All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
August 20, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah, here we are, folks.
Here we are, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila the Hun Chair in the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
In a second, now let's.
Everything's right there.
Where was I?
Oh yes.
The prestigious Attila the Hun Chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you here, folks, as always.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
So late in the program yesterday.
We had a little discussion on the art of persuasion, which by the way.
People found that uh you know what people most response I got was when I said that the point of persuasion, I've made this point a number of times over the years, but the least effective ways to get in somebody's face and just wag your finger at them and then try to overpower them.
It's the least effective way.
So the most effective way is to establish set of circumstances to which the conclusion is obvious and lead the intended persuadee in that direction.
I said, you do that with a series of questions that they answer.
And the ultimate question they get, they convince themselves.
And then never admit that you persuaded them, and if you're in it for that reason, you're never going to be satisfied.
Anyway, they got a lot of responses, and that led to something I wasn't going to mention yesterday.
But I did because it dovetailed with the discussion on persuasion and the divide and culture and so forth.
That LA Times piece that ran I guess it was, I don't know, it was either Saturday or Sunday.
It was the woman who didn't agree with a thing that her father agreed with, a father big fan of this program.
And it came time to put him in an assisted living center.
And she thought that I was just the devil incarnate, hated women, hated gays, hated blacks, I mean every cliche.
Yet her father, who she described as brilliant, multiple degrees, psychiatrist, very intelligent, father was a big fan.
And I again I'll I'll what what must she have thought of her father?
Is the overriding question if she has this attitude of me and yet this guy loved the program, what must she think of him?
That he's an idiot.
No, because she detailed how brilliant he was.
Anyway, it came time, he passed away at age 87, came time to put him in an assisted living center, and they're going through his stuff, and she finds a bunch of Rush Limbaugh caps.
And she said, Dad, can we just get rid of this stuff?
Come on now, Dad.
And finally her dad said to her.
Look, yeah, I like Rush Limbaugh, but I love you more.
And if it means that much to you, then we'll ditch the caps.
And then she wrote about how tough it is to come together.
And what can we all do?
Well, that piece apparently generated a tremendous amount of letters to the editor response in the LA Times.
And they gave it its own segment.
And every letter to the editor that the New York Times published yesterday was somewhat critical of the author of the story.
Here's one from a guy named Wayne in Santa Monica, California.
The opinion piece makes a clear point that conservatives have known for a while.
Liberals are closed-minded, will never compromise or even consider anyone else's beliefs but their own.
The author's story made it clear that her father had to compromise by giving up the caps, and how silly was that.
But she never made any offer to consider his point of view.
Why didn't she agree to Sit with him on the porch, sipping tea while giving the radio show a listen to see what it was her father liked about it so much.
The only way for peace in that family was for the conservative to abandon his beliefs, not the liberal.
And they call conservatives close-minded.
That was one letter of some Santa Santa Monica.
Next letters from Tom Bunzel from Los Angeles.
Note to her name is Madeline Janice.
Note to Madeline, you and your father did not transcend the ideological divide, only he did.
I actually share many of her progressive leanings, meaning this guy's a lib.
But it never would have occurred to me to insist that my father give up some prized possessions without at least trying to understand his point of view with sincerity.
She makes the unfounded assumption that her father is wrong politically, but condescendingly forgives him to show her love and then wonders why we have political polarization and gridlock.
Now that is a particularly good.
Actually, all these letters are good, but that was a particularly good point.
The point about condescendingly forgave him.
One way Street, that's her own father, who she obviously loved very much.
I mean, you got that reading the piece.
And then the uh the last letter that was published, Miriam Jaffe of Thousand Oaks.
Where's the humanity?
Would it have hurt to reach across the gulf of ideology she touts and offer comfort to a dying man to say, Dad, even though I can't stand limbaugh, his caps mean a lot to you, so take them along because you mean more to me than my ideology.
But her ideology trumped everything.
Her ideology had to dominate.
It had to triumph over her own father.
Now I'm sure the LA Times got some letters in um in support of the author, but they published these three, at least on the website.
I actually have the Dead Tree edition.
So they must have felt the need to balance it or something.
But anyway, I I uh found it interesting.
I was also reading a uh novel.
When I was growing up, my father loved the Matt Helm series of books.
Oh, yeah, and he he he he just like the James Bond, the Ian Fleming books and so forth.
He had all of these, the the the detective series, the Sam Spades and so forth, all in paperback.
He had them all.
And during the summer, late at night, after the usual evening of partying and so on, I'd go into his little bookshelf there and just grab one now and then and read it.
