All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:19
June 10, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of Hope Rush 2470 podcast announcer desk in my real radio announcer studio.
And I am diligently preparing today's program deeply concentrated on a number of things, or in deep concentration would be the most proper way to say it.
And the official program observer, Bo Snerdley, walks and says, I need some help understanding something.
I said, well, you've come to the right place.
He says, I don't understand.
What are they trying to do with all these kids, all these immigrant kids crossing the border, flooding the border?
It's an election year.
What in the world are they trying to do?
And I said, you're looking at this through the prism of this being an election year?
Yeah, yeah.
I said, Joe, you think that Obama is slitting his throat, cutting his own throat in an election year for the Democrats by flooding the southern border with a bunch of refugee immigrant kids?
Yeah, yeah.
So you're looking at it the wrong way.
Understandably, I mean, it is an election year, and people do tend to look at events they think are political in terms of an election, this being an election year.
And then there are a number of assumptions that people make, such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt the Democrats, such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt Hillary, such as Obama wouldn't want to do anything to hurt himself.
And I have to tell you, speaking of Hillary, by the way, am I the only one tired of talking about this woman and whatever her future is?
It just, I'm sorry, we're going to talk about her.
It's a fiduciary responsibility I have, if nothing else.
It's an issue responsibility, but I am worn out.
I'm fed up.
I'm no longer intrigued by what the Clintons are doing.
I guess A, because I know.
There's no mystery to the Clintons for me.
I know exactly what they're doing.
I know exactly what she's angling for in all of this.
But we'll talk about it.
I just, I don't know if it's a bad sign or not.
What do you think?
A bad sign?
I am just bored to tears with Mrs. Clinton.
I know, I know that we're just kicking up again here with Clinton era number three, for all intents and purposes.
Anyway, about the flooding of the zone and Bergdahl and the prisoner swap with the Taliban, ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama has two and a half years to transform this country.
He's got two and a half years to remake this country.
He's got two and a half years to do whatever he wants to do to this country.
Two and a half years.
He also knows that he's not on any ballot that's coming up in this election year.
So it doesn't matter to his electoral fortunes, anything that happens here.
He's on a mission.
This country is going to pay a price for its past transgressions.
He's going to see to that.
Let me turn this question around.
Forget the election year.
Why in the world?
What is somebody tell me?
What is the compassionate reason?
What is the common sense reason?
What is any good reason for throwing open the borders and allowing tens of thousands, forget illegal immigrants, refugees?
Why do this?
Who benefits?
What is the point?
The right way to look at this question, I think, is not through the prism of the election coming up in November or this being an election year and the impact this is going to have on Obama's fortunes or even the Democrat fortunes.
Now, one thing, in a political sense, you could say, well, maybe this is designed to put pressure on the Republicans to go ahead and pony up on amnesty.
Just finally get in gear and do it.
And there may be something to that.
I don't think so, but others might, and they could be right.
If you look at Paul Ryan, he's back on this amnesty kick.
I mean, the Republicans in Washington are hell-bent on having amnesty get done prior to the election with them getting credit for it.
So if you flood the zone with illegal immigrants, and by the way, the fact that their children's not incidental, if you allow them in, you welcome them in, and you say, oh, my goodness, it's so sad.
It's so horrible.
Look at these ragtag children.
We're the great United States.
We must.
You've got to let their parents in, don't you?
We don't want them to be parentless.
We don't want them to be homeless.
We've got to find a way to get their parents in.
What does anybody think is happening here?
This is, this is, somebody tell me what the benefit is here for whoever, if you can think of one.
I'm, um.
I'm kind of on the edge here in being point-blank, straightforward, full-bore honest about this, because I have been for six and a half years, and it may not be productive.
Being full-bore honest may not be persuasive.
Maybe so scary to contemplate, so outrageous that people automatically reject it and look for something that's less painful.
People just do not, cannot, will not accept that they've elected somebody to be president that doesn't like this country and thinks this country is not worth what everybody else does and doesn't think that what we have become can be justified.
So that this country must be made to pay a price.
