All Episodes
Previous Next
June 13, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:54
June 13, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha.
How are you?
Where do we leave off on the soundbites?
We left off at uh Miss Chippy Dippy.
Right.
We've only played four.
We got a lot to do.
Okay, let's get some.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir, Rebob folks.
Great to have you with us on Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh.
The telephone number is 800 282-2882 and the email address is L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
800 282-2882.
One of the things about this um the dream kids.
I'm I'm harking back to this.
It's something, I think it was the lead item of the program today.
To me, this really is important and indicative.
And it's something that doesn't get a whole lot of play.
It's a news story, it got a little mention in National Review Online, nowhere else.
It's just kids, right?
So Obama's at Worcester Tech.
Democrat Senatorial Campaign fundraiser.
And extolling the virtues of dream kids.
Illegal immigrant children.
And he's talking about how they're the future of this country.
And that they know it.
And that we should know it.
And you wouldn't even know if they're sitting in a classroom, but 30 to 40% of the kids, wherever you go, they're dreamers and they matter.
They are the future of this country.
What they are, ladies and gentlemen, they are just a cog.
They are one element in a grand scheme.
They are one element in the effort to implement larger change.
The president said numerous times that he was going to fundamentally transform this country.
And after he was elected, either that night, Grant Park, or sometime later, maybe during the emancipation speech, he said that this country must be fundamentally transformed, and that he was going to do that.
That's why he was elected.
Now, what that means is capitalism has to be fixed because it's it's it's uncool.
Capitalism leads to unequality.
Uh inequality, unfairness, mean-spiritedness, a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Capitalism is basically where the poor at one time had all the money, and then the rich somehow took it from them and didn't give it back.
And so to fix capitalism.
Oh, and we have to fix the healthcare system because that's been capitalist, and that's why it's so unfair.
And that's why it's so expensive.
See, in Obama's worldview, and what he tells his supporters, capitalism is a rigged system where the rich rig everything for themselves and make sure everybody else is poor, so that there's never any competition for the money.
The rich end up having it all.
And so the rich get the best health care.
The rich get the best houses, the rich get the best cars, they drive on the best roads, they have the most money, and they have the healthiest kids.
None of that's fair.
It just isn't fair, it isn't right, and it's rigged, and it's cheating, and it's what the founding fathers did, and Obama is fundamentally gonna fix that.
The way you fix capitalism and the way you fix health care is to take it over and then eliminate it.
You are the government, you take it over, you commandeer it, you centralize it.
You have to limit liberty and freedom so that people who oppose you can't in good conscience speak freely.
You instill a climate of fear.
And by the way, that is happening.
Do I have a state?
by the way?
Did you see Jill Abrams?
This is another thing.
Does anybody in this country really care that she got fired?
And does anybody really care what she's gonna do next?
Now, inside the Beltway they do.
And if you follow the inside the Beltway soap opera, you'll think it's important.
But the people of this country don't care.
They've got their own lives to worry about.
They've got their own towns and communities to try to preserve.
They don't have time to worry about Jill Abramson or why she got fired.
Most people think the New York Times should be shut down.
The basis of it just doesn't tell the truth about very much, but that's another story.
The drive-by is that, of course, the culture, the political culture of Inside the Beltway, the quarter, New York, Washington, they care about Jill Abrams because she's one of them.
Well, guess what?
She is going to teach at Harvard as a special guest lecturer or some such thing this fall.
Here's the press release from Harvard.
Abramson will join Harvard University as a visiting lecturer for the 2014-2015 academic year.
The 1976 Harvard College graduate will teach undergraduate courses on narrative nonfiction for Harvard's Department of English in the fall and spring semesters.
What the hell does she know about nonfiction?
She's a former editor of the New York Times, the only deal in fiction.
What in the world does she know about nonfiction?
Now she is an expert at creating a narrative.
We have to we have to grant her that.
But look at her own narrative about her own firing was quickly exposed to be fiction.
She said she got fired because she was a woman and she wasn't paid fairly, and it wasn't fair, and uh men made more, and it wasn't fair, and when she tried to do something about it, they got mad at a woman who was being uppity and demanding and bitchy, and so she got fired.
That turned out not to be true.
She got fired because nobody can work with her.
What it ended up being.
But anyway, why is it a big deal?
It's not a big deal to the people that make this country work.
Donald Sterling.
I have to tell you just for the sake of the entertainment value.
This is intriguing.
Donald Sterling has hired four private investigation firms to dig up dirt on the former and current commissioners of the NBA and its 29 other owners.
Sterling gave the investigators six-figure budget over the next 30 days to examine the league's finances, allegations of previous discriminatory conduct, and compensation to past Commissioner David Stern, and compensation to current Commissioner Adam Silver.
