All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:30
July 8, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah.
Oh, well, Friday.
I forgot that you were gonna be here, buddy.
Great to have you sitting there in the engineer chair.
See, I'm he doesn't say anything.
I think welcome to the program.
He sits there, doesn't say a word back.
Anyway, well, I appreciate you not wanting to disturb me, but I interrupted myself to say hi to you.
The least you could do is say hi back.
Greetings, uh ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Oops, gonna do one thing at Limbaugh Institute for Advanced.
Oops studies.
And we are here at 800-282-2882.
The email address is Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Okay, look, we have the immigration stack here, and I'm gonna get to it, and it's just as bothersome and offensive and troubling as ever.
It's just more add-ons today.
Although there is one update, it was good that Rick Perry refused a handshake invitation, President Obama, the Austin Airport.
Rick Perry said, Are you kidding?
I mean, for crying out loud, we got a crisis going on.
You want me to shake your hands on your way to a fundraiser?
Democrat Congress came out.
You know what?
I really hope that this whole thing down there in Arizona and California, the immigration with the kids is not Obama's Katrina.
And shortly after that, Obama then decides, okay, I'll have a sit down with Governor Perry.
But we're gonna go back.
Audio soundbites, you're gonna we got a couple sound bites of Obama from from uh the border in Texas.
Uh and let me check the the uh years of the, it was uh 2011, so three years ago.
That you're not gonna be, you won't you won't hear the drive-by media resuscitate these.
Uh Costco.
Costco has pulled Dinesh D'Sueze's book, America Imagine the World Without Her.
Uh co-founder of Costco is a huge Obamaite.
He spoke at the Democrat National Convention.
What's this guy's name?
Jim Sinegal.
I I don't know if he pronounces that way.
It's S-I-N-E-G-A-L.
I'm pronouncing it like the country in Africa, Senegal.
Might be Sein Gal, might be Sina, whatever.
Huge Democrat, huge donor, major, major Obama group, a huge Obama group.
He spoke at the 2012 Democrat Convention.
I think this guy has given uh over 100 grand.
He pulled a book.
And they're saying this is not censorship.
This is not book burning.
This is just a liberal protecting the man he loves in the White House.
That's all it is.
Don't read anything more into this than there is.
It's not censorship.
No, no, no, no, it's not censorship.
You know, here's the thing about about these people.
They are scared to death of any opposition.
They simply don't want to deal with it.
They don't want to.
They call themselves tolerant.
They call themselves open-minded and all this stuff.
And they're the most closed-minded, bigoted people you can find, and they're scared to death of anything that's contrary to what they believe.
Now, this guy can do what he wants.
Owns the store.
He can have it ordered out all he wants.
I just think all of you who shop at Costco ought to know.
Kind of people that run the joint and the kind of things that they do.
I mean, the book hasn't even sold that many copies.
Like the Costco announced that they'd sold 3,600 copies of America Nationwide.
700 copies sold last week, as D'Souza's movie opened at more than a thousand movie theaters nationwide.
Costco's book department issued the pull order requiring all Costco stores nationwide to remove the book.
Uh confirmed Scott Loss, an inventory control specialist in the book department at the Costco, wholesale corporate orifice in uh Issaquah, Washington, a suburb of Seattle.
The July 1 order requires all copies to be removed by July 15th.
And it's not censorship.
Well, you people get off our backs.
This is just a good liberal being loyal to his president, not putting something critical of the president he loves and adores and admires on sale in his store.
What's the difference in that censorship?
He says it isn't censorship, it's not censorship.
I mean, you go get the book someplace else.
Go buy the book at Amazon for as long as it's there.
Um go buy the book at uh Barnes and Noble for as long as it's there.
Uh go.
Well, no, no, no, no, no.
It's it's it's not censored at Costco.
It just isn't there.
It's not, well, you it it's supposed to be totally out of there by July 15th.
But you can't buy it at Costco.
But it hasn't been.
Well, you look at people have the right to free speech, but nobody has the right to be heard.
Nobody has the right to be.