Okay, look at this.
Bergdahl.
Forget Bergdahl.
Forget who Bergdahl is.
Forget whatever happened and forget his parents.
Just look at the deal.
One of our guys for five of some of the most reprobate of them.
Five of some of the greatest threats to this country ever.
And we've just let them go and we've just restocked, replenished the enemy.
Why?
Could it be that there are elements of this regime that don't really think of the Taliban as the enemy?
That they are just as justified with their grievances as we might be in ours.
Go back and analyze any question or answer that Obama has given when asked about American exceptionalism.
What does he say?
Paraphrasing, well, I'm sure that they think they're exceptional in Great Britain, too.
I believe in American exceptionalism, but I'm sure they think they're exceptional in Guinea-Bissau.
I think they think they're exceptional in Sri Lanka.
What that means is there's no such thing as American exceptionalism.
It's a bunch of people bragging.
But hey, they are just as justified in thinking they're decent and they're good and they're exceptional as we are in thinking that.
Have you heard, I'm to paraphrase this too, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
All right, well, it may not be a cliché as far as Obama's concern.
Maybe the Taliban, hey, you know, who says they can't have Afghanistan?
Who says we shouldn't negotiate?
Who says that they're not justified?
Who says that they're not legitimate?
Why in the world would you restock them?
Why would you willingly release five of the most sworn dangerous enemies in this country?
I don't care what you get for it.
Why would you do it?
I think these are questions that have answers.
Why would you flood the zone with tens of thousands of refugee children, uneducated, obviously poor, not able to support themselves, obviously?
Why would you do it?
It's not a matter of why wouldn't you stop it?
It's why would you do it?
I mean, everybody woke up one day last week and saw this is happening.
The Border Patrol says they can't stop it.
They're overwhelmed.
The governor of Arizona's back.
Jan Brewer, Pullier Harold, we do.
You add up everything else that's happening that we've learned and continue to learn.
IRS, you name it.
You go down the list.
It's patently obvious what is happening here.
It's also patently obvious that we don't have a whole lot of people who want to admit it, acknowledge it, or even think about it.
You see this?
Boko Haram kidnaps more women.
UK Guardian, I tell you, these are some brave guys.
You challenge that hashtag, you got some gonads.
I'm telling you.
And these guys apparently are fearless.
That hashtag, I mean, that's, you throw that hashtag, bring back our girls.
I mean, that says something.
I mean, that's.
And these guys are just us.
I mean, they just, you and your hashtag.
Suspected Boko Haram gunmen have reportedly kidnapped 20 women from a nomadic settlement in northeast Nigeria near the town of Chibok, where the Islamic militants abducted nearly 300 girls in April, most of whom are still missing, despite the power of the Twitter hashtag, bring back our girls.
Alaji Tar, a member of the one of the vigilante groups set up to resist Boko Haram's attacks, said that the men from Boko Haram arrived at midday last Thursday, forced the women to enter their vehicles at gunpoint.
Hundreds of people flashed the hashtag at them and it didn't stop them.
It was stunning to see.
A lot of local residents had that hashtag on a piece of paper and they just, here comes Boko Haram with weapons and guns and kidnapping women and these people are holding up signs with a hashtag and Boko Haram didn't stop.
Can you believe it?
What brave guys.
I'll tell you what, you flout that hashtag and you're going to have Obama to deal with just like Bashar Assad did.
Or, well, whatever.
News of the latest kidnapping came as the people of Miduguri buried more than 100 bodies almost a week after the Boko Harem attack.
Local leaders said that many more victims of the attacks had yet to be found.
So now these are women.
These are not little girls.
The 300 original kidnapped victims were girls.
These are women.
And these Boko harem thugs are now totally out of control.
So new hashtag now.
We have Bring Back Our Girls.
Now it's time for Bring Back Our Women.
Let me give you one more perspective on the it's not an influx.
I mean, we're being overwhelmed by these child refugees.
You remember there was a program that Obama and Eric Holder conceived called Fast and Furious.
You remember that?