The person who spoke to the AP last night on condition of anonymity, said that investigators also looking into whether other owners made any off-colored jokes or racist or sexist remarks.
So you see, the speech police are indeed out there.
This is what you have to control speech.
You have to ensure that the state, the government, is constantly growing.
And all of this is...
This transformation of country is really hard to do within the existing population.
And especially if the Republicans control the House and maybe the Senate.
This was our our last caller's real point here was the reason Why the dream kids are the future for Obama and the Democrats is looking at things in the long term.
He's not going to convince, for example, Tea Party people to sit idly by why he trans while he transforms the country.
He needs fresh blood that doesn't have any roots to American history, that doesn't have any traceable roots to the American founding.
He needs to bring people in who owe their existence to him and his party.
They aren't going to have to be taught anything.
They're not going to have to be taught where Obama wants to take the country.
They're going to follow because they will be obedient.
And that is what a statist regime needs.
Obediency.
And Obama knows that he is not going to find, he's not going to be able to convert, say, people like you and me into obedient followers of his plans.
Not exaggerating any of this.
And this idea of transforming America, this is something that could go on in his view long beyond his departure from the White House.
Do not underestimate the seriousness of this.
In terms of his intention, this is not just something he wants to work at for eight years while he's president.
This is something he intends to plant seeds that are growing and sprouting for decades that would result in the transformation of this country.
And crucial to it is illegal immigration and people in great numbers being brought to this country who have no ties whatsoever to this country's past.
And they will buy into whatever Obama's version of America is because they will owe their lives to him and his party.
And thus they will be obedient.
And that's what a genuine statist or an authoritarian type regime needs is obedient people.
So that is why Obama thinks the dreamers, the dream kids, they are the future.
And that's why he says so.
The thing about Obama and these guys, this is what's always been very open about their intentions if you just listen.
You go back, we've played the soundbites of Obama from 2001 and 2003, 2007.
His long-term thoughts on how to get single-payer health care, socialized medicine.
He's been pretty honest to his supporters now and then.
You just have to have the willingness to believe what you're hearing.
So, for example, when he says of these dream kids, they're the future of America.
You have to pause and understand that he really means it and why.
That he's not just trying to puff them up.
He's just not, he's not trying to inspire them like a graduate commencement speech.
Well, you are the future of this country, and our future and fortunes are on yours.
It's not like that.
He really thinks that they are the future because they're going to be the ones totally obedient.
Valerie Jarrett said that the dream kids, illegal aliens are the best kids we have.
This is from the Daily Caller of two days ago, June 10th, three days ago now.
White House advisor Valerie Jarrett met four or five times with illegal immigrant activist group.
And from the article it says I had met maybe a year and a half ago with about four Dream Act kids.
She said this in a conversation with Walter Isaacs and the Aspen Ideas Festival.
And now I've I've met with them four or five times, and each time I would leave in tears because they are exactly the kind of people we would want in this country.
They are the best that we have, Jarrett later added.
Illegal alien kids are the best that we have.
Daily Caller, three days ago.
She said this to Walter Isaacs and the Aspen Institute.
Obama just yesterday.
Dream kids are the future.
Why?
Because they don't know anything about American history.
They don't have to be deprogrammed.
They'll willingly accept speech restrictions.
They will willing willingly accept jobs Obama plugs them into.
They will be totally obedient.
They will owe their existence to the regime.
So Valerie Jarrett, Obama, they're telling us exactly.
What else could it mean?
What what administration talks like this before?
What administration praises the children of foreign countries and says they are the future of this country?
It doesn't ever happen.
Hasn't ever happened.
What about the kids that are growing up here, born here?
What about American kids?
Why aren't they the future?
Well, there's an answer.
They're not the future because not sure we can count on them.
They might rebel.
They might not go along with plan.
Their parents teaching them where they all came from, what their American roots are, what their worldwide roots are, what their contact with American history is all about.
That's why you bring in people from elsewhere who have no such ties.
No such loyalties.
Totally obedient to you.
It's really um.
It's hideous.
But it's right out in the open.
They at times would be very honest to what they intend to do.
It's open line Friday.
See, I intended to get the sound bites in the whole first monologue segment, and I got I got focused on the DreamAt kids and why they're the future, and I wanted to make that point.
So I still got the sound bites to to make up.
Get to and I do want to do that, but phone calls too, since it's open line Friday.
So there's still significant time left.
Squeeze it all in.
We'll go to Kansas City.
This is Mike.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Hello.
Hello, how are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you for taking my call.
Yeah, any time, you know.
Uh well, a quick thing was uh your caller was talking about the missing flight.
I was I was thinking about an old Twilight Zone, the Odyssey of Flight 33.