That's a that's a big big point that I, you know, people misconstrue the First Amendment quite frequently, thinking the right to free speech means that everybody has to listen to you.
You don't have the right to be heard.
No, no, you're not gonna pull Hillary's book.
Oh, speaking of Hillary's book, you know, for the past week.
Not Hillary's book, Ed Klein's book.
Let me talk about that book.
Hillary's book is off the radar.
Hillary's book.
Hillary's dropped 11 more points in a in an in another poll after, even among Democrats.
I mean, I mean, Hillary is quickly fading away here.
I mean, it's just temporary postmark moment in time kind of thing, but it's not good.
The Ed Klein book, you know, I for the for the past week or two, I have been making the point, I've been kind of pounding the table with this, that there hasn't been one person speak up and refute any of it.
Nobody in the Clinton camp, nobody in the Obama camp, nobody in a Democrat Party has spoken up and said a word, and yet yesterday it happened, or maybe this morning, and I think I'm the cause of this.
Yeah.
I I think I'm the cause of a lot of things, folks, by the way.
But nevertheless, because I've been hammering that, an unnamed person close to the Clintons has spoken up and said that Ed Klein is the biggest scum that there has ever walked the planet.
Ed Klein, the biggest shred of human debris that there is ever been, take a breath.
There is a special place in hell reserved for Ed Klein, but they still haven't refuted anything he said.
All they're doing is calling him names.
But they haven't said anything.
They said, you know, we've dealt with a lot of trash, this unnamed Clinton's.
We've dealt with a lot of people with a lot of cooks, with a lot of nuts, with a lot of trash ever since we came on the scene.
But this takes the cake.
This guy is a reprobate.
This guy's a liar, he's a sneak.
He sits out there in the shadows, and all he does is write this dribbling bilge and tripe and then publishes it every now and then.
And it's yet none of it was refuted.
All they did was call Klein names.
I got the details of that.
Uh coming up.
Uh from the East Valley Tribune in Arizona.
The ninth U.S. circus Court of Appeals on Monday ordered that dreamers who the federal government allow to work in this country.
Also be issued Arizona driver's licenses, at least for the time being.
Illegal aliens, a Ninth Circus, says that illegal aliens who are dreamers must be allowed to get Arizona driver's license.
Now, now what is the argument for not letting them vote?
Once you give them a driver's license, has got a photo ID on it, then how do you say you can't vote?
I mean, what's the rationale for giving them a driver's license when they're not citizens?
well, they've got to get to work, Mr. Limbaugh.
They have to be able to get okay, fine.
But since they're going to work, are they not paying taxes?
That's right, Mr. Limboy.
And how is it fair that they are paying taxes and yet don't have a vote?
In America, that's not right.
So the next thing to happen is that the illegal alien dreamers, whoever should be allowed to vote, which is really what all of this is about anyway.
Although I got to tell you, folks, it's getting worse than that.
I read a piece by uh Wesley Prudent in the New in the Washington Times over the weekend.
I mean, he didn't pull any punches.
You know what he said?
He came right out and said that Obama is trying and is succeeding in turning America into a third world country.
And that that's what this stuff in California and Arizona, the unaccompanied children, the 300,000 illegals since April is really all about.
He said that Obama's mother was enamored of the Third World, loved the third world.
Father was of the third world, that Obama was raised with the perspective that the third world is one of the biggest group of victims of this country.
They are third world because the United States isn't.
In other words, the United States is responsible for all the third world.
Third world nations are underdeveloped, poverty-driven, stricken, uh backwater kind of kind of kind of places, and the the uh current crop of leftists believe that it's America that makes third world nations third world and keeps them the third world.
So Wesley Prudence.
This is what this is about, is trying to turn the United States into a third world nation to get even with uh this country for all of the suffering and misery and whatever else that it has uh its cause.
I mean, and prudence not the only one, and more and more people are starting to say things like this.
That it's purposeful, I mean.
I mean, it isn't it's not just incompetence.
It's this is not Obama incompetence, that this is purposeful.
He's got a decide.
They're just I mean, they're launching.
