All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
December 17, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
My friends, I want you to know something.
I really am trying to move on from the contreton with Il Papa.
I'm trying to move on, but they keep sucking me back in.
And they keep telling me that I have to embrace the suck.
They keep dragging me back in.
I keep trying to move past it, move beyond it, move on to other things, and they just keep taunting me out there.
Greetings, my good friends.
How are you?
It's great to have you here, Rush Lindbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network telephone number.
You want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbaugheibnet.com.
A leading gay lifestyle magazine, a gay rights magazine.
It's called The Advocate.
They promote gay rights.
They promote same-sex marriage.
And they're an in-your-face bunch, journalistically speaking.
And they have just named Pope Francis their person of the year.
The most powerful religious figure in the world opposing gay marriage, gay priests, gay this or gay that, gay whatever.
The advocate, what do you give this?
I'll tell you what they're doing here.
I know what's going on.
All of these other left-wing groups, they're jealous of the anti-capitalists on the left.
The Pope has moved their way, so they think this Pope is movable.
And so all these other groups are now basically, and it's like the rest of the left and their media.
They hope they can induce the Pope to move even further away from the church's doctrine.
That's what's going on.
Hey, Pope, you know what?
You're not such a bad guy after all.
You don't like Limbaugh and you don't like capitalism.
You're getting close to us, buddy.
So Time magazine can name you person of the year for your anti-capitalist rent.
Well, we're going to, it's sort of like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he's done anything.
This is the militant gay rights community giving the Pope their person of the year award sort of on the come, hoping that the Pope moves in their direction.
It's unbelievable.
It's unbelievable.
I really people keep saying, you know, you deserve half of every award this Pope is getting.
And I said, no, no, no, no, no.
Don't, don't, that's, that's not, that's not all the case.
Now, the advocate, the gay rights magazine, they note that Pope is, Pope Francis toned down his rhetoric a little, and they even quote him as saying way back in 2010 when the same-sex marriage debate was raging, the Pope said, let's not be naive.
This is not a simple political struggle.
It's an attempt to destroy God's plan.
It's not just a bill, but a move of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
That's what the Pope, that's what this Pope said.
And they still gave him their Person of the Year award.
Here's Jacob Tapper, our old buddy on CNN last night on a show called The Lead.
Jake Tappert, not happy about all of this.
In a move that seems to put the tiff in pontiff, Pope Francis is taking on some of his critics, presumably including Russ Limbaugh, who says he's preaching Marxism.
This all started about a month ago when the Pope railed against trickle-down economics, saying it does very little to help the poor.
That did not sit well with some conservatives.
Limbaugh called the Pope's comments pure Marxism and quote, puzzlingly wrong.
The Pope isn't sitting silent on this one.
He's tackling the criticism.
Head on.
Much to the chagrin of the drive-by media, who wish that the Pope had not responded because it was me.
So last night on Hannity, he had a guest, Democrat strategerist Mark Hanna.
Not to be confused with Jack Hanna of Animal and Zoo fame.
But I can see where people would get confused.
Anyway, Hannity said to Mark Hanna, you know, as a Catholic, I agree with Rush that the Pope sounds like he's against capitalism.
The Pope did not attack capitalism.
He attacked unfettered capitalism.
He's attacking a brand of capitalism that is based on greed is good and this kind of Wall Street financier mentality.
What the Pope is emphasizing is the type of capitalism, hyper capitalism, this kind of greedy capitalism.
You know, this guy has swerved into it.
He doesn't know what he's talking about.
That's not what the Pope really.
I mean, these guys, this guy, the Pope is having words put in his mouth.
That's what this guy wants the Pope to have said.
This guy wants, and this is why it's being interpreted this way.
That is an Occupy, that wacko leftist group, Occupy for America, whatever, that's the way they look at capitalism.
So now they're just putting their view and their words in the Pope's mouth and thinking, oh, yeah, Pope, he's one of us.