Maybe the flight went back in time.
Uh I remember that uh that episode is William Shatner, and that was there was this troll sitting out on a wing that was ripping the engine off the wing, and he was the only one that could see it.
They thought he was nuts, thought he was lunatic, then when the plane landed, they found out the engine was indeed almost taken off the wing.
But uh the reason I called was I uh own a pawn shop here in Kansas City, and um I've been asking people, you know, when they come in, like, you know, personal questions, you know, why they need the money and stuff like that, and uh you do you ask them that?
Yeah, just so I understand, you know.
Uh then also for political reasons to see, you know what what is actually going on out there, you know what I mean?
Um they don't think that's a personal intrusion why they need the money.
No, uh person today said, Well, the reason I'm meaning that to be honest with you is um my uh my uh disability check doesn't come in till next week, so I need some money to get by.
You're kidding me.
They actually tell you that.
Yeah, they'll tell you pretty much anything if you wanted to ask them.
Holy smokes.
So somebody comes in and say, Why do you need the money?
My disability check won't come in next week.
That's why I'm selling you this Rolex or whatever it is.
Right, exactly, or wanting to get a loan just to get by till next week, I'll pick up my law more next week or whatever, you know.
All right, and they come back and pick up the item, yeah.
Right.
Lawnmower, whatever it happens to be.
Right.
So my question for you was if you could answer this, I would I I I wanted to I don't know if I'm asking the right questions to people.
I'm wanting to know if I'm asking the right questions so that I know if I'm getting answers, you know, that would be fulfilling my questions that I'm wanting to know.
You know, like is the economy coming back?
Is Are these people actually finding jobs?
Are they looking for jobs?
Uh well, let me ask you a question.
When the economy is doing well, how is your business?
Do people still come in and pawn things?
Um, I mean, yes, they do.
Um, because it's always hard for somebody.
Um it's just it's always hard for somebody, no matter how well the economy is going.
Right.
So you want to know what you can ask them.
Right.
But what what are you actually trying to ascertain?
Um, just to see if, you know, to see if these liberal friends of mine and uh, you know, them that are saying that the economy's doing so well, you know, but I see people every day that you know why don't you do why don't you change tech?
When they come in, ask them what they think about concussions in the NFL.
That was my other my other thing that you know that they're having problems with is you know they're worried about concussions, but they're not worried about you know suicide by vets.
They're worried about suicide by you know football players, but the vets are you know committing suicide twenty twenty.
I think there's certain things you need to do to test their awareness of what's going on before you get to the real question.
So you need to ask them, what do you think of Bo Bergdol?
And then when you when you want to find out what the question uh you really want an answer to in the economy, then you ask that.
But you've got to ascertain whether these people are up to speed first.
Oh, what was your first question?
Think of what?
Um, ask them what they think of uh swapping five prisoners for Bo Bergdol.
Ask them what they think of concussions in the end.
Are they less inclined to go watch the NFL because they're killing the players?
You know, dress it up however you want.
Right.
And then report and then ask them, you know, how they're doing, why they need the money.
Right.
Um then tell them it's not your job to provide it and see what happens.
Dave in Indianapolis.
Hi, great to have you.
Welcome.
Good Friday.
Uh the I just wanted to talk about the the history of the establishment is really a sort of addiction when you think about it.
Even if you go back to King George III, who said something like um a traitor is anyone who disagrees with me, this kind of thing.
And so I'm I'm relating this to the establishment and the canter result or loss, which is that look at the look at the response the establishment has had to the canter loss, which is little more than that of a belligerent drunk who doesn't want to hear that last call is over at the bar, and they don't want to hear that there's no more booze, and they don't want to hear that it's time to go home, the sun has come up, and that it's time for sobriety.
The Tea Party is really a movement about sobriety, about principled sobriety, and we are trying to reach these people in the establishment to do the job they said they could do.
When when they ran for office, they told us they were leaders.
They told us they could lead the country, they told us they could provide a result.
The time is now.
The time for the putting up is right now.
And we are not seeing, we're hearing more claims and wrangling over positions of leadership, but we are not seeing leadership out of these people.
They are not leaders.
Thank you.
I don't think you get much argument on that.
Your analogy is uh is interesting to me that the establishment leads to the same mindset as addiction, and that you and the Tea Party, you are sober, you have sobriety, meaning you take things seriously.
You're not and you want them to, and meanwhile they are totally absorbed in in in their own survival, in their own needs and satisfying their own whatever it is they want or need at whatever cost.
And therefore they become undependable, and you can't count on them, and it's not really sensible to invest leadership in them.
That's pretty much what your analogy is saying.
The only thing is you describe their reaction as like those at a happy hour told the bar is closing.
