Rush Limbaugh Program - April 8, 2013, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 8, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:35

April 8, 2013, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks, it's great to be with you.
	Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Latest opinion audit shows that I'm documented to be almost always right, 99.7% at a time.
	No change in six months.
	And not really expecting much change, although the Limbaugh theorem is going to play a big role in moving it up.
	Look at this at the New York Times today by Jackie Kalmus.
	Obama must walk fine line as Congress takes up agenda.
	Why?
	What in the world's Obama got to worry about?
	Obama's not up for re-election.
	No, no, seriously now.
	Phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
	What in the world is there a fine line for Obama?
	What w why?
	He's the president of the United States, got an agenda.
	And his agenda is long-range deficit reduction.
	Ha!
	Is that what it says here?
	Long range deficit reduction.
	Gun safety.
	Right.
	Gun safety.
	You know what gun safety is, is you don't have yours anymore.
	And changes to immigration law.
	What's that?
	Amnesty.
	See, you know what the fine line is?
	The fine line is having everybody not realize what Obama's agenda is.
	That's the fine long-range deficit reduction.
	Well, don't insult us here.
	Long range is the way the thing begins.
	The days ahead could be decisive ones for the main pieces of Obama's second term agenda.
	Long range deficit reduction, gun safety, changes to immigration law.
	The fine line.
	There are two things about the fine line.
	Avoiding blame.
	That's the Limbaugh theorem.
	Right here it is.
	Avoiding blame and making sure nobody really knows what the agenda is.
	Obama's agenda long-range deficit reduction equals massive tax increases.
	That's what that means.
	Gun safety means gun control.
	Changes to immigration law means amnesty.
	So let me read this as it should be written by Jackie Kalmus of the New York Times.
	The days ahead could be decisive ones for the main pieces of President Obama's second term agenda.
	Major tax increases, gun control, and amnesty.
	But no, that's not what they write.
	Long-range deficit reduction, gun safety changes to immigration law.
	Members of both parties say that Mr. Obama faces a conundrum with his legislative approach to a deeply polarized Congress.
	In the past, when he has stayed aloof from legislative action, Republicans and others have accused him of a lack of leadership.
	When he has gotten involved, they have complained that they could not support any bill so closely identified with him without risking the contempt of conservative voters.
	This is all such smoke in mirrors.
	There really isn't much to the piece here.
	What it does, it does bring up a talking point that is being parroted in other drive-by articles, and that is that the next couple of weeks are going to be extremely vital to Obama's second term in his legacy.
	So in other words, he better play his cards right if he wants to win control of the House in 2014.
	Because he's got to move this agenda forward without him being attached to it.
	That's the key to it.
	Limbaugh theorem.
	He's got to move gun control forward.
	He's got to move deficit uh tax increases forward and an amnesty.
	Gotta move all that forward without being tied to it.
	Nobody wants any of those things.
	I mean, the majority of people don't want any of those things.
	But that's what he's uh that's what he's aiming for.
	So once again, the limbaugh theorem.
	Melissa Harris Perry is uh a professor, I believe she's at Tulane.
	It's a major university wherever she teaches.
	She is African American professor at Tulane.
	That's right.
	And uh she also has a show on PMS NBC.
	And of course, they've got this uh uh slogan over there called lean forward or some sort of leaning, whatever.
	They sh hosts of shows they're cutting promos that they run on the network.
	And last week they began airing a new lean forward promo for her show, which airs on the weekends, and this is that promo.
	We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind of a private notion of children.
	Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.
	We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children.
	So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.
	Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.
	Now I'm I'm sure some of you hear this and you're livid and you're outraged.
	The thing that I I really want to impress upon you is that this is not far out.
	This is not new.
	It is not unusual.
	It used to be, I mean, stuff like this used to be.
	If somebody would, you know, five years ago, two years ago had said this, whoa, whoa.
	Really lunatic stuff, people would have said.
	Oh, man, that is really extreme.
	But it isn't new.
	What's new is that she has total confidence in saying it.
	She's not worried that a majority of people are going to disagree with this.
	But this is Marx, Engels, Communist Manifesto.
	The nuclear family has always been under attack by communists, by leftists.
	The nuclear family has always, just like religion, has as as must be destroyed, and in its place the community, collective.
	So while this is outrageous in its self-contained form, it isn't anything new.
	I guess one of the things that is is the most frustrating to me is that liberalism and socialism and Marxism and this kind of stuff have been out there on display for people to see and recognize and accept and believe as true for decades.
