Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


Quick Hits Page

Dick Gregory: Fat White Stewardesses Owe the Civil Rights Movement

RUSH:Do you remember Dick Gregory? Dick Gregory, the great African-American comedian. He said yesterday that white women benefited the most from the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Not just the Civil Rights Act, but the entire civil rights movement. White women benefited the most. Are you ready for his example? He said the next time you get on an airliner and you see an old, fat, ugly, white stewardess, we got her that job. We're supposed to be thankful for that? Of course Gregory can say it because he's liberal. He can say it because he's African-American, and nobody's going to question it.

Nobody's going to think it's politically incorrect. In fact, they'll probably have an intellectual academic analysis of this. An old, fat, ugly white stewardess. Next time you see one of those on the airplane, and he said they're all over the place, you can thank us for that. We got her that job.

Oregon Lawmaker Wants to Make Cigarettes Controlled Substance

RUSH: If you are in Oregon, "If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature. Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance," like narcotics. You would need a prescription for it. You would need a prescription for cigarettes. It would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

"Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both." For having a pack of cigarettes. A substance that has not been banned. A substance that is fueling funding for children's health care services. The sales tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, is funding children's health programs. And yet -- and this is only going to take off -- this is the left, this is who they are. You can't be trusted to do what's good for you.

You can't be trusted. We've tried it. We've tried warning labels. We've tried shaming you. We've tried doctors on television warning you about the health problems. We've tried non-smoking areas where we make you stand outside in sub zero temperatures if you want to smoke and you still don't get it. We've been nice about it. These are the liberals. We've been nice. We've tried every which way we know to get you to stop smoking, and you won't. You keep smoking. And so now you're going to need a prescription for it. If you don't have a prescription, if this bill passes in Oregon, you go to jail for a year if you're caught with a pack of cigarettes. Because you can't be trusted to do the right thing.

Meanwhile, can you imagine somebody going to jail who is actually funding children's health care programs? But keep a sharp eye. Now, put yourself in the doctor's position here. In this case, if this happens, the state government of Oregon, if this happens the governor would sign the bill, it would go through the Legislature and pass. Now try to think, you're a doctor. You pay malpractice insurance. You know that the trial lawyers are after you every day of your life. You know that the left is aligned against cigarette smoking and they're trying to make it a crime every bit as much as the possession of a Schedule III narcotic. Are you going to write prescriptions for this drug?

Why would a doctor who pays malpractice insurance prescribe cigarettes? The plaintiffs bar would love to go after that guy. I mean, here we have something that's being declared a Schedule III controlled substance. There's nothing medicinal about it. Some Schedule III drugs are prescribed for medicinal purposes, but there's nothing medicinal about a cigarette. And yet the doctor writes the scrip and he's making himself a target. "What thinking person would knowingly allow someone to kill themselves?" I can hear it all now. Why not just ban tobacco? Why do these people just play around in the margins on the edge? Why not just ban the product? Now we want to stigmatize it.

The Indian reservations are going to continue to be permitted to sell cigarettes without taxes. Now, there's a way around this. The Indian reservations, the casinos, wherever the stores, they can have a doctor on site to just write a prescription, medicine man. Right there, just write the prescription whenever it's needed. And what's anybody going to say? Because remember, we mistreated the Indians. This was their land. We took it from them. We still haven't paid them back for it. We continue to try to make amends.

This guy in Oregon I'm sure is not even thinking this. When it's brought to his attention this could hurt Native Americans, he'll come up with an exemption so that they're not hurt. Or he'll allow them a doctor on site to write scrips. But that's an excellent point that you're making. It's a classic example of the unintended consequences of all the do-gooderism that these guys come up with.

Union Membership Drops

RUSH: The Detroit News says that union membership is down to a 70-year low. "The nation's unions lost 400,000 members in 2012 as the percentage of U.S. workers represented by a labor union fell to 11.3 percent, its lowest level since the 1930s - declining by 0.5 percent over the last year. Michigan accounted for about 10 percent of the nation's loss of unionized workers as the Wolverine State fell to the seventh most-unionized state, from fifth in 2011. ... Overall union membership fell in 34 states.

"AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said the new figures were sobering. 'Working women and men urgently need a voice on the job today, but the sad truth is that it has become more difficult for them to have one, as today's figures on union membership demonstrate,' Trumka said. 'Union membership impacts every other economic outcome that matters to all workers -- falling wages, rising health care costs, home foreclosures, the loss of manufacturing jobs and disappearing retirement benefits.'"

So union membership falls to a 70-year low, 400,000 union jobs lost and yet look at the power the union leaders nevertheless still yield. But I'm going to tell you something. As that membership continues to plummet and 400,000 fewer union jobs means 400,000 fewer donors to the Democrat Party, whether they intend to be donors or not, 400,000 fewer dues-paying union people. The only reason that matters to people like Trumka -- see Trumka and James Hoffa, these are powerful people in the Democrat Party. But there's a reason that they're powerful people. And it's not because they're anything special. It's because they raise money. They turn out voters. And in exchange for doing that, they're given seats at the Democrat Party table of power.