Some of these are now being digitized and made available as e-books, which is the only way I buy books anymore.
I am given hard copies, actual books, but the ones I buy are e-books.
And they're just now getting to the Matt Helm series.
They have digitized four of them.
I was reading one last night from 1962 called Murderer's Row.
Matt Helm is the equivalent of a CIA agent, but it's never really specified the agency that he works for.
It's just some clandestine American spy agency, where he does work all over the world, but primarily domestically.
Now remember, this is published in 1962, and I I copied a little passage from early on in this book, just to illustrate, particularly for those of you who are millennials and listening to this program.
By the way, the program today is going to have a lot of focus on you millennials.
A lot of stuff in the news about and by millennials today that we're going to get into.
Just a little teaser.
But just to illustrate, you know, we didn't get here where we are overnight.
We did not get to an Obama administration which grows government and shrinks the rest of the country.
We didn't get here overnight.
It Took decades for the left, relentlessly, never giving up, constantly pushing ahead to get where we are.
And consequently, we're not going to get rid of this stuff overnight, and we cannot define our effectiveness by how quickly we're able to roll it back.
Now we can roll it back faster than it took to evolve to this point.
A couple of elections so we can make a huge dent in the leftward tilt.
But it took them fifty plus years of an intricately woven web of deceit with tentacles spiraling deep into the culture and the subculture, both social and political, in this country to get us where we are.
And just to prove it, there's this little passage here from the uh from Murderers Road, 1962.
This is Matt Helm's boss at whatever agency this is, CIA, talking about why he assigned Matt Helm to this particular case instead of some other agents.
Here's the quote.
These delicate buds we get nowadays, nurtured on beautiful thoughts of peace, security, social adjustment.
They may be brave and patriotic enough in the right situations, but the thought of violence turns them inside out.
Not one of them would kill a fly, I sometimes think, to save an entire nation from dying of yellow fever.
Now, what this means is even back in 1962, here's Donald Hamilton, he's the author, and he's writing about the soft underbelly of the peacnicks and the do-gooders, and even as far back as 1962, the peace movement and social uh uh awareness and anti-violence and so even in government.
And I I don't think a big deal of it, it's just it's how long this has been going on and how steady it is, and how it hasn't changed.
This is one of the things, by the way, that frustrates me.
It has been going on so long, I don't know why more people don't see it.
Now, granted, liberalism, socialism is seductive to the lazy.
It is seductive to the people who think they've got no chance, no hope.
It's seductive to the incompetent.
It is seductive to people who are obsessed with the unfairness and injustice everywhere and think that big government can fix it.
But this is just an indication of how it really isn't new, and it can be beaten back, and it's and people have been aware of it for years.
And it's it's not been a steady increase for the left.
They've gone through their ups and downs and their cycles and uh everything.
The Bill Clinton Foundation, you know, the the media matters for America, which is this, is not even left wing.
This this bunch is just indescribable.
They exist for one reason, and that is to lie, misrepresent, take out of context what happens in conservative media, and then report it that way.
And what Media Matters does, they they provide the information, say, on this program for mainstream media reporters who don't listen to it.
So a mainstream media reporter will find out what happened on this program by going to Media Matters, or on any other conservative program, or on Fox News, rather than watch or listen, they'll get it from Media Matters.
Media Matters is livid at the New York Times.
They are just beside themselves over the attack on Hillary.
You know, David Brock is the emeritus' president forever long time chairman for life, whatever he calls himself, where they listen in their basement down there.
He used to work for the American Spectator Or write for them.
And one of the most popular pieces ever in The American Spectator was an anti-Hillary piece back in the in the early 90s, and it was so successful that it discombobulated Brock, and he ended up doing a 180 and is now a total Clinton acolyte for whatever reason.
And he is the personal defender of Hillary Clinton, and he is just outraged at this ongoing assault on Hillary Clinton by the New York Times.
He wrote an open letter to them.
And I, of course, your host have mentioned in the first paragraph.
I don't have it in front of me here, but what he basically says to the Times in an attempt to humiliate them, even Rush Limbaugh is citing your injurious reports that is supposed to embarrass the New York Times into stopping what they're doing.
Just outraged by this terrible, terrible unfairness that the New York Times is aiming at the Clintons.
And of course, it all started with an expose on the Clinton library and massage parlor and the global initiative, made this big point.
They've got all this money coming in.
I mean, literally tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, over the course of many years in donations, hundreds of millions of dollars, and they're running a deficit.
And yet the Clintons are getting rich while all this is happening.
And so the Times is raising some questions, legitimate, as it turns out.
Well, here's an update.