	It isn't anything new.
	And yet in the past, people would hear something like this and choose not to have to deal with it.
	That that would have meant taking action.
	And it was much easier to say, well, yes, that's never gonna happen.
	I mean, that's just so where has that left us?
	That that happens to be we we've we've all of these things that we thought were never gonna happen are now happening.
	And the opposition party, which in this case is the Republican Party, has basically one item in their agenda, and that's stop these guys.
	But there is no alternative.
	There is no vision.
	There is no equally correlating long-term vision being articulated by uh the opposition to this.
	All we're doing, all our parties doing is a stop, gonna stop those guys.
	And in the in a way of stopping it, we'll we'll agree with some of it, maybe partial amnesty or well, whatever.
	Uh moderate our terms here on social issues.
	Okay, gay marriage, fine, we can see where you oh right, alright.
	But but there's no pushback, and so there's no reason for Melissa Harris Perry to be worried about any negative fallout or feedback from this.
	Because as far as she's concerned, everybody thinks this now.
	I want you to listen to it again.
	I want you to listen to this how naturally it flows off her tongue.
	I want you to listen to how matter-of-fact it all is.
	How she just presumes everybody agrees with this.
	This is this is not something she even has to defend.
	This isn't this isn't an argument that she has to win the debate about.
	This is some this is a conclusion now that we've all come to.
	And everything in Here is a conclusion.
	Well, we're not spending enough on education.
	We're we're we're going bankrupt on all we're spending on education.
	We're getting nothing for it.
	I've got the story of what you know what's happening at Bowdoin College up in Maine coming up.
	I'll give you the details of that here in just a second, but we're never invested as much in public education as we should have.
	We're throwing money down a rat hole drain of public education.
	We lead the world in public education spending.
	We lead the world in getting the least for it.
	And we've had a private notion of children that your kid is yours and your responsibility?
	How old fashioned, how how utterly irresponsible was that?
	How selfish could you be that your kid is yours?
	That was never the deal.
	The kid belongs to all of us.
	Look at, as I say, Mrs. Clinton tried this.
	It takes a village.
	And what was the reaction then?
	Everybody laughed at it, made fun of it, had jokes at her expense.
	I know I did.
	A lot of people did.
	And back then, in the 90s, when Mrs. Clinton's book came out, nobody ever thought anything like that would ever really happen.
	Where the state would literally claim ownership of your kids.
	It was so foreign, it was so out of the realm of common sense and and even belief that people never ever took it seriously.
	And yet these people keep plugging away.
	And they keep setting up their head start programs, and they keep setting up national publicly funded government run daycare centers, and they keep furthering the notion that somebody else can raise your kids better than you can.
	And then they got they got traction on the idea that fathers are the worst thing for a kid.
	Fathers, especially for girl kids, because fathers are predators.
	All this outrageous stuff are being laughed at, said no.
	They just kept plugging away at it, and now they think it's just commonly accepted as fact.
	Here, listen to her.
	This is a professor.
	I don't know of what.
	But it doesn't matter.
	She could be professor of history as she's teaching this rot gut.
	Doesn't matter.
	But she's at saw something on TV that shocked me.
	For a second.
	Yeah, it was CNN, and I uh man.
	Okay, here's uh Melissa Harris Perry.
	We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children.
	Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.
	We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children.
	So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.
	Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.
	Folks, that is as foreign as anything I've ever believed.
	That to me is insanity.
	This is genuine.
	This is, you know, go get the guys in the white coats, bring the little van up, take her away.
	That's what this is.
	It's we haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children.
	So we have to break through our kind of private idea kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.
	We need to recognize that kids belong to whole communities, and not till then will we start spending the right amount of money on it.
	So how does this manifest itself?
	So you need your yard mode.
	What do you do?
	You go knock on the door down the street, say your kid that you don't own, I do today for the next hour.
	Your kid's gonna mow my yard.
	And then after that, my trash needs taken out.
	And after that, I need somebody to go to grocery store for me, and my kid's tied up, so I'm I'm claiming your kid.
	How does this work?
	Well, what is the practical application?
	But I'm telling what what she is saying, Melissa Harris Perry, what she is saying here is as old as communist genocide.
	But the fact that it is said in America on a cable news channel and is considered fairly benign is what has changed.
	What's changed is that this really believe this.
	This isn't that big a deal anymore.
	That's what's changed, folks.
	Hi, welcome back.
	It's Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
	Ladies and gentlemen, going to get to your phone calls in the first action in the next half hour after the bottom of the hour break coming up.