They don't even seem to have any reluctance.
They're not couching it.
They're just they're just bombing away with this uh allegation.
Now, the uh let's see, what else?
Uh what else?
They're trying to headline stuff here before we come back after the break and get into uh into great detail.
Uh oh, let me do this.
Let me do this.
Graham Nash.
There's something else here.
I've got my stacks.
I got a bunch of late arriving show prep today, and I didn't get a chance to get it all organized.
My bad, folks, I apologize.
Um, but I'll get it all put together as you know will happen before the program ends.
Graham Nash, Crosby Stills and Nash.
Occasionally Crosby Stills Nash and Young.
Uh well-known rock and roll super crooners from the 60s and the 70s.
Graham Nash is uh 72 now.
And he says that he feels optimistic that young people will once again change America for the better.
So while he admits that he is frustrated by political ideals surrounding issues like global warming and marriage equality, he realizes that the powers against progress, i.e., Republicans, will naturally run their course.
He said these people will all die at one point, and the children will take over.
He said, Do you know anybody under 25 that gives a damn whether you marry a man if you're a man or if you marry a woman if you're a woman?
You know anybody under 25 who cares about that?
No, you don't.
Graham Nash said that young people helped administer change in the 1960s and 1970s, and today's young people will have a positive influence on their generation.
And then he said, it used to be that the Supreme Court was a very unbiased set of people.
It's not that way anymore.
They made corporations people.
They gave them corporations religious rights.
That's insanity to me.
Well, I have a little disappointing thing here for Mr. Nash.
This is from the New York Times, in fact.
David Leonard writing yesterday in the I'm sorry, today in the New York Times, why teenagers may grow up conservative.
You remember, ladies and gentlemen, over the many years of this program, uh, during such times as this, when people are in the midst of despair, and thinking that the country's spiraling downward to a point that it can't recover.
I have cited uh sociologists to you, the names escape me.
They say, you know, this is not by any means the first time this has happened in the country, won't be the last, and yet we always do seem to recover.
And his explanation was that at some point a generation of young people is going to come along and simply not accept the world, the country, as it is.
They don't want to grow up in that kind of world.
And this guy writing says that that's probably what we're looking at in one in large part.
He's he doesn't really specifically tie to that mode of thinking.
But it is true now, the argument that you get from people today is it's never been this bad.
I mean, in the sense that country has never been this threatened internally, a country has never been this precariously balanced, and we've never had so far to go to recover.
All of which may be true.
But we did recover from the New Deal in FDR.
We did well, that's arguable, I know.
But we did recover from the Great Depression.
We recovered from the world wars.
Some say we recovered because of them.
But Mr. Leonard here in the New York Times has an interesting theory as to why teenagers may grow up conservative, which of course will shock and dismay and sadden Nash if he hears about it.
In the meantime, a quick time out, my friend.
Sit tight, an entire full day of busy broadcast excellence, all yours when we get back.
Ha.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh on a so mood here at the EIB Network.
All right, David, it's by it's it's spelled Leon Hart.
That's one name.
I don't know how you pronounce it.
These people, um, there's a guy in the NFL spelled his name somewhat like that, pronounced it Leonard.
And I've never heard it pronounced, and I hate mispronouncing people's names, and when you don't know how to do it, you gotta offer all the possibilities.
It looks like Leonhart, Leon Hart, Leonard.
I don't mean any disrespect.
In fact, it's the quite the opposite.
Anyway, New York Times.
There was a time not so long ago when the young seemed destined to be liberal forever.
Americans in their teens and twenties were to the left of their elders on social issues.
They worried more about poverty, they voted strongly Democrat in retrospect.
We refer to this period as the 60s, and it didn't last long, let alone forever.
Less than a generation after young people were marching for civil rights and against the Vietnam War, they voted overwhelmingly for Ronaldus Magnus.
Today, of course, the young are liberal again.
And it seems as if they will be forever.
They favor same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, stricter gun laws, citizenship for illegal Immigrants, activist government that fights climate change and inequality.
The Republican Party does not.
