thing than the kind of rape she was talking about way back when.
This is not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about this new reclassification of people getting drunk, going on a date, going to frant houses, some sex taking place, and then when it's all over, the women claim they were raped, which is what the Rolling Stone story was and the supposed rape culture is.
And that's when she says, look, I said that gay men for thousands of years have been going out and having sex with strangers everywhere.
They know they can be beaten up.
They know they can be killed.
What is this where women are, oh, we must be protected against even our own foolish choices?
It's up to men to dot, dot, dot, protect us, care for us, make sure that we are not raped and what have you.
And then she says, this is an intrusion into the civil liberties of young people that have this kind of vampiric parent figures and the administrators hovering and watching and supervising people's sex lives.
It's this residential college thing, this vision of college, this summer camp, this club med.
This is the folly of American education.
It's, let us hold your hand.
Let us give you the incredible gym with exercise equipment.
Let's give you the thousand choices in the cafeteria.
It has nothing to do with education anymore.
Okay, that's an excerpt from an interview she did.
Reason magazine.
Now, here is, let's see, what did I do?
Ah, yes.
The New York Post has a story in a column today by Naomi Schaefer Riley.
It's actually from yesterday.
And the headline is, tip for girls, tip for college girls, never trust anyone.
It's still 10 years away, but I'm already preparing that talk that I plan to have with my oldest daughter before she leaves for college.
It begins like this, trust no one.
Now, perhaps that sounds more like the advice Q gives 007 before he sets off on a mission of high stakes espionage.
But with every passing day, I become more convinced that the stupid things that happen on college campaign have the potential to truly harm our children.
Take the news out of Penn State last week that members of a fraternity house had taken nude and semi-nude pictures of unconscious women, some of them in sexual or embarrassing positions.
The pictures appeared on an invitation-only Facebook page with 144 members.
Though, of course, nothing is stopping the members from taking those pictures and sharing them with everybody or anyone else they like.
The police are investigating.
University president has said that he'll be reevaluating the fraternity system.
For the girls in those pictures, though, the consequences for the perpetrators are almost irrelevant.
It has almost become a cliché to say it, but those pictures will follow them around for the rest of their lives.
From future bosses to future boyfriends, there is always the potential for someone to find them.
And that knowledge will always be hanging over their heads.
There are those who will say the fraternity members, college boys generally, have always done stupid things when they were drunk.
But what would you have had to do to achieve that same effect 40 years ago?
Let's say you actually got a girl into your room.
The bar used to be a little bit higher.
Let's say you got her to pass out drunk in your room.
Girls used to be less inclined to drink like men.
And then you managed to get her clothes off.
Girls used to be more reticent about that.
And then it occurred to you that you wanted to commemorate the occasion.
You searched high and low for your camera.
You took your picture and then you brought in the film to be developed.
And then you posted the results on bulletin boards all over campus.
Or maybe you mimic grab machines.
Your point is now: grab your phone, take the picture, post them on Facebook, and it's out there for gazillions of people to see.
And because of that, our young girls are at more risk in college than ever.
And this is the kind of Camille Paga is her recent interview.
She's going, geck!
This is, this disagrees with this profoundly.
Her point is that we are now once again asking college administrators to protect and cobble and defend our girls because they're not capable of it themselves.
They have become victims once again, despite all the great work of feminism.
Our young daughters going off to college are nothing more than potential dupes waiting to be victimized by your average ordinary predatory fretboy.
And Paglia's point is her generation wanted the freedom to engage this way and deal with it.
Because they're adults too.
And they're women and they're equal.
They're not defenseless.
They're not needing protection.
That was the whole point of the founding era of feminism in her day.
So there's a reason behind this rape culture on campus.
The UVA story in Rolling Stone, it didn't happen.
And there are more and more instances of this where these horrible stories are reported and then we find like a Duke with Crosskit.
That didn't happen.
And the way we were told about Trayvon Martin, that didn't happen.
And Hands Up, Don't Shoot, didn't happen.
But when you give liberals the control of journalism, they can take what they want everybody to be sensitized to and they can write stories that are totally made up.
And when they're exposed, it's totally fraudulent.
They say it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because the story is valuable.
Because we know horrible things are happening and we need people to be aware of it.
Well, can I ask a question?
Since I don't have a daughter going, I've got a niece at college and one soon to be going, but they're not my daughters.
I'm being very careful.
I just, my question is, do you want, do you parents on the verge,
like Naomi Schaefer-Riley is imagining this when her daughter goes to college 10 years from now, do you want your daughters to set out for college, scared, on edge, fearful?
Because that's what's happening.
Am I wrong?
Okay, so you need to have some fear.
Okay, so that's okay then.
So you want your daughters to go leave home and head off to college, fearful that this evil is lurking out there and it's pretty widespread.
It could happen at any moment, any time.
You've got to be prepared for it.
I just think of the consequences if you do that.
So I think it's all part of an agenda, but that's just me, and that's as far as I'm going to go because I have learned that beyond this point, nobody even wants to understand.
So we'll just bring it to a screeching halt.
Okay, so here's near the end of the column by Naomi Schaefer-Riley.