	There's also there's a story I ran into, I don't know if it's a story.
	Something I discovered over the weekend that it's hard for me to describe my emotion when I came across this.
	The upshot of it is that in an official manual, the United States Army now lists evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, and Islamophobia as forms of religious extremism, along with Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
	Now stop and think of that for a United States Army, and this of course the Obama administration lists evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as forms of religious extremism.
	Evangelical Christianity and mainstream Catholicism is listed with Al Qaeda and Hamas as forms of religious extremism.
	Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, Islamophobia are forms of religion extremism on a par with Al-Qaeda and Hamas.
	I've got the screenshot of the actual list of religions that come under the headline religious extremism in this Army Manual.
	And I don't know quite how to get my arms around this.
	In the homosexual marriage debate, one of the things that's really intertwined there is the desire to effectively erase the 2,000 years of Christianity, Judeo-Christian values, if you will.
	As a governing force, as a positive influence on cultures and society.
	It is a tantamount to erasure, an attempt to erase it.
	Not just homosexual marriage, but all of the attacks that are taking place here in the attempts to equate mainstream American religions with terrorism is done purposefully with an objective.
	And the objective, of course, is to discredit mainstream American and worldwide religions.
	And if they succeed in this discreditation, then everything that has flowed from and everything that has descended from these mainstream religions, everything that has found its way into American cultural life will also thus be discredited, Which is the objective.
	Now, it's it's one thing for you know some wacko group of activists with a logo and a fax machine to send something like this out.
	But for this to be published in an official Army, United States military army manual is quite another thing.
	Again, the U.S. Army listed evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania.
	This is on Fox News, too, uh last week.
	The military also listed Islamophobia as a form of religious extremism.
	So the assault on everything that has helped to define this country, everything that has gone into the making of this country, spiritually, morally, politically, since its founding, is under full-fledged assault.
	It is there is a universal full-fledged attack on everything that has defined this country.
	Now again, that's not new either.
	You know it as well as I do.
	There have been people trying to tear down the Catholic Church, tear down religion, tear down the founding of this country.
	What is new is how widely accepted it now seems to be.
	And how brazenly public about their objectives people on the left are.
	The United States Army publishing this now.
	Okay, back we are.
	One thing on this uh this this army, it's actually not a publication that equates Catholicism and uh evangelical Christianity with extreme terrorist-oriented religions.
	What it's incident occurred during an Army Reserve equal opportunity training briefing on extremism.
	And it uh I don't know where the the briefing took place.
	The Army is saying via a spokesman that the army itself had nothing to do with the creation of the slide.
	It's a it's a it's a slide produced and seen with an overhead projector on a on like a screen in front of a classroom.
	And in and that slide is where the U.S. Army ostensibly categorizes mainstream Catholicism, evangelical Christianity with and Islamophobia along with extreme religion terrorist organizations like uh like Al-Qaeda.
	Now that again, that incident with that briefing occurred during an opportunity, equal opportunity training brief, and the Army, a spokesman for the Army says that the Army had nothing to do with the creation of the slide or the information, nothing to do with that page in a manual.
	The list in which all these religions, Catholicism, mainstream Christianity, evangelical Christianity, those that list for all those things are equated with Al-Qaeda is a slide from an Army Reserve equal opportunity training brief on extremism.
	It took place somewhere in Pennsylvania.
	Fox News got hold of it and reported it, other blogs have now seen it and reported, reproduced the slide, the color slide, think of PowerPoint presentation of this list took place in the Army Reserve Unit briefing in Pennsylvania.
	So the Army, an Army spokeswoman now said us.
	So it's somebody.
	It's somebody At an Army Reserve unit who decided to put this thing together and put it on display and have it represent the U.S. Army, at least the reserves.
	And it's the same kind of thinking that uh Major Abdul Sahib Skyhook Hassan, Hassan who uh who blew up the place at Fort Hood, just a workplace incident.
	Nothing really to see here.
	I don't know.
	When I when I saw this yesterday, I I said, I I don't quite know how to characterize this.
	I If this is really where the U.S. Army is today.
	The first thought I have this can't possibly be true that I looked at it, and it is, and it does represent something that did happen at a brief.
	Then guess what?
	The presenter of this briefing.
	To show you how pervasive all this is, the presenter at the briefing who prepared this slide to a bunch of people in the Army Reserve in Pennsylvania that equated mainstream Catholicism, evangelical Christianity, and Islamophobia with Al Qaeda.