And so they're hated.
I added that.
He didn't write that.
But the temporary nature of the 1960s should serve as a reminder that politics change.
What seems permanent can become fleeting, and the Democrat Party has some serious vulnerabilities too.
In its simplest terms, the Democrats control the White House, and for now the Senate, at a time when the country is struggling, economic growth has been.
Look, let me cut to the chase here.
His point is this.
To Americans in their twenties and early 30s, the so-called millennials, the notice me generation.
Many of these problems have their roots in Bush's presidency.
And that's true.
I can I can show you the polling day.
They all think this is all still Bush's fault.
And poor Obama was saddled with a bad economy and a bad everything and a bad Iraq war.
Power the media.
But think about people who were born in 1998, the youngest eligible voters in 2016.
They are too young to remember much at all of the Bush years, or the excitement surrounding the first Obama campaign.
And not only that, they are coming of age in a time with a Democrat president who seems unable to fix the world's problems and doesn't seem interested in fixing it.
In other words, his point is that the 18 to 21-year-olds are going to be voting in 2016 don't know of Bush, don't know of the Obama pizzazz and do that.
All they know of Obama is abject incompetence, a total mess of a country.
And they won't want any more of it.
And his theory is they could make the difference.
Back we are.
Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Okay, I'm told that uh the guy in the New York Times pronounces his name uh Leonard.
David Leonard.
And his point again is the millennials today have totally bought because the media grew up in a media world.
I grew up surrounded by media pummeling George Bush.
There was no pushback from Bush.
So it makes total sense that young, impressionable minds who had not been odds are properly educated on a number of things, as politicized as curriculum schools are, grew up hating Bush and blaming Bush for everything that had gone wrong, and got caught up totally in the Obama hype and mentality, and so therefore are gone.
I mean, they're they're they're committed, it's going to be a while before they come around.
Because nobody likes to admit they were wrong, nobody likes to admit they were fooled, nobody likes to admit that they had a slick one pulled over on them, so they'll they'll stay committed.
And they believe that their ideals, you know, that there's no judgment on anything, and whatever anybody wants to do is fine.
That's the definition of tolerance, equality, freedom, fairness, and all that.
This guy's point is that uh people born 1998, they're too young to remember the pummeling of Bush in the media.
And they're too young to really have been caught up in the Obama fever of 2008 that they have grown up and matured into their mid to late teens and early twenties in a mess of a country.
And the only president they've really known as mature people is Obama.
And he's can drawing a conclusion here that they're not going to want any more of this.
And they're not going to blame Bush, and I'm going to blame Republicans.
Republicans aren't in power.
Now that I don't think is automatic, because you still have the media pummeling people each and every day and protecting Obama and insulating him as much as they can from any of this that is the disaster he has authored.
But it is an interesting point.
And to say that there is not generational shift and change is to miss another point.
There clearly is.
And the history of the country is that that has happened.
That's good.
And it's one of the explanations for the country turning around.
Now, we're in so deep that one election isn't going to make a difference.
Not a lasting difference with even winning the presidency.
A lot of work needs to be done.
But I just think it's an interesting point, and I wasn't probably even going to mention it until I saw the Graham Nash story.
And I just wanted to be the bearer of bad news for Graham Nash.
Now let's move on to the situation involving the illegal alien unaccompanied children.
United Nations officials are pushing for many of the Central Americans fleeing to the U.S. to be treated as refugees, displaced by armed conflict, a designation meant to increase pressure on the United States and Mexico to accept tens of thousands of people currently ineligible for asylum.
I'll tell you, these people on the left, are they good or are they good?
The one thing they can do is coordinate a message.
So here you have the purposeful, intentful importation of 300,000 illegals just since April.
And of that 300,000, about 60,000 are unaccompanied children.
And right on schedule, here comes the UN demanding that they be called refugees and that they be allowed to stay, and that they not be called illegal immigrants because they are refugees fleeing war-torn, poverty stricken nations.
And of course, it is our responsibility to open up and accept them.
And it just falls right in line with Obama's message.