I think there's there's some anger.
There really is.
I but I think that the the establishment, both parties, and I used to think this is only true of Democrats and liberals, but I think it's true of anybody in the establishment.
Whenever it you look at you and your supporters as the sober in sobriety, they look at you as as uh plebs.
You know, you you don't really know enough to understand how they do what they do, and therefore you just had a temperate tantrum in throwing one of them out.
You don't really know what you're doing.
I don't think they're at all scared.
I think they're angry over what happened.
I've I've got my own analogy to these people.
And I I ran it by the official program observer this morning.
You and I look at elections as one of the few vehicles we have to express our opinions and effect any kind of change.
They, on the other hand, look at elections as a nuisance.
It's something they have to constantly raise money to do, and every two or four years, they have to actually engage in it, but they resent having to do it.
Um to you and me, the elections have been to them, you know, you uh when you get up and and go to work every day, you have to drive or ride, or somehow get there.
But when you talk about your day and what's going on, you very seldom, unless traffic was outrageous.
The drive to work to and from, that's not the big part of the day.
That's not the substantive.
And that's the election to them.
The election is simply how they get there, but it has nothing to do with what they do when they get there.
Just like the way you go to work has nothing to do with what you're gonna do on the job once you arrive.
What route you take, how long it took you doesn't matter to how you do your job or what your job is.
And I think elections are the same way to them.
It's just what they have to do to get to work.
But once they get there, the election doesn't matter a hill of beans.
And what happened in it doesn't matter a hill of beans.
As long as they win it, and then they'll put everything aside, the next election comes up, then they start paying attention to what it is.
And I think this leads to disconnect and a even a bit of cynicism about the role of elections in our process.
Ruling class looks at them as nuisances.
We look at them as one of the few vehicles, opportunities, chances that we have to effect any kind of change.
So I you know your analogy is uh is interesting.
Uh but there have been a number of shocks and surprises in elections just in the last 20 years, and they haven't brought about any real change.
Let me give you a real good example.
The 2002 midterms, the Democrats, because of polling data and any number they thought they had that election in the bat.
They were going to take back the House, they were gonna run every they just they Bush, they were still fuming over the Florida recount.
9-11 had happened, the well stone memorial took place.
They just were so cock sure that they were gonna win big, and they got shellacked in those midterms, and they got shellacked, according to the exit polling information for things that had not even come up in the campaign, a values.
It was striking.
These were national elections all across the country, midterm elections, and it was stunning.
Exit polling data indicated that the number one issue people voted on were values, morality, family value, this kind of stuff.
The Democrats were totally shellacked, they were totally shocked, they were stunned they couldn't believe it, and for the two weeks following the election, they're all out there Promising to get right on values and so forth.
That was a huge law.
Has it changed the way the Democrats behave?
It has not.
And I've sure you can think of your uh probably yourself of other shocking election results.
The uh Republicans winning the House for the first time 40 years in 1994.
Did that send a message to the Democrats that they'd better clean up, straighten up, and stop this big government stuff?
No.
What happened?
The Republicans ended up becoming more like Democrats after a while.
What do you mean, what's the point is don't think that the Eric Cantor defeat is going to cause a massive reversal and direction of the Republican establishment.
They're not going to look at the candidate features, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh my God, we better all we you know what?
We better drop amnesty.
We better uh do that at all.
That's not what happens.
That's why elections end up being so frustrating, because they're the one thing we have, and sometimes even when they end up sending a huge message.
Sometimes it appears like the message isn't received.
That's why this mess is not going to be fixed in one election, even a presidential election.
This kind of thing that that happened on Tuesday night needs to happen over and over again.
Not to depress you, but it just does.
I gotta take a quick timeout, folks.
Back with much more after this.
Hey, Mike, I need you to save audio sound bites 9, 10, and 11 for Monday.
That's Mrs. Clinton being grilled on NPR.
She don't like it.
And I'm sorry, folks.
I meant to get into those two.
I meant to play those three today, and I just I didn't get deep enough into the roster.
Anyway, um, Rob in Lynchburg, Virginia, hi, open line Friday, and you're next.
Hello.
It is Rush.
You asked what kind of president speaks this way.
It says that the future of America is these criminal foreign children instead of American children.
And then you took a break, and Paul Sanklin came on on the feed and he was singing when a man hates his country.
No, he sings when a man dislikes his country.
Thank you for correcting me.
Yeah, what what Rob was gonna say is this whole thing is driving him crazy.
This focus on foreign kids being the future and so forth.
Sadly, my friends, that's all the time that we have for today.
But we'll be back on Monday.
Hope you have a great, great weekend, and as always, really appreciate you being here each and every day.
▲
Export Selection