You know what that was?
I mean, that was a long time ago.
People may have forgotten.
Fast and Furious.
Here's the upshot of Fast and Furious.
The Obama administration really wanted a serious attack on the Second Amendment, and they wanted that attack to come from the American people.
They wanted the American people to get so mad at the wanton use of weapons, such as on schools and wherever they happen.
They knew that they didn't have the political ability on their own to survive politically if they just issued an executive order wiping out the Second Amendment, which if they could do, they would.
And so they had to design some scheme that was in their hopes and dreams and get the American people just fit to be tied outraged over the existence of guns.
So the short version of the story is that the regime allowed massive weapons to be purchased from gun stores in southern states, predominantly Arizona, and to have those weapons then walked across the border into Meiko, where they ended up in the hands of people in drug cartels.
Those are bad people.
They're very mean people.
And in fact, all of that happened.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent ended up being shot by one of those guns, as well as 200 other people were shot.
Some died.
And the purpose of Fast and Furious was to create this impression in the minds of the American people that guns are so out of control that a drug gang can cross the border and go to a gun store and buy up 10 or 20 of them at a time and go back to the cartel headquarters in Mexico and start killing people.
We've got to do something.
That's what they wanted to create.
The problem was the drug cartels were not crossing the border and buying the guns.
The Obama administration was arranging for the guns to be bought and then transported to Mexico.
And then they sat around and waited for the drug cartels and the other bad guys to start using guns that were easily traceable to American gun stores.
They wanted the American people to be outraged.
Not at them.
They didn't intend for any of that to be learned.
All they wanted was the news to be filled with stories about guns easily obtained in American gun stores in the hands of drug cartel thugs being used to shoot innocent people.
Thought was that you would rise up in righteous indignation and demand instant brand new gun control laws where everybody had a gun would have to surrender.
It backfired, didn't work.
The truth was learned, and everything I told you became public knowledge.
Well, I think it's possible the same type of scheme is in play here with these kids, these refugee kids.
I think maybe the regime is thinking along the same lines.
It's possible.
Just an idea.
You flood the southwestern United States with tens of thousands of the essence of innocence.
Young children, by definition, not self-sufficient.
By definition, totally dependent.
By definition, without their parents.
And you create, hopefully, in the public mind, an outcry of outrage and sympathy.
How can we allow this to happen?
We must do amnesty.
And it could well be they're thinking the same theoretical thoughts with this as they did with Fast and Furious.
That's the charitable analysis, I might say.
The truth is probably far more penetrating than that.
But if you want to cut them some slack, then you could say that, well, they're just trying to repeat Fast and Furious with illegal immigrant children instead of guns.
Could well be.
But then if you look at this through the prism of it being an election year, it all falls apart.
It doesn't make sense.
Why would a Democrat president willingly attach himself to this policy by either encouraging it or not doing anything to stop it in an election year when you figure most people are going to make the party responsible for this pay?
That's why I throw out the idea this has any election year applications or implications.
I think there's something far different going on with this.
I think it's all rooted, ladies and gentlemen, in the fact that Obama only has two and a half years left and it's crunch time.
Maybe it's time to panic.
And remember Cloward Piven?
You remembered that?
What's the point of Cloward Piven?
These are two professors, sociologists at Columbia, who also did not like America.
And their theory to destroy the country was to simply overwhelm the welfare system to the point that it couldn't any longer handle it.
To create millions of people literally wandering the streets with nothing.
No money, no food, because the government simply can't take care of all of them.
It was their way of discrediting capitalism and illustrating capitalism as a giant failure by overwhelming the socialist welfare system.
Well, within the context of Cloward Piven, what might we say about flooding the zone of southwestern America with young children who are by definition uneducated, by definition poor, by definition not self-reliant?
What would you say?
I mean, we're compassionate people.
They get sick, we're going to take care of them.
They can't eat, we're going to feed them.
They can't find water.
We're going to give them whatever, right?
We're a compassionate country.
But we don't have the resources for this anymore, do we?
Yeah, I might.
I might.