This is from the New York Post.
Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses alone since 2003.
This, according to an analysis of the foundation's tax forms.
The spending includes $4.2 million in 2011 for the William J. Clinton Foundation, to which now Hillary and Chelsea are attached.
$730,000 for the Clinton Global Initiative, $7.2 million for the Clinton Health Action Initiative.
They got all these foundations.
They're all running deficits.
$50 million on travel expenses.
Businessman and Republican New York City Mayor candidate John Katsamatitis has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the Foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton's trip to Africa with Chelsea.
Clinton sometimes uses Katsamatitis' Boeing 727 while opting on other trips to use smaller Gulf Stream jets.
There's all kinds of people jets that Clinton uses.
And they've all got women on them.
And they've all got a bar on them.
But anyway, the expose of the Clintons continues.
How much flying?
And how much how many what kind of hotel bills do you need to amass to rack up $50 million?
By the way, when you fly on somebody else's jet, you get a discounted rate.
The way it works in political campaigns.
Now, this is been the case in the past, I assume it still is.
Let's say you're running for some office and you're your candidate, and a donor offers you his jet.
You cannot accept a trip on his jet, El Fribo.
Let's say his jet costs $5,000 to fly an hour, $5,000 an hour.
All you have to do is pay the equivalent of first-class airfare.
And you're legal.
And that's what is meant here in the post by the discount rate.
Sometimes Clinton uses a plane at a discount rate for the foundation.
And sometimes Katzamatitis donates the flight time to Charitable Foundation, which has a variety of programs above.
And they're not spending retail on these expenses, and still they're racking up 50 million dollars.
You know, you can amass income in a lot of ways.
And this expose on the Clintons continue.
We got to take a quick time out.
By the way, Madeline Janice, who wrote the LA Times piece about her uh about her father, little research, she is a radical socialist activist.
She is 60 years old, or thereabouts.
She is, as best we can tell here what we learned.
She is obsessed with economic inequality.
She did an interview with Bill Moyers just a couple of days ago, in which she proclaimed we all deserve good jobs and a decent life, and our government has the tools to ensure that.
No, it doesn't.
Unless equality equals misery spread equally, because that's the best the uh the government can do.
We may have a new Port St. Lucy, Fairfield, Connecticut, 911.
Back in a moment.
I guess hilarious that Media Matters thinks that the New York Times has an anti-Clinton bias.
I mean, how to touch with the reality you really have to be to think that.
David Brock in his letter to the New York Times, open letter to New York Times.
They got hold of it to political.
They think they had a scoop.
So the politico printed the open letter from Brock to the to the New York Times.
And it begins this way.
I am writing to express my concern about a recent string of reports and columns from your publication that have done nothing but use false pretenses to cast a shadow on Bill and Hillary Clinton.
It says a lot that Rush Limbaugh applauded your injurious work on the former First Family yesterday afternoon on his radio program.
It just bugs them, folks.
It's some of the most fun I have.
Swatting these people around, toying with them, playing games.
It is just fun.
Now, you know, one of the big speaking of Clintons, one of the causes that they're really big into at the Clinton Global Initiative.
One of the pet causes is global warming.
Now, how do you square being all worried and concerned with global warming to run around, spend $50 million discounted, discounted, not retail, takes a lot of flying on discount rates, got $50 million worth of jet travel on Boeing 727s.
That adds up to a lot of carbon emissions.
But you see, folks, the way it works, they're good people.
They're permitted to use all of the carbon they want.
They can emit all the carbon they want because they're good people.
They're warning everybody else.
They're sounding the clarion call.
They're the great carers and concerned people.
They're good people.
So they can do, they're exempt from their own requirements because they are doing the good works, and they are alerting everybody else, and they're making sure that you don't behave in this selfish incorrect way.
It wasn't long ago, Port St. Lucie, Florida, right up the road.
Woman walked into a McDonald's, asked for some chicken McNuggets, and was told that they were out.
So the woman did what occurred to her the first thing to do, she called 911 and wanted to speak to Obama to fix the problem of no McNuggets.
No chicken McNuggets called 911.
We may have a new contender for whatever category this fits into.
Several residents of Fairfield and New Haven, Connecticut.
Now New Haven is where Yale is.
Fairfield is where I go every July to play in the member guest golf tournament at the country club of Fairfield.
So I have been to this place.
I have seen it with my my eyes, both eyes.
Several residents of Fairfield and New Haven, Connecticut, called 9 1 1 over the weekend when their cable and internet went out in the middle of breaking bad.
They didn't call a cable company.
They didn't call their internet provider, and the snivels today, sorry.