This is why he got the award, because they're announcing Occupy.
What is the name of that group?
Occupy?
Occupy Wall Street.
Yeah, Occupy Wall Street.
And so that's what Leonardo DiCaprio.
You're going to get this new movie out, The Wolf of Wall Street.
And it's always the case, actors go out and portray real people, and then they become those people.
They go out and pretend to be real people, and then they become experts in those real people.
And not just that, they become experts in what the real person did.
For example, Jessica Lang and a couple of other actresses way, way back in the 80s, they starred in a movie about the Dust Bowl and how tough it was on the farms in the Midwest back during the Dust Bowl.
And because of their movie, they were called to testify before Senator Cranston's committee on agricultural problems.
And all they were were actresses.
They had portrayed people in a movie.
All of a sudden, they became actresses.
And actually, all it was, Cranston was just a dirty old man.
He would do anything.
Morgan Fairchild up there.
He just, you know, whatever pretense to get some actresses in his office, he'd do it.
I mean, he was considered a swordsman by some of those people.
Remember that?
You probably don't, Snerdley, because you weren't paying attention back then.
But I'm telling you, Alan Cranston, I mean, he might have looked like Jurassic Park, but for some, he had something with these young actresses.
Anyway, Leonardo DiCaprio is the late.
Now, you know that Leo is a huge global warming advocate.
This guy has just naively, ignorantly bought into the entire hoax and then some thinks Al Gore is the greatest human being that's ever lived.
He practically broke down in tears one year at the Epidemic Awards when Gore won for his movie.
And Leo's up on stage shaking his head and just, oh, wow.
Oh, wow.
It is such an honor to be breathing the same air.
By the way, Al Gore said numerous times that by now the North Pole would be absent ice.
He did numerous times, predicted five years ago that North Pole ice would not exist, that it would all have melted.
I kid you not, dead wrong on everything.
And yet these people continue to get awards.
They continue to be prominent.
They continue to be listened to.
And so DiCamprio portrays this really despicable character.
And all of a sudden, DiCamprio is now an expert on capitalism, joining the Pope.
On CNN's New Day, Nichelle Turner interviewed DiCaprio about his new movie and said, why did it take so long to get this movie made?
I feel like it's an accurate reflection of everything that's wrong with the world we live in today.
The attitude of this character, Jordan Belfort, is directly attributed to the destruction of our economy.
You can attribute this attitude, this darker side of human nature, to everything that has gone wrong in society, really.
It's a microcosm of a much bigger story, you know.
This sort of hedonistic attitude, this desire to do only what's right for ourselves and no one else, it's a reflection of a much bigger story.
Okay, so he plays a role in a movie, and now that character and his story is the reason why we are in the economic circumstances that we're in today.
It's the reason why everybody's in it for themselves only and why there's so much selfishness and greed going on.
So now the pop culture cartoon of capitalism is in vogue again.
It's exactly right.
Who is it that projects and lives off the image of hedonism?
Then Hollywood.
Hollywood, the whole public relations machine of Hollywood is based on actors and actresses being perceived by the low information crowd as doing nothing but pursuing sybaritic delights.
Pure total hedonism.
Life is the red carpet.
Life is the after party.
Life is the pre-party.
Life is the opening.
I mean, I, I, well, that's his point.
Snurdley is saying that there was a picture of this guy on a yacht with nothing but babes.
That's what this character in the movie did.
I mean, this guy in the movie who wrote the book, Jordan Belfort, did live one of these super hedonistic lifestyles.
But my point is, oh, he did.
It's an isolated case.
Now here comes DiCaprio telling everybody who listens to these interviews that he does, and that's the low information crowd, that that's what's wrong with America.
That guy that I just played in this movie, that's America.
That's what's wrong.
That's what's wrong with capitalism.
Never mind that DiCaprio is becoming insufferably wealthy because of it.
The hypocrisy totally misses these people.
They have to get themselves entered into the political fray.