I might give you a little overview of what I've found in iOS 8 sometime today.
I might do that.
What is this?
Are yes or no on my question?
Do it or not do it.
All right.
No, I might give you an overview of IOS 8 sometime today, toward the end of the program, maybe.
In the meantime, let's see.
Let's start.
Let's grab a phone call.
Pottsville, Pennsylvania.
James, you're first today.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rosh Lumba.
I got a question.
Do you have kids?
Do I have kids?
I have nieces and nephews.
Okay.
Now, what if...
Now, wait a second.
Are you...
Is your name James?
Yes.
Okay.
What if something happened to one of your nieces or nephews and you wanted to bring them back home?
Will you want social media to help you bring them back?
Well, I actually wouldn't expect social media to really succeed in bringing them back.
If it makes you feel better to use social media to alert people that your kids are gone or whatever, then that's fine.
But thinking that it's going to get them returned, I would not fall into that trap myself.
I'm not saying that it's a trap.
I'm saying with all technology today, social media would be the best way to bring back your loved one if they're kidnapped or if they're missing.
And would you want that help?
James, can you, look, I realize I'm getting old and maybe missing out of something.
Can you tell me where such a hashtag has resulted in the return of a kidnapped child?
I can't tell you necessarily how social media has helped with bringing back a kidnapped child, but I can tell you when a trillion miners were stuck in the mine, social media did help them to bring them out of their mine.
Well, really?
So if it weren't for social media, there would have been no attempt to rescue the miners kidnapped by the mine.
JSI again.
Well, I mean, okay, so you had the miners.
They're in their doing their job, and the mine decides to kidnap them.
Okay, they're gone.
They're lost.
They're in the mine.
They've been kidnapped by the mine.
All of a sudden, social media pops up, and that is why they were rescued.
Without social media, they would have just been left in there to die?
Without social media, it's a possibility they could have.
Really?
So the people in charge of rescuing the miners, if there hadn't been Bring Back Our Miners hashtags or whatever, they would have left them in there to die.
I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is that social media today does help.
And the hashtag Bring Back Our Girls is necessary because it's not illegal.
It's not illegal immigrants.
It's daughters of African women.
And they should be treated as human beings.
Well, the hashtag is not going to change the way they're being treated.
The hashtag doesn't know whether they're human beings.
The hashtag doesn't know whether they've been kidnapped or illegal or not.
The hashtag, like I say, if you want to engage in that kind of social media because you feel better after doing it, that's great.
That's wonderful, but it isn't going to get anybody back.
Okay, but I do want to tell you something about there's breaking news going on right now.
There's a shooting going on in a high school in Oregon.
I'm watching it right now.
I actually have, I'm actually seeing that.
I'm waiting for the hashtag.
Okay.
Okay.
If you're watching the news coverage and you've seen these kids tweeting their parents that they're okay, that they're safe, that they're alive, that brings a great comfort to them.
And if you're trying to tell those parents that their kids tweeting them isn't going to do anything.
I'm not saying that at all.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not saying that at all.
You keep changing the circumstances here.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying that the kids tweeting their parents that they're okay is not good or irrelevant.
I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying that if a gunman held those kids hostage, you could have 50 million hashtags and it wouldn't change anything.
The only thing that's changing is when somebody else goes in and shoots the gunman with another gun.
And until you can arm a hashtag and put a trigger on it and a bullet in it, it isn't going to matter.
Okay.
Now, speaking about arming and pulling triggers now, this lone gunnut, I don't know if this person has mental problems.
I don't know if this person is.
I can believe you wouldn't know that.
That's true.
But don't you think it's time that we and the people in the United States stop selling guns to certain people?
What kind of people?
Like people that have severe mental problems, people that don't know what they're doing when they have a gun in them, people.
How are you going to determine that?
So background checks, but guess what?
Congress, the House, the Republicans keep shooting it down to the.
Okay.
See, folks, I'm sure many of you are saying, what are you doing here, Rush?
If you stick with it long enough, you find out what's really going on here.