Don't have a call, just have the snippels.
They called 9 11.
This is happening with greater frequency.
What does it indicate?
It indicates something.
It is it's it's the most direct route to central authority they know.
9 1 1 is the fastest way to get to the government.
It's faster than going to the building, it's faster than trying to find a phone number.
You just call 911 and you think you're getting hold of government.
So people's cable TV goes out in New Haven, Connecticut, where Yale is.
You can't get chicken McNuggets in Port St. Lane.
You call the government.
Is it any wonder the millennials are in a fog of aimlessness?
As I say in the stack of stuff today, there's a lot of focus on the millennials, and I'm looking forward to getting to it.
In addition, the Middle East, folks, uh this is being mismanaged so amazingly, we are in the midst of a genuine potential powder keg taking place over there, and it's all happening because of the rabid incompetence of the uh leadership of this country.
Series of stories.
First off from the daily beast of all places.
And I'm I have to I have to point out this is a sort of an interesting twist on the limbaugh theorem.
Senator Obama administration secretly suspended military aid to Egypt.
The U.S. government has decided privately to act as if the military takeover of Egypt was a coup, temporarily suspending most forms of military aid, despite deciding not to announce publicly a coup determination one way or the other, according to a leading U.S. Senator.
The Senator is Patrick Leakey Leahy.
Known for leaking, Senator DePenz, our pet nickname for him.
The office of Senator Leahy, the head of the appropriation state and foreign operations subcommittee, told the Daily Beast yesterday, military aid to Egypt has been temporarily cut off.
Senator DePenn's understanding is that aid to the Egyptian military has been halted as required by law.
Now, in this case, in looking at this through the prism of the Limbaugh Theorem, Obama is leaking something that he would like his leftist constituents to believe.
While his public stance is the opposite.
That is, what's happened here is that Obama has told Leakey Leahy and other dependable anonymous leakers that he has cut off aid to the Egyptian military.
But his minions, like Jen Pisaki at the State Department, the spokesbabe there, are still saying they haven't decided what to do about aid.
So this way, see, Obama gets to have it both ways.
He can show his constituents that he still cares about the Muslim Brotherhood without having to declare that the military takeover was a coup.
He doesn't want to have to.
I mean, he was all for Morsi, he was all for the Brotherhood.
And his people have been thrown out of there.
He can't.
But he doesn't want to look ineffective and ineffectual.
He doesn't want to have to declare the military takeover in Egypt was a coup, because this would be a coup against him.
This would be a sign of great disrespect for Obama.
The military going against Obama's chosen leaders Over there, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Because once Obama declares that this has been a coup, he cannot undeclare that.
But the trouble is that this leak, that we've cut off aid, has ticked off the Saudis.
You don't want to tick off the Saudis if you're not going to okay things like the Keystone Pipeline.
You do not want to tick off the Saudis if you're going to oppose fracking.
If you're the modern day Democrat Party, led by the modern day socialist Barack Obama, and you are dead set against fossil fuels, if you're dead set in reality against American energy independence, if you do not want the United States to be free of dependence on Saudi Arabia and Middle East oil, then you don't tick off the Saudis.
You don't make them mad.
And that is what has happened here.
This is this is Obama voting present, essentially, like he did so often when he was a state senator in Illinois.
He's trying to have this both ways.
Pat Leahy really is one of the is such a phenomenal leaker that he was penalized for he lost a committee because of it, committee assignment.
And the stuff that he was leaking was during a Republican administration, and it was leaking, it was it was information that would do damage to the United States.
Much like Senator Kennedy going over to the Soviet Union and asking them to please be patient while Ronald Reagan was president.
Senator Kennedy actually did that.
Senator Leahy had his own turn at something like that, whatever it was he leaked.
I remember it.
My memory on it is unclear at the moment.
Anyway, it is well known.
If you want something weak, you let Leahy know about it.
So that's what happened here.
So Obama tells Leahy to leak something or let it tells Leahy something he knows he'll leak.
And and this something he wants his constituents to believe.
So he told Leahy and other anonymous leakers that he's cut off aid to the Egyptian military.
He he wants, you know, the the people that vote for him, who think that the military is the focus of evil in the modern world, who think that the you know, any military, horrible guns, whoever has them, ooh, ooh, ooh, just horrible, terrible Egyptian military, ooh, rotten guys, we'd rather have the brotherhood.
So Obama makes sure that it is leaked, that he has stood tall, and he's defunded the Egyptian military.
But then you go over to the State Department, you talk to his spokeswoman over there, Jen Pasaki, and then no, no, no, then no decision has been made about that yet.