Well, if union membership is plummeting, that means the amount of money Trumka will be able to deliver could decline, which makes Trumka less valuable to the Democrat Party. So believe me, the Democrat Party is not going to sit there and take this. They're going to have to do something about this. And you note also that Trumka says "working women and men urgently need a voice on the job today." And what he means is union members. They use the term working man to describe a union guy. If you have a job and you work hard every day but you're not a member of a union, you are not a working man. You're white color, middle class. You may be a worker, could be management, whatever, but you're not the working man. And as such you're not being taken advantage of. You're not being used. You're not being spit on, taken advantage of and all of that.

Anyway, union membership continues to plummet, despite the stimulus bill. That's what I find fascinating. The stimulus bill, the Obama stimulus bill, I guess they ran out of money by 2012. That $787 billion, the stimulus bill, practically 75 percent of it went to maintain union jobs so that they were not lost during the recession. And the reason, folks, again, is that those jobs are part of a money laundering operation, if you will, to funnel money from the US Treasury back to the Democrat Party.

Yes, I'm dead serious. Okay. Federal government one day decide that they're going to go get $787 billion. From where? They don't have it, so gotta borrow it or print it or whatever. But they go get it. They tell everybody, "Yeah, we're going to inject this. Just imagine this is a giant syringe, we're going to inject this right out there in the country. We're going to create roads and bridges and school repair jobs and all this wonderful stuff." And people go, "Oh wow, that's cool." Instead what the money did was actually go to teachers and other public sector union people so that their jobs would not be lost.

So that money from the Federal Treasury or being borrowed from China or wherever, ends up as salary for union workers, a portion of which gets taken out as dues. And what happens to the dues? The dues get spent on reelecting Democrats. Campaign contributions, ad production, what have you, all for the benefit of the Democrat Party. So if you follow the route, $787 billion dollars left the Federal Treasury and a percentage of it ended up in the Democrat Party. The only way that can happen is if you washed the money at various stages along the way.

Obama still can't write the Democrat Party a check from the Federal Treasury. So in lieu of that, tell the country we're going to stimulate the economy with brand new spending and roads and bridges and construction jobs and repairs of schools and people go, "Yeah, yeah, right on, cool." The money goes to union workers to continue to pay them so they don't lose their jobs. They keep getting a paycheck. A portion of the paycheck goes to dues. The dues go back to the Democrat Party and so essentially the money has come out of the Department of Treasury to the Democrat Party, but it has to go a couple of places first. Ergo, that's why I call it sort of a money laundering operation. The bottom line is 400,000 fewer dues-paying Democrat donors now in 2012 alone.

Brown and Rice Claim Callahan Threw the Super Bowl

RUSH: The former coach of the Oakland Raiders, Bill Callahan, who has been the former head coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. He was, what, I think a defensive line coach for the Jets.  He's now either offensive or defensive line coach for the Dallas Cowboys.  But he took over the Oakland Raiders when Jon Gruden left to go coach the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and it turned out that the very next year, the Oakland Raiders and Tampa Bay Buccaneers squared off in the Super Bowl.  Gruden facing his old coach and old buddy Bill Callahan.  

Well it turns out that a former wide receiver for the Oakland Raiders, Tim Brown, a guy of incredible reputation and integrity, has accused Callahan of sabotaging the Raiders and effectively throwing the Super Bowl to Gruden and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  And the way he did it, they say, is two, three days before the game he totally changed the game plan so all the practice and all the thinking and all the strategerizing leading up to the game was thrown out.  Two days before the game, a new game plan installed.  Nobody had time to learn it.  The team goes out, doesn't play well, and they lose.  

Jerry Rice of even more incredible reputation, also a receiver for the Raiders, has agreed with Tim Brown that Callahan threw the game.  A couple of other players have said, "Yep, we think it happened."  Other players, Bill Romanowski, former linebacker and a couple others said, "No way, this is absolutely absurd."  Others have pointed out, "The hell with the offensive game plan, our defense got torched by Tampa Bay in that game."  Rich Gannon, quarterback for the Raiders during in the game in question, had like five picks.  

So now Callahan is denying it and he says that the allegation is defamatory.  You start using words like that and people start hearing "lawsuit."  No word on that.  But this comes on the heels of the family of Junior Seau suing the NFL for basically denying Junior proper information that he could really get hurt bad if he played the game.  Brian, I don't know if you know this, but people playing football don't know that they can get hurt.  They don't know that they can suffer concussions and they don't know that they can blow out knees and so forth.  

So now the league is being sued for keeping that information from its players on the heels of Callahan being accused of sabotaging the Raiders and essentially throwing the Super Bowl.  This was a game that was 10 years ago, by the way.  


Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features