	The presenter of the briefing said she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	Which is that real flake, this Mark Potok guy, is from this uh this leftist activist organization which is beyond description in its take on things.
	It's insanity, it's it's everything is is uh white majority racism in America filled with hatred.
	Uh Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Fox News that they didn't provide the military with any such list.
	He said 100% false.
	We didn't provide it.
	But the presenter in Pennsylvania of the briefing said she got the information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
	So you can kind of put two to two together here to find out what happened.
	Some independent thinking army reserve person walks into a briefing with a preconceived notion that Catholics and mainstream Christians are just as nutcase wacko extremist terrorists as Al Qaeda.
	She either believes it, she's been told it, so she goes someplace where she can find evidence of it.
	She says she found it Southern Poverty Law Center, and bam o creates a PowerPoint presentation, puts it out under the umbrella of the U.S. Army.
	The point is that somebody in this Army Reserve unit believes that.
	The point is they believe it to the extent they think they need to warn everybody about it.
	Okay.
	I'll tell you, folks, the rank stupidity that seems to be running rampant throughout this country is breathtaking.
	The willingness of a bunch of sponges to believe the absolute most irresponsible, ridiculous, insulting things about people.
	The ease with which all that seems to be believed now is the result of a careful setting of the table.
	Over years and years and years, conservatives equal X, freedom equals X. Finally you fill in the blank, fill in the X, and you've created a mindset susceptible to believing it all.
	Just stunning.
	Just like it's stunning that a Muslim can end up in the U.S. Army and gunned down everybody at an army base.
	How many how many of you are unable to really get your arms around that and understand that?
	And then it'd be just a workplace uh just a workplace.
	It's nothing to see here.
	Anyway, let me go to the phones, otherwise, if I keep going here, we're not going to get to a phone call, and I promise.
	Mike, Sierra Vista, Arizona, we're starting with you, sir.
	Great to have you, and welcome to the program.
	Thanks, Rush.
	I want to uh thank you for being the conscience of America, your voice crying in the wilderness, uh, and it's a lot worse than what you're saying.
	Uh I uh retired from the army.
	I I've been fighting this ideological war for about thirty years, either uh in active duty or as an instructor.
	Uh I was a Marine in Vietnam.
	I uh was in special forces in Central America under Reagan.
	I saw what socialism did to people.
	And uh to hear what that professor says about collectivizing our children came comes right out of Lennon.
	And um there's there's a in the matter of the army, uh three quick examples.
	Uh Hassan was awarded back at Bethesda, some army hospital back east, uh, for a facilitating understanding of Islam.
	Uh and he was passed along, uh, even though they knew he was had radical uh in inclinations.
	Yeah, I remember.
	I I remember all that, man.
	That he uh another incident uh at the command and general what they used to call the command and general staff college at uh Leavenworth, Kansas, uh about a year ago, uh an instructor there uh pr uh presented a PowerPoint presentation uh and the threat uh regarding domestic threats and how the US military would address domestic threats.
	And I think I believe it was uh the the area of operations was South Carolina and the threat was the Tea Party and how the US military would respond to a Tea Party uh insurrection.
	Yeah, we've heard that too.
	Yeah.
	Well, uh the uh there was a uh officer in uh in uh uh when I came I came back on active duty as a mobilized retiree.
	I volunteered to come back uh on active duty in two thousand six, uh teaching the captains at the uh army's intelligence school here at Fort Wachuca, and I was shocked and uh and amazed to see in the my the counterinsurgency block that a retired British major,
	coincidentally speaking of Maggie Thatcher, uh, was had prepared a an exercise in which our US Army captains uh uh learning how to be intelligence officers were posing as Nazis occupying Great Britain.
	And this retired British major, his role was a SS colonel.
	Now I spent my whole military career teaching uh both fighting communist insurgencies and teaching how to t oppose them.
	And I walked into a scenario, and I was asked to teach there because of my bat special forces background.
	I was asked to teach that block uh from the brigade commander.
	So you can understand my shock when I realize that they're occupying forces.
	And we should be tea we should have been teaching these captains how to oppose them.
	and i raised a little ruckus about it because it got kind of out of hand that they include up captain from the captains were making swastikas and posting them on the windows of the classroom doors And giving the uh How Hitler salute to each other.
	And I found out that some of the students who opposed this concept were being threatened with being disenrolled or kicked out of the course.
	Uh I took this uh out s uh through some channels and I was basically told to shut up and I was kicked out of the uh that block of instruction.