So it's the Republicans' fault that wackos end up with guns.
I'm not saying it's not.
You just did.
You just did.
It's not just the Republicans' fault that some people have guns.
I vote Democrat, and some Democrats do vote for gun rights as well.
I don't know why they're Democrats.
They shouldn't be, but they vote for gun rights as well.
And I respect that they vote for gun rights, but some politicians don't understand that.
I know, but you do.
See, you do.
So we need to put you in charge of determining who is qualified to have a gun and who isn't, because you obviously would be able to tell who should have one and who shouldn't.
I'm not saying you need to put me in charge of determining who or who shouldn't have one gun.
I'm saying that.
You think that we need to have better background checks and you need to have somebody that we can somehow stop these people from doing what they're doing by preventing them from getting the guns.
Okay, well, how are we going to identify?
You said they're wackos.
How are we going to identify them as wackos?
Do you realize you cannot accuse somebody of being mentally insane?
That's discrimination.
You can't accuse somebody of being anything.
It's discriminating against them.
You're being unfair to them.
You're being unequal and all that.
No, I'm not being unequal.
I'm just a concerned United States citizen about the public safety of my fellow people.
Why?
I thought the hashtags and social media fixed all of this.
That's what you're saying.
Right.
Okay.
Look, James, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
What were we talking about yesterday?
The low-information voter and how they don't know who they are.
Let me explain this hashtag phenomenon to you in another way.
I mean, our last caller really believes that hashtags are a productive way of dealing with social unrest or any other kind of problem, despite the fact they accomplished nothing.
Nothing toward the real objective.
Now, the hashtag can make you feel better, make you think you're doing something.
It can show others that you care.
And of course, in our touchy-feely society, it counts for almost everything now.
You have to do anything beyond care.
I mean, that's the definition of a great liberal.
It's the easiest, most gutless choice in the world you can make to be a liberal.
You just have to say you care.
Bam, that's it.
Actually doing something about something?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
The hashtag will do.
You remember the death and subsequent funeral and funeral procession for Princess Diana?
You remember how the media and a lot of people were stunned at the tens of thousands of people who showed up along the funeral procession route and the tens of thousands of people who put flowers at various spots.
And our social analysts on American TV said this is a sign of just how important to people Princess Diana was.
Now, me and my usual curmudgeon self quickly rejected that as not possible.
Not enough people knew Princess Diana to be personally impacted by her life or death.
But in the terms of celebrity pop culture journalism, well, now that's an entirely different thing.
And what was happening?
What was happening was a huge news story, the death of Princess Di, and how it happened.
And did she really love Doty?
And were her last words to Doty about Doty?
Or was she cursing the last meal she had, scrambled eggs at the Ritz?
Nobody knows.
This was what occupied people.
They wanted to be part of the story.
There was no social media at the time.
There was no way to tell everybody in a mass way how you cared.
There was no way to make yourself part of something that had captured the world.
So the closest thing you could do was go drop some flowers along the route and then stand there while the hearse and other parts of the motorcade went by.
It was just people wanting to be part of the story.
Well, today, Twitter allows that from your basement.
And a hashtag.
It allows you to be part of the story.
Makes you think you matter.
Makes you think you're doing something.
The fact that you aren't is irrelevant.
The fact that you think you are doing something is all that counts.
And there's a political party that's really good at appealing to these people.
And you all know which one it is.
Here's Nancy in Medina, Ohio, your next.
Is it Medina or Medina, Ohio?
We pronounce it Medina.
I knew it.
Thanks for writing in.
How are you?
I'm fine, thank you.
And how are you today?
Well, very well.
Thank you.
I'm also rushing.
The reason I called, Rush, you were talking about the children that are coming over the border illegally.
That's right.
And I know that those children are here to stay.
And I have the perfect solution.
And I want to take you back to the mindframe that was existing right after Obama's election and the euphoria among the liberal elites.
Well, the truth is, I know that they all have a spare bedroom, and they can each take one child, two child, take them into their homes, provide food, shelter, and education for them.
It wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime, and they would be doing something.