They have to do it even in, they're just proud of their utter, total ignorance about what they're talking about.
Anyway, that's that.
Quick time out.
We've got lots to do today here on the EIB network as we chog on down the tracks.
It's Christmas time here in America, and we will continue after this.
Don't go away.
And greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limboy here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
You know, this guy in the movie, the wolf of Wall Street, Jordan Belford, he was convicted of fraud.
He went to jail.
He did not get away with it.
He was not celebrated.
He was not held up as a role model.
He was not honored.
He did not define anything other than criminal activity.
He was found guilty.
He was convicted of fraud and went to jail.
So what's wrong with the system?
However, there is a story today about a top EPA official, Environmental Protection Agency, for those of you in Rio Linda.
And this top official at the EPA defrauded the EPA out of more than a million dollars in wages and benefits by pretending to be a CIA operative.
Now, will there be a movie made about him?
I think if somebody said, hey, DiCaprio, we got a great movie here for you.
A government bureaucrat, environmental protection agency, it's one of the most fraudulent places you can find in our government.
There's a guy there, Leo, who defrauded the EPA out of more than a million dollars in wages and benefits, just stole it pretending to be a CIA operative.
How would you like the lead?
Think they'll make a movie out of that?
You think this guy from the EPA will even go to jail?
Will anybody even press charges on the guy?
Will there be a movie made about him?
It's right there in the New York Post: EPA officials' $1 million scam, phony CIA spy career.
The highest paid official of the US EPA built the government out of nearly $1 million in fraudulent wages and benefits by convincing his bosses that he was also a CIA operative and leaving for long periods at a time.
Beale, the guy's name, served as a senior policy analyst, was a leading authority on climate change.
See how this all doves tails?
So you've got a leading authority on climate change, which is itself a fraud, who then defrauds the EPA by the guy's a total nut.
He's an absolute committed liberal leftist wacko.
He got away with not doing his job for months at a time by telling his bosses he was off on a CIA mission, often in Pakistan or at the agency's headquarters in Virginia, and they believed him.
And after a while, his stories became to be unbelievable, and finally he was looked into.
This guy was paid more than $200,000 in salary and benefits.
He didn't show up for work at the EPA for six months in 2008.
He billed the government for first-class airplane trips to London, where he stayed at five-star hotels.
Now, how dumb were the people at the EPA to buy this nonsense?
And these are the people who are telling businesses and the rest of us how to live.
These are the people behaving outside the Constitution, writing regulations for both individuals and small businesses, which are punitive and damaging.
And so here's a guy right inside the EPA, leading authority on climate change, which is a total fraud itself, defrauding the EPA.
So you think we could interest Martin Scorsese Into doing a movie on this as an example of liberal bureaucratic government run amok.
Think we could have DiCaprio star in the movie and then he goes out and does the interviews promoting the release, talking about how, yep, this is how it is throughout our government.
And this is the kind of thing that we've got to bring to a screeching halt.
This is the kind of stuff that's damaging everybody's belief in and credibility in the system.
Think we'd ever have that happen?
No way.
But let these people's little cliches get dangled in front of them and so forth, and they behave in a way that they cannot control themselves.
I'm just going to tell you, Mr. DiCaprio and Mr. Scorsese and all the rest of you, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has a lot more power over our lives than Wall Street has ever had.
It isn't even close.
And you insult everybody's intelligence by doing a movie about this renegade criminal and then trying to make it pass it off as though it's standard ordinary behavior day in and day out, which is classic, folks.
It is exactly what the left does.
This is how they tar and feather capitalism.
And the Pope agreeing with this is why that so bothered me.
Because it's a cliched, stereotypical view that is not founded in any kind of substance or reality.
And I don't care what these people are actors and pretending.
They're not pretending that they're not experts.
They're not pretending that they don't know everything about whatever it is they've just pretended to be.
And they may claim that they have no interest in politics, but they're out there trying to influence people's opinions at every turn.
