All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:03
April 1, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Man, in time of just flying, here we are at the beginning of the third and final busy broadcast hour, the EIB network today, Rush Limboy, your guiding light, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector, and the Doctor of Democracy here at 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And if you just want to send an email, I check them during the break here, and if they're any good, I may mention them.
Email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
As you know, the Iranian negotiations are ongoing.
We went right by the deadline.
Obama drew a red line in the sand.
And he told the Iranians that if they didn't come to a deal by the end of the day yesterday that that was all going to be, it was just a bad news.
And the Iranians said.
And we are still talking.
And the sanctions are in the process of being lifted.
And the Iranians are doing what they always do, continuing to develop nuclear toward weaponry, while we consider options.
We continue to talk, and it looks like they're having their way, because when you get down to brass tax, the United States, as represented by President Obama, really doesn't object to the Iranians ending up with a nuclear weapon in I don't know, eight or ten years.
800-282-2882, here's the story of the liberal professor from Occidental College, her name is Lisa Wade, and she says that if you have an understanding of economics, you are likely a bad person.
Now you're thinking, how does that work?
Well, she says that that's what she discovered.
That was her finding in an article that she published this week entitled Are Economics Majors Antisocial.
And the first word in her piece, which I have a copy of because I printed out right there, the first word is yep, they are.
Are economics majors anti-social.
She writes that if you have taken classes in economics, you are, quote, less likely to share, you are less generous to the needy, and more likely to cheat, lie, and steal, if you understand economics.
She bases her belief on a study that took place in 2010.
In the study, students were asked if they would like to contribute money to a liberal political group or a group that is pushing for lower tuition.
Possibly by asking for more subsidies from taxpayers.
Students with an understanding of economics were less inclined to donate to these groups than students with other majors.
And for that reason, Dr. Wade has declared they are anti-social.
So in other words, the study basically relies on the fact that economic students decided they were not going to contribute to liberal groups.
The more economics they understood, the less likely they were to donate to liberal causes and special interest groups.
Now they're to the extent I know why she's saying this.
And I for this reason, I I think this is why economics isn't taught properly.
I th I think I think the teaching of economics has been corrupted, like so much of the educational curricula has by people on the left.
And I I wouldn't be surprised if if before all is said and done, that the study of economics, except for a I mean, it's always going to be MBAs, there are always going to be Harvard and the Ivy League is always going to teach it.
But at the high school level and undergrad work in college, I think economics is going to be non-existent, or it's going to be so basic or so tilted that economics 101 is basically going to end up being the redistribution of wealth.
That's how it's going to, and in fact, that may be the case now.
Because there is one thing you learn when you learn I've always said about economics, it's a it's a it's just nothing but common sense.
It's complicated common sense, and by that I mean whenever you have a a genuine question of economics, not uh such a supply side well that that would suffice too.
Um I have myself been stumped on economics questions.
For example, I've one of my favorites was was presented to me many, many moons ago by my friend Professor Hazel.
It was a little trick question.
Somebody had asked him, you know, I don't understand something.
We were at Kansas City, and we were at a restaurant called Stroud's, which is renowned for its fried chicken and gravy and oh, it's I mean, it is to die for stuff.
And they also have on the menu fried shrimp, and it is the biggest shrimp you have ever seen.
And somebody asked Professor Hazler, how come I don't see big shrimp like this at any restaurants close to the water?
How come the bigger shrimp, I'm right here in the heartland of the country in the Middle East, not the Middle East, in the middle of the country, Kans City, why in the world can I find gigantic shrimp here, but not the East Coast?
And Professor Hazlitt said the answer to that is an answer found at economics.
And rather than answer it, he threw it to the table to see what we would come up with.
And the short version of it is that in his theory, it all came back to shipping costs.
And I'm not going to spend time here going from once he explained it, it made total perfect sense.
But it was not a question that people were going to be able to figure out themselves without a certain basic knowledge or understanding of economics.
And everything that I have discovered when I've learned, I don't have any formal training in economics.
And so when I say it's the most difficult, confusing common sense thing, what I mean by that is economics questions are really confounding.
But if you talk to somebody who really knows the subject, the answer is crystal clear, common, perfect sense.
What happens when you have a full fledged?
I think what this professor's concern is, that a full-fledged understanding of economics reinforces the ever-present, all-important role of production and self-reliance in the entire equation.