They'd actually be doing something instead of just talking.
So that's my solution.
And I wondered what you think of it.
Well, it doesn't have a chance in hell because the whole point of this is to make taxpayers pay for it.
That's how we're going to define American compassion.
We're not going to have these kids adopted.
We're going to, especially by liberals.
They don't even donate to charities.
Well, I don't know.
All we just need is one good liberal out there to organize it.
And maybe, maybe we'll take care of half of them that way.
And Nancy, am I living in La La Land?
God bless you.
Yes, you are.
The whole point is to have them on the street.
Oh.
Yes.
The whole point is to have them flooding shelters.
The whole point is to have them uncared for.
What a rotten place this country is.
Do you realize the whole point of this is to demand a government program to deal with this so the government gets even bigger?
It is a government problem, and it's a government problem because the people of this country are selfish and greedy because of capitalism and the Republicans.
Not to let me know.
Okay, well, maybe with my phone call, I might reach at least two liberals who will roll up their sleeves, step up to the plate, and do the job.
Believe it, you're reaching millions of liberals.
They're just smirking at you.
Right.
I know that if the bus came down, this is what I know.
The truth of it is, Rush, is if that bus came down their street with these children, they would all have their shades pulled and they'd be under their blankets hiding.
No, they wouldn't.
All they want to do is talk.
They would roadblock the street.
They wouldn't allow the bus to get in the neighborhood.
Okay.
Okay.
I can see I'm going nowhere with my solution.
Anyway, Nancy, your thoughts obviously serve a great purpose by illustrating the phoniness of the people who claim to have all the compassion.
I think what you really ought to do is start a hashtag, Adopt Our Kids.
Adopt Our Refugees.
Something like that.
Well, I'm not into hashtags.
Well, I'm really not all that much into the computer.
So I'm talking to a granny here.
I understand you're not, but others are.
Okay.
It's one way to reach them.
You just heard one.
Yes, yes, I did hear it.
Do you realize if it weren't for hashtags, the Chilean miners would not have been rescued?
I don't even think there were hashtags when the Chilean miners were kidnapped by the mine.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
Yeah.
Kidnapped by the mine.
What is that?
That's by design, folks.
The mine did it.
Mean mine.
Owned by capitalists.
Jennifer in Las Vegas.
You're next.
It's great to have you.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
How are you?
Fine.
And let me tell you, I'd much rather talk to you people than listen to soundbites of Hillary Clinton.
And that's why I went to the phones.
But we're going to do Hillary in the next hour.
So we all have to gut it up now and then.
Jennifer, thanks for calling.
How are you?
I'm fantastic.
Thank you.
I just was on my way to work and I heard your caller talking about the fact that they need to check people who have guns.
They need to do better background checks and verify whether or not they have mental illness.
And I just have to say, they already have those laws in place.
Several years ago, I was going through a divorce and my ex-husband decided he needed to get a gun because he thought I was dangerous.
And he was definitely experiencing some deep depression, and he still got a gun.
So there are ways around.
He had a friend buy the gun for him, and that's how we got around it.
Now, wait, now you knew he was deeply depressed, but was it obvious to people?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And, you know, in fact.
You know, I tell you what, we owe the ACLU.
They're the ones who are preventing all of us from digging deep to find out just how disturbed people might be.
That's considered discrimination and unfairness and all that.
So the ACLU largely responsible for our inability to identify people who might pose a problem in a background check.
We're just not allowed to notice that.
We're not allowed to act on it if we do notice it.
Well, that's true.
But it was apparent to everybody.
And because it made me so uncomfortable, I went to investigate whether I should get a gun.
And they have a questionnaire.
Are you experiencing depression?
And he was under treatment by a psychiatrist for his depression, and he can still get the gun.
Sure, as long as you're honest.
I got 10 seconds.
Did you get a gun?
Not until the last couple of years.
But yes, I did eventually.
You're safe.
That's all you need to know.
Do you know why we have not been visited by aliens?
You know why we really haven't read my tech blogs.
Global warming.
▲
Export Selection