And so if they're going to do that, they're going to be reacted to.
They're going to be commented upon.
If you've seen the news, the NSA, the federal judge Richard Leon has declared that the NSA sweeping of phone calls is unconstitutional.
Fourth Amendment violates search and seizure.
And one of his big assertions, in his opinion, was that the government, despite being asked numerous times to produce evidence, has not been able to produce any evidence that whatever they're doing is working.
They haven't been able to produce any evidence that they're actually getting closer to capturing terrorists or other criminals.
And I'm kind of conflicted because the knee-jerk reaction is to support Judge Leon and the ruling and actually to even almost stand up and applaud and say, finally, somebody is willing to find something in this regime unconstitutional.
But then something happened today that made me question it.
I'll explain.
We get back.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rushlin Bohr, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Last week, I don't know if it was a caller or if I just launched into this on my own.
Wait a minute.
What was I going to?
Wait a minute.
What was I going to explain?
I'm having a brain freeze.
I was going to explain something right when I went to the break.
It'll come to me.
I've got 15 things going on here at once, folks.
I'm trying to stay focused.
There was something right before the break.
I said, hang on, it'll come to me.
I'll explain when I get back.
And I've forgotten what it was.
When I went to the break, I had to focus on something totally unrelated to the radio show.
You guys in there remember what I was talking about or not?
Nobody.
Little girl with the things.
No, no, no, no.
I didn't say that on the air because I don't know if the audio's work yet.
You know, this is fascinating.
Nobody that works for this program was listening either.
And I've forgotten what I said I was going to explain right.
And I'm sure all of you are screaming at the radio what it was.
Anyway.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, that the NSA, the NSA thing, here's what happened.
Yeah, like everybody else, when the ruling came down and it was found to be, NSA found to be unconstitutional, like everybody else, I sort of applaud it if finally something this regime is doing, even if just a little thing here, is being found unconstitutional.
And then I was watching Fox today, and a man that I really admire, former attorney general and a federal judge himself, Michael McCasey, was being interviewed by Bill Hemmer.
And McCasey says he knows Judge Leon, the judge that made the ruling in the NSA case and found NSA data mining and the phone calls unconstitutional.
He said, I like Judge Leon and I respect him, but he's dead wrong on this.
He said, the only thing the NSA is collecting is metadata.
And Hemmer said, well, what's metadata?
It's the phone number.
And it's basically the phone number of both phones.
And it's nothing to do with the content, nothing to do with the identities behind the phone numbers.
That's not possible to know.
There could be anybody using anybody's phone to make a phone call.
So there's no way that the NSA is spying on people here.
They're simply collecting metadata and therefore doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
And he was really fervently serious about this.
And he was worried that all of this hyperattention and misunderstanding was going to end up really hampering national security apparatus, national security efforts to discover and detect genuine potential terrorist or criminal activity.
And the metadata is basically just a traffic analysis.
And if the metadata is illegal, then the NSA may as well go out of business.
There isn't any content involved.
Nobody, according to General McCasey, Attorney General McCasey, nobody's phone calls are being listened to.
The NSA is not dialing in, tapping, and actually monitoring the voices on phone calls.
They don't even know who's making and receiving calls.
All they know is the two phone numbers and some other information.
But it isn't content.
And another point that was made, he says, you've got to be very careful here because there are people who really do want to neuter our intel agencies.
There are Americans, there are leftists who really do want to hamper the CIA, who want to hamper the NSA.
And they're taking the occasion of what Snowden has leaked, Edward Snowden.
And he said, McCasey didn't say this, but it got me went, the media is so excited about this.
That's a red flag for me.
I'm just telling you.
If the media really dig something, normally the media would not be happy about the regime being found to be unconstitutional.
Normally, that would irritate the media because that'd be a black mark on Obama.
It'd be a black mark on the regime.
How do you dare say that our president's breaking the law?
In this case, they're fully behind this ruling.