And so Obama gets to have it both ways, gets to vote present.
He can show his leftist anti-war people that he still cares about the Muslim Brotherhood without having to declare that what has happened in Egypt is a coup.
Now, what this has resulted in is the Saudis being very upset and a blunt warning to countries critical of the Egyptian military crackdown and considering suspending aid, longtime U.S. allies Saudi Arabia suggested that the decisions they make now will have long-term consequences for their relationships in the Arab and the Muslim world.
The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, issued a lengthy statement yesterday, defending the military's actions in Egypt and informing countries that have threatened to withdraw aid, like us, that Arab and Muslim countries will not hesitate to help Egypt.
So basically the Saudis have promised to make up the difference.
If we indeed have withdrawn aid to Egypt, they'll make it up.
So in a nutshell on this, the Saudis are furious that the U.S. has cut off aid to Egypt.
And they only know that by virtue of Obama's leak to Pat Lahi.
All the other Gulf states, with the exception of Qatar, are ticked off about it.
now Qatar, or Qatar, depending on how you pronounce it.
That's run by the people who give us Al Jazeera, which give us the Arab Spring in the first place.
Qatar has always been supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its branches in Syria and Gaza.
That's known as Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood known as Hamas in Syria and in Gaza.
And this might help explain why Obama's such a huge fan to Qatar.
Anyway, between them, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates quickly pledged a total of twelve billion dollars to the military-installed interim government in Egypt, eclipsing the one and a half billion in military and other assistance that Egypt gets from the U.S. each year.
And the uh I want to note this quote here, the bottom of this story, this Cybercast News Service from the king in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah.
Let it be known to those who interfered in Egypt's internal affairs.
They themselves are fanning the fire of sedition and are promoting the terrorism which they call for fight.
Now, you may hate Saudis and you may think that uh it's it's they're not really allies.
So it's a powder keg that's being created over here.
This is instability to the max, if I may put it that way.
I'm gonna take a break because of the time.
Sit tight, we'll be back, folks.
Here's the famous story on the leak of Pat Lahay, Senator Leahy Vermont, Senator New York Times, July 29, 1987.
Senator Leahy, the former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said today that he resigned from the panel last January.
This is July story of 1987.
He resigned last January partly because he was angry with himself for having given a reporter an unclassified draft report on the Iran-Contra affair.
So essentially, Senator Leahy resigned because he was mad at himself for leaking.
It was not the Pat Lahee he knew.
That's not who he was, is how the apology goes today.
I'm sorry.
That's not who I am.
I really don't do those things that I did.
And I really don't say those things that I said, and I really don't think those things that I thought.
That isn't me.
That's not who I am.
That's what Leahy was basically saying.
He was mad at himself.
What he what he leaked was information on the Iran-Contra affair that he thought would be very damaging to President Reagan.
And it was damaging to the United States.
And he ended up leaving the committee for it.
Anyway, that's why Leahy is chosen.
He's a proven leaker.
That's why we call him Senator DePenz, affectionately.
It is why, whenever I am in the same room as Senator Leahy, he will not look me in the eye.
And that happens usually once every two years at a charity outing.
Anyway.
The point here, ladies and gentlemen, this is really amateur hour with what is happening in the Middle East.
And if we're not going to do things to make ourselves independent from oil that comes from that part of the world, then this is really stupid.
If we're going to if we're going to continue to veto the Keystone pipeline, if you're the Democrat Party and you're going to continue to attack fracking, if you're going to do everything you can to prevent the increase in output of domestic oil and natural gas, then we're going to be dependent on other places around the world, including Saudi Arabia, and you don't make them mad.
But Obama is only thinking about himself.
He's only thinking about himself and his constituencies or constituents, and he wants it both ways here.
He wants these rabid anti-everything leftists to think he's been Mr. Tough Guy and has suspended aid to the evil Egyptian military.
Wants it known, he's still supporting his buds in the Muslim Brotherhood.
But then you go to the State Department and ask them about the cutoff of aid and say, "No, no, no, we haven't reached that decision yet." Meanwhile, the Saudis and these other people who, they're not going to sit around and wait for Obama to figure out what he's actually going to do here and how they're going to take care of business.
in their own best interests.
And we don't have United States interests being represented here.
We have Obama's interests.
And the Democrat Party's interests and their agenda interests are what are guiding these decisions and movements in that powder keg over there.
Obama, the regime, has blown half of Obamacare's legal deadlines.
They've missed them.
And counting.
Lots more still straight ahead, my friends.
Don't go anywhere.
▲
Export Selection