In the first season of the show of Parenthood, a 15-year-old girl yells at her parents for invading her privacy because they looked at her Facebook page and they found out she had a boyfriend.
The parents are rightfully baffled, not only because everybody else knew about the boyfriend, but because technology has made any expectation of privacy totally unreasonable.
Which brings me back to the advice that we must give our daughters.
First, drinking to excess is simply not an option anymore.
The potential for unwanted sexual contact when you are too drunk to say no is simply too high.
And no amount of campus feminist re-education is going to help you when you find yourself with a guy who is too stupid or evil or drunk to care that you are drunk.
Okay, there we have it.
Back to the phones we go.
This is Ray in Ridgewood, New Jersey.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, sir.
Mr. Limbaugh, it's a privilege and an honor to speak to you.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Thank you for calling.
I was wondering if you could help me out and maybe clarify something.
Probably.
You know, we've been talking a lot about the Iranians and, you know, the threats they make and everything.
And one thing nobody seems to ever talk about or ever mention is, let's say Iran does get a nuclear weapon or weapons.
And let's say they do bomb Israel.
Don't they realize it'd be killing just as many Arabs as Israelis?
I mean, there are over a million Palestinians living in Israel, not to mention the West Bank, Gaza.
And, you know, depending on the fallout.
Okay, stop right there.
Let's take, let's take this segment of your question by segment by segment.
Don't they realize there are a lot of Arabs around it?
First place, they hate the Saudis, and the Saudis hate them.
The Saudis hate the Iranians almost more than they hate the Israelis.
Number two, the Palestinians.
I don't know if you've noticed, but nobody wants them.
Jordan doesn't want them.
Iran doesn't want them.
No neighboring Saudi or Middle Eastern country wants the Palestinians because it isn't about them.
Everybody's got this belief that the Palestinians are beloved and cared for as this discriminated against minority, but nobody wants them.
The Palestinians provide the weapon to use against Israel.
But when you come, the Iranians hate the Iraqis.
They wouldn't care.
This is Shiite versus Serni, versus Sunni.
It's an argument within Islam.
People have also said, don't they realize if they nuke Israel, that they'll be nuking themselves because there'll be a retaliation.
Well, if you go read about the 12th Imam, courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmedine Izad, you find out that all of this is about the apocalypse.
And they believe it.
This is why this stuff has to be, listen, this is religious truth to them.
The 12th Imam can only surface after Israel is done away with.
Well, and the 12th Imam is the equivalent Antichrist, so forth.
Look, don't anybody argue with me here because I'm not being specifically literal, but there are commonalities here.
The 12th Imam signals the end of everything in a good sense, in a good apocalyptic sense, not a treacherous or bad one.
But if they believe that, then the whole notion of retaliation doesn't matter, and the whole idea of killing other Arabs doesn't matter.
Next question.
Even if it would kill their own allies, like in Syria or Hezbollah and in Lebanon, or, you know, even, I mean, because it would be hard to contain something like that.
It would just be massive.
If the belief is there isn't going to be a Syria at the end, if there isn't going to be a Hezbollah, if there isn't going to be an Hamas, if that's the price for there is no Israel, we'll take it and rebuild.
You can't make the mistake, like Marie Harf did.
I think we make grave error when we project our own civilized, sophisticated, and religious beliefs onto them.
Because there's not a whole lot that we have in common with them.
Particularly in any of this.
Like Marie Harf says, oh, yeah, Ayatollah Hamidi, he would just speak for domestic consumption.
Ayatollah Hamidi doesn't care what his people think unless they're thinking of overthrowing him.
Then they either get killed or thrown in jail.
But he's not run for election.
There aren't any approval polls on how is the Ayatollah doing.
The Ayatollah is doing great.
Everybody loves him because if you don't, it's the last anybody's ever going to hear from you.
So he doesn't care about domestic consumption.
But Marie Harf says, well, he just has to say domestic consumption.
Just like, you know, our politicians have to placate their base now and then.
Well, he has to.
He doesn't have a base.
He's got servants, slaves, and you name it.
So that's why this stuff is serious.
That's why this stuff, people who are serious about this talk about it in the ways they do.
It's why it matters that Iran not get a nuke as opposed to one of our allies.
It'd be okay if they had one.
The concept of good guys and bad guys.
And one of the problems is that we have an administration that does not believe that we're the good guys in all cases, that we've been the bad guys, that we've been the problem, and that we need to be transformed.
And that the people that think we're the bad guys have a point.
And who are we to say they can't have a nuke?
We've got one.
So there's no moral differences.
There's a moral equivalence and equivocation.
This is dangerous stuff here.
And let neophyte, inexperienced Nimrods have control over it is really dangerous.
So don't send them for crying out loud.
I don't know.
Okay.
Phantom Airlines Flight 1 has a 50-50 chance of not making it to New York.
It's leaving in two hours.
You need to be on it.
How many people will get on it?
You've got a 50-50 chance your kid is going to be assaulted or worse at college.
She's got to get an education.
Okay, she goes.
He goes, gets assaulted.
It's horrible out there.
We've got to do something.
How about not sending him to the place?