As opposed to the problems and the inequities and the difficulties of dealing with redistribution, which require the construction of massive, inefficient bureaucracies.
When you learn, for example, that's a dollar of welfare benefits in this country, I don't know if social security, whatever the welfare benefit is, and this was 20 years ago, it cost 78 cents to extend a dollar of welfare benefit to a recipient.
Meaning that the net benefit was 22 cents.
The bureaucracy soaked up 78 cents of every dollar that was being spent on welfare.
Because the bureaucracies grow and they exist to exist.
And they grow to make it difficult to ever get rid of them.
And bureaucracies, by their nature, are inefficient.
And when you start talking about production and productivity and margins and economies of scale, what you conclude is that people who are directly involved in the production process for themselves, in self-reliance, whatever, is much more efficient.
People end up with much more money that way.
They are much more rewarded.
But that flies in the face of the entire compassion angle that is behind the redistribute uh redistribution of wealth.
And I'm sure this professorette knows it.
I have no doubt that's what this professorette means.
Now, this story is kind of kind of clouds it because it's based on a study that students educated in economics were less inclined to donate to the Democrat Party.
Well, why would that be?
If the more educated in economics you are, the more you're going to conclude it's up to the Democrat Party to find its own money.
It's not my responsibility.
Let them get their own money.
I don't have to donate to them.
Let them go produce their own.
And that attitude of self-reliance, that is an ethema.
That is just deadly to liberal economists who believe that the way to riches for themselves and the way the equality and all of these other unachievable goals in their world is the redistribution of wealth.
And this this belief that the golden goose is always going to be golden.
And that the eggs laid by the golden goose are always going to be golden.
And there's never going to be a shortage of geese.
And there's never going to be a shortage of gooses or eggs because they just exist when people that believe in the redistribution of wealth do not understand they kill off the golden goose.
Because eventually you run out of other people's money.
So even though it's this professorette will not admit the real reason, I think I understand exactly why.
This is and I also believe this is why.
True, genuine economic theory probably isn't being taught.
And probably won't be.
Instead, they substitute for what really is economics, political theory, such as the redistribute of redistribution of wealth.
And it's always shrouded in fairness.
Capitalism, unfair, mean spirited, survival of the fittest, and only a few ever really prosper and do well, and they do it on the backs of the poor and the uneducated, and it's inherently unfair.
And that's what they teach in the economics curriculum today, which is not what economics is.
I've always believed more people understood economics.
We'd we'd have a much easier task here at overcoming the sales pitches of the left.
Just like the people at the Heritage at the Hillfield College believe, the more people who really understood and cherished the Constitution, the much easier the task of defeating the left would be.
Alcoa, Tennessee next.
John, great to have you in a Rush Lindbar program.
Hello, sir.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush, how are you, sir?
I'm very well.
I'm uh happy for your call, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you for uh for taking this call.
I appreciate it.
Uh I just kind of this does tie into what you were just talking about uh kind of with the academic community.
It seems like to me right now the the media and the academic community are enablers.
Um to me, they're enabling the modern day Democrats and and all of their subsets from the gay rights activists, the feminists, abortion activists, the race baiters, the anti-Israeli people, they're all turning into bullies.
Um they're just they're intimidating, they're accusing, they're forceful, and and they're doing it against what I consider the scared little kids of the playground, which is the Republican leadership, the the RNC.
Um it seems like, you know, just like in real life, a bully will only back down from s from strength in the face of strength, they'll cower.
But you know, we we see that the Democrats they will not confront true strength, or well, not necessarily true strength, but people that show strength to them, like the Islamists or or what we're seeing with Iran.
And when it comes to the people that show weakness, the Republicans, conservatives, the Christians, you know, people that aren't necessarily going to project anger or force, they lie, they spread rumors, they, you know, everything from Romney didn't pay taxes to this is racist, racist, that's homophobic, that's Islamophobic, and no one calls them on it.
The only people that should, or whose job it is, they're enabling it by not calling them out on it.
So what my question is, number one, I guess what you think on that on that premise, and also when when do you when will we get someone to stand up to this?
When will we get our our heroes?
No, no, people have been asking me that for twenty five years, uh even longer, uh in one form or another.
When are the Republicans gonna do X fill in the blank?
Why don't the Republicans do fill in the blank?
Y. When are the Republicans gonna stand up and fight 27 years I've been hearing this?
And the fact that you are still asking means that there isn't anybody in your recent memory who has.