	Uh which occurred the same month that we were celebrating Holocaust mem uh mem the memorial of Holocaust.
	I thought it was so hypocritical.
	But Well, there is, I'll tell you, there there's there's all kinds of of apocryphal the stuff that we were taught to be wary of.
	The things that we were all taught to be wary of uh when I was growing up.
	Nazism, communism and so forth.
	People are now taught to be wary of people who oppose that stuff.
	People who oppose that now are the problem.
	People who oppose the isms, communism, Nazism, not so much Nazism, except in the terms of the national socialism, that aspect of people who oppose these things are now to be suspected.
	It is a it's a massive one eighty that's taken place.
	From the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.
	Actually, it might have been last Friday, April Fifth.
	Hang on just a second.
	Yep.
	It was last Friday, and I missed it Friday.
	I was uh I was informed about this on Saturday afternoon.
	It's a piece by David Fife.
	David Fife is uh who is David Feist here?
	He's assistant editorial features editor at the Wall Street Journal.
	Sounds like the setup for a bad joke.
	What did the Wall Street type say to the college president on the golf course?
	Well, we don't know exactly, but it's launched a saga with weighty implications for American intellectual and civil life.
	Here's what we do know.
	One day in the summer of 2010, Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, respected liberal arts scroll Brunswick, Maine, met investor and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein for round the golf, about an hour north of the campus.
	College presidents spend many of their waking hours talking to potential donors.
	In this case, two men spoke about college life, especially diversity, and the conversation made such an impression on President Mills that he cited it weeks later in his convocation address to Bowden's freshman class.
	And that's where the dispute begins.
	In his address to the freshman class at Bowdoin, President Mills described the golf outing and said that he had been interrupted in the middle of a swing by a fellow golfer's announcement, who said, I would never support Bowdoin.
	You are a ridiculous liberal school that brings all the wrong students to campus for all the wrong reasons.
	During Mill's next swing, he recalled, the man blasted Bowdoin's misplaced and misguided diversity efforts.
	At the end of the round, the college president told the students, I walked off the course in despair.
	So the college president tells the guy he's out playing golf in the middle of his backswing, which is a biggest no-no in golf, is to chat during somebody's swing, but the middle of backswing to say something, and this guy's college was insulted twice by this Klingenstein guy who was the potential donor.
	So word of this interpretation of what happened got back to Mr. Klingenstein.
	Now he hadn't been named in the speech, but he took to the pages of the Claremont Review of Books, wrote a piece and called it nonsense.
	He said the president of this college didn't like my views, so he turned me into a backswing interrupting Bowden hating boar who wants to return to the segregated days of Jim Crow.
	Look, where all this is leading is that Klingenstein said all I did was I explained my disapproval of diversity as it generally has been implemented on college campus.
	Too much celebration of racial and ethnic difference.
	Not enough celebration of our common identity.
	You guys are destroying the country.
	We all have a common American identity, and you're focusing on our differences.
	And then demanding all this diversity be tolerated, accepted, and treated the same.
	Well, after Klingenstein wrote his response to President Mills' speech, Mills stood by his original version of events, which prompted Klingenstein to commission researchers to examine this university's commitment to intellectual diversity.
	So he paid for researchers from the National Association of Scholars to study this university and its curriculum and what's been going on there.
	And the upshot of it is Bowden College has no curricular requirements that center on the American founding or the history of the nation.
	Even history majors at Bowdoin are not required to take a single course in American history.
	In the history department, no course is devoted to American political, military, diplomatic, or intellectual history.
	The only histories available to the students are organized around some aspect of race, class, gender, or sexuality.
	So a history major at Bowdoin College is taught about the intrinsic discrimination of blacks, women, gays, lesbians, transgender, bisexuals.
	That's all they are taught.
	They are not a history major coming out of Bowdoin College is not taught for one minute about the American founding.
	There is not one moment of traditional American history taught.
	Then this is just the history department.
	What's taught is how immoral and unjust America has been since its founding.
	And how its founding featured institutional racism, segregation, sexism, homophobia, and all that.
	And Klingenstein found this kind of thing in pretty much all the other departments he looked at.
	And he studied it for years and years and years.
	Quite naturally he decided not to donate to the school.
	Now the students at Bowdoin College are required to take a year-long seminar as freshmen.
	They get to choose from thirty-seven different offerings, such as affirmative action in U.S. society, or the fictions of freedom, or racism, or queer gardens, or the sexual life of colonialism, or the modern Western prostitutes.

▲