If the risks are this bad, and that's what they're telling us, there's a rape culture on American campuses, Campaign, and it's getting worse.
Why, we're even writing fake stories about the rapes that don't happen, just so people will know how bad it is.
Well, why send them there then?
Is that it?
Is this insensitive, by the way, to ask these things?
I have to be very careful about this.
I'm, you know, I don't know.
You got to go, you got to go, you got to go.
There's a 50-50 chance you're going to get assaulted.
Still, you got to get education.
You got to go, you got to go.
Okay, fine.
Would you get on an airline?
It's got a 50-50 chance of not making it.
I don't know who many, if that's advertised in advance, we can assure you that there's a one in two chance that you're going to make it to New York, okay?
CBS this morning, Ted Cruz guested, the fill-in co-host was Vladimir Duthier.
He said, Senator, you say that if you're elected, you repeal Obamacare, but since it's passed, 16 million people have become insured.
Why do you want to take health care away from 16 million people?
Those numbers don't tell the whole picture.
For one thing, the bulk of those numbers are coming from expanded Medicaid, and Medicaid is a program where a lot of the people on Medicaid are not getting health care.
Beyond that, remember, 6 million people had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare.
You're not doing someone a favor if you cancel the health insurance they like and then force them to buy new health insurance at higher premiums that covers less.
And I can tell you, people are frustrated.
You know, five years ago, maybe, good faith, reasonable minds could have differed on whether Obamacare might have worked.
At this point, it is the single largest job killer in this country.
And Grab Soundbite 5, the Today Show, Matt Wauer talking to Ted Cruz.
You know your reputation.
In your short time in the Senate, you developed a reputation as a guy doesn't back down who won't compromise.
I think you even referred to yourself recently.
You said, I'm kind of like the disruptive app in politics.
Are you going to bring that brand of no compromise to the White House if you're elected?
Let me disagree with the premise.
I've never said I won't compromise.
In fact, from day one, when I was elected, I said my attitude on compromise is exactly the same as Ronald Reagan.
Reagan said, what do you do if they offer you half a loaf?
Answer, you take it, and then you come back to it.
Shortly after you elected, you also said, quote, I don't think what Washington needs is more compromise.
Because what Washington does often is it compromises going backwards.
You have compromises like the so-called Cromnibus Bill that passed in December.
It was a trillion-dollar spending bill, paid off corporate welfare, paid off every special interest in Washington, and simply grew government.
That's not a good compromise because it's not fixing the problems in this country.
See, it's compromise for compromise.
Compromise means to people like Matt Wauer, compromise means Republicans cave and agree with Democrats.
And that's all Cruz is saying.
I'm not going to do it.
I'm going to stand up for what I believe in.
You want to compromise with me?
Let's talk.
But I'm done compromising with liberalism.
It's killing us.
Here is Julie in Fontana, California.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Julie.
Julie.
Hello.
Jeff C. Tessing.
One, two, three.
Oh, she's there.
There you are.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I hear you now.
Hey, well, like Ted said, the world is on fire, and it's time to fix our own backyard.
And I have two points I'd like to make.
One is just kind of an observation, actually, about the attacks and the backlash from the media.
And it's kind of like almost amusing to watch.
It's like watching a modern-day version of The Exorcist.
You reminded me of that when you said something yesterday about conservativism is like a crucifix to Dracula.
And I was laughing because I thought, geez, you know, it's like if Ted Cruz is up there and he says a word like liberty or freedom or virtue or self-reliance, it's like throwing holy water on the devil.
And then, God forbid, he says his dad, you know, gave himself to Jesus Christ, and that's when the green vomit comes.
And then God-given rights, oh, my God, well, that's the 360 head twister.
So I got to chuckle out of that.
Well, it's a good way of putting it.
I like your vision.
Well, hey, the other vision that I have in my head is just trying to find the candidate who can expose the Democratic mastery of an optical illusion.
And the biggest optical illusion I think that is out there is the invisible depression that we have in our country today.
Well, yeah, the illusion is there's an economic recovery going on.
Right.
And if we all sit and think about one of the things I'd like to be able to find is a candidate who can superimpose two pictures.
One, the depression of 1939 and whatever where, you know, all the poor, you know, people that were gaunt with hunger and worry and hopelessness and despair.
You know, the vision of those people waiting in lines in soup kitchens and how sad and a horrible existence it was for our citizens at the time.
And lay that over today what's going on.
We have a clean, neat, and tidy depression because you know why?
The soup kitchen comes to the mailbox.
It's delivered.
Yeah, I get your point.
The signs of economic despair are covered over.
You don't have to go stand in line.
The soup kitchen comes to you.
You don't even have to go stand in line for Obamacare.
Just log on to a website and get lost in there.
Anyway, Julie, I appreciate it.
That's a fascinating way of making your point.
The invisible depression.
That's cool.
He's right.
I appreciate it.
So Obama, I think, has just broken a campaign promise because he said we're going to delay the drawdown of troops out of Afghanistan.
It was supposed to do that this year, but it ain't going to happen this year.
Going to keep troops there.
Of course, he could be lying, too.
He could just be saying this for domestic consumption, but not really mean it so as to maybe fool the Iranians.