Now, before before I before I get any further, I want to ask you a question.
You raise a really good point.
Against real strength and other bullies, the Democrats lay down.
The Iranians, the old Soviet Union, they were scared to death of them.
The Democrat liberals back in the eighties were scared to death that Reagan was gonna provoke them and that they were gonna nuke us simply because of what Reagan said about them.
They kowtowed just like Obama is to the Iranians now.
Just like Obama uh has is with with Basher Al-Assad, he's not afraid of Netanyahu.
He hates Netanyahu, he's not afraid of the Republicans, he's not afraid of American conservatives, but your your theory that when they really run up against strong-willed, committed people that they back down, i.e.
the Democrats or the you may have a point.
My question to you is I'm just there's no right or wrong answer here.
I just you correctly point out they're bullies.
Why do you think they resort to bullying?
Why do they have to resort to bullying?
Academia, you mentioned, and the media, the Democrat Party, they bully Republicans, conservatives, call them Islamophobes, homophobes, whatever.
Why do they do that?
Why have they resorted to be and how long have they been doing it, do you think?
Well, I I think that they, in my opinion, obviously, they they become bullies because they can't argue our facts with with reason and logic.
So they immediately commence to trying to intimidate or scare.
See, I think you're right.
I think it's because they're a minority.
I think because they cannot win in the arena of ideas.
So they what they have to do, their best hope is to win elections and arguments by demonizing their opponents by making people afraid to vote for their opponents, in this case Republicans.
One more point, Raj, if I could.
It seems to me 20 seconds.
We're not getting the conservatives to stand up to the Democrats.
It seems like the only people that Republicans will actually stand up to are the true conservatives of our party.
Well, for some reason, when when those people speak up, suddenly the Republicans are attacking that.
I don't want to throw myself into this because but I st well.
I have to take a break here.
I've done that, I can't say what I want to say here in three seconds.
I'm not gonna leave it unresponded to.
I just can't right now.
Uh, ladies, I don't know quite how to say this, but I'm responding to our previous caller.
Um those of you who have uh listened to this program for any length of time know that I'm oftentimes a target of these people.
And you also know, if you've been listening for any time at all, that I do not succumb to it.
I never apologize to them.
I do not change what I think, I do not change the way I say things, I do not change what I believe.
It doesn't stop them from coming after me.
But they they and they they continue to do so.
And their objective is clear.
I mean, they've they've been trying to get rid of me, like they have any number of people.
I'm not alone.
But I don't I don't respond to it.
Uh and I don't react to it.
And uh at least in the sense I don't think that I can change their anger or their animosity toward me.
I don't think that I could engage them and convince them they're wrong that I'm really a nice guy and they're really off base and to leave me alone.
That's I know that's not possible.
But the the impact that it has, I think, on see elected officials, because getting votes is a different thing than getting an audience on a on a media show, radio or TV.
Because in a in an elected position, it really is unrealistic to think that people that do not like you are ever gonna vote for you.
But people who do not like me will listen repeatedly, just so they can keep hating me.
They need the ammo.
They need the fuel.
They enjoy the hate.
They love it.
They love waiting for what they think is going to be the big faux pas that finally is going to mean the end of me.
They keep waiting for me to do so.
They're tuned in here and they're listening closely.
A politician is not going to have that.
The politician cannot get elected by people hating him.
So when the way media attacks materialize on me are seen by elected officials, their reaction is, my gosh, I don't I don't want that.
I can't handle that.
I can't deal with that.
And so they make the decision to not be provocative at all.
They don't want anywhere near the kind of public attacks.
I mean, ask Romney.
Ask, ask Mike Pence today.
They don't like this.
They don't, they may tell you, well, I'm in the I'm on the arena floor, you know, and I expect this kind of thing.
That's what I make the bucks for.
But that's they don't really, this is not why they're in it.
Should be.
Reagan didn't care that the era of Reagan is over.
See, I keep forgetting that.
You know a great example of this.
Let me find.
I've got to dig deep here to the audio sound bites.
I'm looking for dingy Harry as being interviewed by Dana Bash.
And I think I've found it.
I have indeed.
It's cuts 16 and 17 in the audio soundbite roster today.
The chief congressional correspondent of uh CNN Dana Bash, who clearly idolizes Harry Reed.