And it's natural that a lot of people would, in the process of misunderstanding what the NSA is doing, would also support the ruling.
It almost nabbed me.
And I was not standing and cheering when I heard that the judge had found it unconstitutional.
I wasn't that exuberant, but I did find myself tending to support it simply because I think this regime is behaving outside the Constitution on a daily basis.
And any action that signifies that and identifies it and reins it in would tend to get my support.
Then I saw the media reaction to this and said, wait a minute, they're too happy about this.
So I don't trust the media.
The media's interests and mine do not coincide.
They're leftists, folks.
This is how I do it.
Some people may think, well, this is awfully simplistic, Rush.
No, it isn't.
It really is very simple.
And it is really very truthful.
The left is who they are, and I don't agree with them about anything.
And when they're happy about something, I generally am not.
And so then I saw McCasey on Fox, and he's really, really worried about this, which then gave me pause about this.
And that's what I was going to explain at the bottom of the hourbreak.
And it's something that I'm still spending some time informing myself on, trying to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to it.
Now, I forget was last week or the week before, there was either a call asking my opinion or else I just launched into it based on something that happened in the news.
But what I said was, I was trying to explain why the Republicans were not fighting back on anything having to do with Obama and the Democrats.
And I said, because I think they're shell-shocked.
I think they've got PTSD.
I think they're scared to death.
They don't see Obama plummeting in the polls.
And if they do, they don't believe it.
They're just shell-shocked.
And this government shut down the fact they got blamed for it, that they've been called racist.
I'm telling you, they're shell-shocked.
They've got post-traumatic stress disorder.
And then that'd be got a call from a guy.
That's not what it is, Rush.
They agree with all of this.
They're not shell-shocked.
They just, they believe in big government, too.
They don't really oppose Obamacare.
And I said, no, that may be somewhat true.
But I do think I've talked to them.
You don't have to talk to them to know.
You can see they are shell-shocked.
They are scared to death to say anything critical of Obama and the Democrats.
And they'll do anything to avoid a government shutdown, including give Obama what he wants, which we just saw.
Well, today in the Washington Post, there's a column by a man named Mark Thiessen.
I think that's how I pronounce it.
I've not heard it pronounced.
It's spelled T-H-I-E-S-S-E.
It might be Thiessen, but.
And the headline, budget deal shows the GOP has PTSD.
Now, I made this point back on December 12th.
That's when it was.
That was five days ago.
So it would have been last week.
And just joining Mr. Thiessen's piece in progress.
So why are Republicans agreeing to reverse their only fiscal victory of the Obama era?
Simple.
The GOP has PTSD.
Republicans emerge in their last budget battle with a bad case of post-traumatic stress disorder, scarred by the government shutdown.
They're terrified of having another fiscal fight with the president in January.
So they are unilaterally conceding before it even begins.
Well, there you go.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not accusing him of plagiarism.
Is that what you're asking me?
No, no, no, no.
No.
I don't think Mr. Thiessen listens here.
I'll tell you what happened.
It's either great minds think alike or somebody did listen and tell him what that person thought, not mentioning me.
You know, somebody listened to this.
You know what sounds good?
Somebody Thiessen knew, friend of Thiessen.
This happens, folks, this happens to me all the time.
Let me reverse it to explain it.
A friend of mine will give me a point of view on something that they want me to think they thought of.
And then I will use it and I find out they heard it said by somebody else, but didn't tell me that.
They wanted me to think it was theirs.
And then I end up being accused that this is why I no longer use anything anybody else tells me.
So I would lay you 10 to 1.
This is not, he was blatantly steal.
This is not, if anything, he probably agrees, obviously agrees.
They are shell-shocked.
They're scared to death, and it's not good.
There's no reason to be.
They gave up the sequester gains.
They have financed Obamacare all because they're afraid of another government shutdown.
Whether they're responsible for it or not, they're scared stiff that they're going to get blamed and that there's nothing they can do about it.