If you watch this interview, I mean, she just has so much respect for this, so proud of him, so devoted, thankful, in fact, to Harry Reed for what he's done.
Do you remember Harry Reed in the 2012 presidential election went to the Senate floor and said that people had told him that Mitt Romney had not paid his federal taxes.
The media in large measure accepted that and ran with the story and ran it with Harry Reid says, Romney hasn't paid taxes.
Very few went to Harry Reid and said, Who are you talking about?
Who is this friend of yours that told you Romney hasn't paid any taxes?
Very few.
They just accepted it.
And the story was Reed claims.
Romney hasn't paid taxes.
There wasn't any Reed hasn't produced the guy, Reed hasn't produced any evidence.
There wasn't any reporting that it's just Reed's opinion.
It was Harry Reed claims.
That's all it took.
That headline.
Harry Reed says Romney not paying taxes.
Now Romney's call, this is absurd.
Romney's paid his taxes every year, and then some.
Romney has paid more taxes in his life than Harry Reid's earned legitimately.
But here's the Democrat leader in the Senate claiming that Romney has not paid his taxes.
He's totally making it up.
He cannot prove any evidence.
He cannot prove or provide the friend who told him.
In fact, he refuses to do so.
He says it isn't necessary.
It's now incumbent on Romney to prove that he did pay his taxes.
And therefore the pressure was on Romney to release his returns.
And that was the objective.
They wanted Romney to release his returns so that they could hopefully they were they were going fishing.
They wanted Romney to have to prove how much money he had.
And they wanted Romney to illustrate every tax break that he tried to take so that they could Officially portray Romney as a 1% rich guy trying to avoid paying as much tax as he could, even though they all do it.
So it was a fishing expedition.
It was a sucker trip designed to get Romney to produce his tax returns because he, I don't think had at the time.
So Harry Reed just goes in his big public lie.
On the floor of the Senate, just like he defamed me on the floor of the Senate over his whole phony soldiers business.
He did it with Romney.
So Dana Bash, who idolizes Harry Reed, is interviewing Harry Reed.
By the way, did anybody still believe he had an accident with his exercise machine?
There is literally no way that an elastic band and a shower door and his exercise machine all combined to do the damage that was done.
Somebody beat Harry Reed up.
Something.
I don't have any idea.
Who but the exercise machine did not attack Harry Reed?
If the exercise machine had attacked Harry Reed, and if it was a machine made by a Republican company or Republican donor, he would have sued them.
Exercise machine.
Anyway, Danabash idolizing Harry Reed, thankfully for Harry Reed.
Asks him this question.
No regrets about Mitt Romney about the Koch brothers.
Some people have even called it McCarthyite.
Well, they call it whatever they want.
Um did he?
Did you hear that we able to?
Were you able to hear it?
Call it whatever they want, Romney didn't win, did he?
That's all that mattered.
Romney didn't win, did he?
McCarthy, I don't care what they call it.
But they said that you made it up.
Romney didn't win, did he?
Ends justifies the means, whatever you want to characterize it.
This is what Republicans don't know how to respond to or how to oppose, much less do they know how to end up seeing to it that somebody like Reed defaming them and lying about them is punished.
What Harry Reed is saying here, far from being punished, give me a medal.
He didn't win, did he?
That's all this is about.
This is politics.
What are we talking about here?
He didn't win.
So they completely paint a picture of Romney as an aloof elitist rich guy, who is so mean he let a guy who worked for his company's wife die with cancer while forcing his own family dog to ride on the roof of the station wagon on a family vacation.
And because the media never says how outrageous, how unfair.
Can you prove it?
Because they just report it as Harry Reed claims.
Then the low information crowd ends up believing it, and Harry Reid now is essentially saying, give me a gold star.
He didn't win, did he?
Here is what Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate August 1st of 2012.
If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns.
So the words out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years.
Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn't.
Okay, so see how it works.
Out of the blue, Harry Reed says he's got a friend, just like Dick Gephardt had.
Remember Dick Gephardt's friend?
Dick Gephardt was Congressman from St. Louis.
And Gephardt said on the floor of the House, I have a friend.
And this friend told me that he doesn't want a tax cut.
No!
He does better, and he feels better, and he makes more money when we raise his taxes.
Everybody looks around and says, who is this idiot?
Who is this idiot friend of Gephardt's?
Gephardt never produces the friend.
We don't know who this lame brain is that's out there demanding tax increases.
But the media reports it, it was all over the news, and it had the video as well of Gethart saying it.
Here comes Dingy Harry.
I am told that Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years.
Really?
Who told you?
That's not my responsibility.
It's up to Romney to prove that he has.
Let's see his returns.
Now, if you've got somebody's going to tell me, what do you do when you have the referees bought and paid for by one team?
That's what the Republicans are going to tell you in a private moment.
They would never say it publicly.
But they would tell you the real question is, how do we win the game when the referees are with the other side?
Bought and paid for by the other side.
And we're back, Rushland boy, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Okay.
Trevor Noah.
And the controversy over him being hired to be the next host of the of the Daily Show.
Grab sound bites of the three and four if I have time to squeeze them in here.
Trevor Noah is I don't know today.
Hillary Clinton made it look like she's in trouble with the media for what, a couple of days, but then it dissipates and evaporates.
And that's where this guy is now.
I mean, they're getting it out of the way, but then nothing's gonna happen to him.
He can tweet whatever he wants.
He's a good lib.
He's half black, he comes from apartheid.
He's got every reason in the world to hate people.
It's justified, and that's gonna be what people will end up saying.
And he's uh gonna be a big star.
They're gonna make sure he's a big star.
I think Comedy Central probably wishes they could put him on the air tonight, given all the publicity.
But some of the things that he's tweeted out, girls with a big ass are like cars without power steering.
Great feedback, but you need to work hard to keep control.
Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road.
He didn't look before crossing, but I still would have felt so bad in my German car.
Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road.
He didn't look before crossing, but I still would have felt so bad in my German car.
Ha ha.
Behind every successful rap billionaire is a double as rich Jewish man.
Oh yeah, the weekend, people are gonna get drunk and think that I'm sexy.
Fat chicks everywhere.
Yeah, Messi gets the ball and the real players try to foul, but Messi doesn't go down easy, just like Jewick Jewish chicks.
Some Jewish babe really did this guy wrong at some point in his life, because he's got it in for him.
And so people have been reacting to this, and he's apologized.
Hey, this is not who I am.
I said it's not me.
This is not who I am.
I don't really believe this, and to try to characterize my views to reduce my views to a handful of jokes that didn't land well, that's not a true reflection of my character nor my evolution as a as a comedian.
So what?
We just ignore all that, it didn't happen.
I don't think that would work for me.
I should test it.
I should try it again.
Now they're all shaking their heads in there.
Don't even think about it.
You won't be given the benefit of the doubt.
So you don't think if I said something offensive here on a long alliance with what Trevor Noah said, and then tomorrow says, you know, folks, I'm that wasn't me.
And to judge my my many multiple-year career on the basis of one two-minute segment of radio, totally unfair.
You don't think that would fly.
Here's the here's the uh vice chairman and founder of um Reputation.com.
What is this?
Well, I thought this is the Comedy Central guy.
Who is this guy?
Reputation.com Vice Chairman Howard Bergman, Jack Tapper's talking to him.
Says, what what a difference 24 hours makes.
We got a statement from Comedy Central defending Trevor.
Oh, it's a PR, okay.
We got a statement from Comedy Central defending Trevor Noah, saying to Judge Hemeter's comedy based on a handful of jokes is unfair.
Is that a good response?
I guess in some ways it's Risky to even respond to this stuff?
I frankly wonder if any comedian could survive the scrutiny of thousands of people looking through everything you ever posted, every joke you ever made, everything you ever said.
I think he's gonna come out of this unscathed.
I think he's gonna be a fine host, and I think he's gonna move on from here with a little speed bump in the way.
See what I mean?
You see the automatic excuses these good behaving little liberals get.
Well, I frankly wonder if any comedian could survive the scrutiny of thousands of people looking through everything they ever posted.
Well, you know, those of us on the conservative side of the aisle go through this every day, folks.
And nobody makes excuses for us.
Nope, we are held accountable even for things that we don't say.
We're held accountable for things they think that we might even privately think.
This guy comes along and says it's a speed bump.
Nobody could withstand this kind of scrutiny.
He's gonna have a great career.
Don't sweat it.
Well, another great excursion into broadcast excellence has come to a temporary, and yet, nevertheless, shocking.
It's sudden screeching halt.
But feel free to relax because we're back in 21 hours.
Can't wait, be revved and ready.
We'll see you.
▲
Export Selection