And so there's no reason to oppose Obama.
They're scared to death to do it.
Now, the fact that there are two people now accusing the Republicans of being in post-traumatic stress, that's cool.
But I don't, people in my ear right now, what he stole it from, he didn't steal it.
If anything, somebody he knows, hey, Mark, you know what it is.
I'll tell you what it is.
And he thought, you know, that makes sense, inspired him to write, or he came up with his own on his own.
Regardless.
Now, I got to take a brief time out, my friends.
Sit tight.
There's much more straight ahead.
Vanity Fair has a piece.
Folks, I don't know if you know this or not, but the drive-bys and Vanity Fair are deeply worried, deeply concerned, because within the millennials, George W. Bush is experiencing a resurgence.
He has become a hipster icon.
George W. Bush to the millennials is Mr. Kuhl.
And They are livid about this at Vanity Fair, and that means elsewhere in the drive-bys.
Well, I will explain it.
I have to take a brief time out.
Sit tight.
We'll be back with more after this.
Doing my best to stay focused here with everything that's popping.
All right.
Vanity Fair concerned by George W. Bush's hipster icon resurgence.
Prominent, it's by Francis Martell, who's the author, prominent American painter and philanthropist George W. Bush has managed a resurgence as a beloved personality and even online hipster icon.
So warns Vanity Fair, asking with dread how a man so uncool could be so popular with young people.
Now, I take it back, Francis Martell is not the Vanity Fair.
I don't, whoever sent this did not, I have no idea who wrote this.
I'm sorry.
It's one of these days.
All I know is what this person is saying that Vanity Fair said.
Vanity Fair is very upset.
Bush has returned to the public eye in recent months for a number of unlikely reasons.
His leaked paintings garnered much attention on Gawker, BuzzFeed, and all matter of blogs with young readers.
Then he sent a letter of support to that kicker from the University of Alabama who blew the field goal that resulted in Auburn winning the game.
And that add-a-boy letter, don't worry about it, man.
Hang in there.
I know.
Things go bad, but they'll always come back, whatever it was.
And then the death of Mandela turned the world's eye to the United States efforts in South Africa, of which the Bush administrations were second to none.
And Vanity Fair notes with some alarm that it doesn't seem that liberals and hipsters have forgotten what they hated so much about Bush, that he's uncool, lame, establishment, square, and odious.
Rather, the hipsters reading BuzzFeed, Thought Catalog, New York Magazine, and others are simply too young to remember moveon.org in the heyday of Code Pink and the protests.
They see Bush as an internet-friendly cat-loving because of his paintings.
Icon hat-wearing painter, Instagram savant.
The point is, Vanity Fair is very upset because Bush apparently is in the process of totally revamping his image with young people.
They seem as cool.
They seem as hip.
They don't remember the concerted effort of five to six years that the drive-bys engaged in for make people just despise and hate Bush over the Iraq war.
These new admirers of Bush have even forgotten that the president was supposed to be dumb.
So, anyway, the bottom line here is Vanity Fair is sending out a clarion call to everybody in the media that they're going to have to go back and start focusing on Bush again because he is in the middle of a resurgence.
He's becoming hip, compassionate, and cool to young people, millennials, because he paints cats.
It's animal lover.
The Mandela funeral caused there to be all kinds of news commentary on all of the aid the Bush administration was responsible for for Africa aid, this kind of thing.
And the letter that he sent the football player from Alabama, the kicker.
And they just are beside themselves over this.
They don't know what to do about it.
So they're sending out this clarion call to everybody in the media that it may be time to focus back on Bush and take him out again.
By the way, folks, this Vanity Fair piece on Bush is really snarky.
It's as snarky as anything else ever was about Bush.
But the comments by readers to the Vanity Fair piece are really positive.
And I'll tell you, the media, it's under the radar right now, but the media is livid about this.
And I've given you some examples of that too.
But there's a bigger lesson here that may be worth pointing out.
▲
Export Selection