Now, yesterday at the White House press briefing, this is an example here of media bias.
ABC News White House correspondent Jonathan Carl actually asked the press secretary a tough question.
And he got an answer, and it was a it was a story, it was an incident totally unfavorable to the White House.
And ABC News spiked it.
Nobody saw it.
Other than the people who watched the press briefing live.
Here's what happened.
During yesterday afternoon's White House press briefing, Josh Ernest was forced by John Carl of ABC to defend White House claims that they are deporting tens of thousands of these kids at the border.
Obama's saying it, Josh Ernest is saying it, but they're not.
They're not deporting.
And that's just enough.
So that Obama or somebody can stand up and say, oh, yeah, we're deporting them.
It's the smallest amount of deportations they can get away with.
So Jonathan Carl stood up.
Well, not if he stood up, but he asked the question.
He cited an article in the Los Angeles Times, which explained that under the Obama regime, contrary to what the White House is saying, deportations of minors has actually decreased.
Jonathan Carr told Josh Ernest that according to the article in the LA Times, deportation of minors is one-fifth of what it had been.
And then he asked the press secretary, doesn't that show that what you're saying is disinformation?
So basically the ABC News White House correspondent, in so many words, said to the White House press, sir, doesn't mean you're lying to us?
Doesn't that mean you're spreading false information?
You're out there talking about how the deportation numbers are up, that you're deportating or deporting a bunch of these kids and you're really not.
And Ernest Josh Ernest answered by blaming Bush.
Says the problem that's traced back to the previous president and so forth.
Now, this all began when John Carl asked Josh Ernest if he had an answer as to how many of those that are released with the promise of returning for a court date or actually showing up for the hearing.
Ernest told him he didn't have the numbers.
That agitated Carl.
Carl asked Ernest if he could give him any idea what the number was.
Was it closer to 10% than 100%?
And Josh Ernest didn't bite.
Instead, he argued that the number wouldn't be accurate in light of the recent surge at the border.
That's when Jonathan Carl cited the LA Times article and asked the press secretary if that paper's findings prove the White House is giving disinformation.
And that's when Josh Ernest argued that contrary to what Carl was saying, that this is all because of Bush.
He was he was citing, by the way, and I've got to get into this.
I've got to stipulate something here.
And I was wrong about something last week.
I too fell for this.
What Josh Ernest is talking about here, blaming Bush is this supposed loophole in the law from 2002 that allows children who arrive here unaccompanied from nations not contiguous with the U.S. to stay indefinitely.
And it just so happens that that's where these kids are coming from.
They're not coming from Mako, they're coming through Mako, but they're coming from nations further south, which are not contiguous.
Meaning, for those of you in real Linda don't share a border.
And there is a 2002 law that says, and that's so Ernst, hey, it's not our fault, it's not our fault.
Bush did this, it's Bush's fault.
That's where the loophole is.
Which of course is a cop-out because it doesn't matter.
We still have a crisis.
We have a crisis on the border.
We've got an influx that we can't handle.
It's roiling the country.
You ever wonder why the president doesn't even dare go to one of his own refugee camps.
Anyway, turns out that what is being used in this case to not deport these children is not the 2002 law.
It is a previous law that was signed by Bill Clinton.
It has it the law being used here by the regime saying there's nothing we can do.
We have to keep these kids here.
It actually predates that loophole of 2002 that was found in a Bush administration law.
And I'm I've got it in the stack somewhere.
I'll find it uh after the break.
Anyway, that's what Ernest is talking when he blames Bush.
Our hands are tied, we've got this loophole in the law.
Anyway, John Carl at ABC News yesterday during the White House press briefing demonstrated that the White House is spreading disinformation.
His report did not air on ABC's World News Tonight.
That is the kind of thing that happened to Cheryl Atkinson at CBS.
That's the kind of thing that ended up frustrating her and ended up causing her to look elsewhere.
Her reports were on Benghazi, and CBS was spiking all of her reports of the vast majority of them in Benghazi.
Now, this is another clear example of an executive decision back at the ABC Newsroom.
Carl got the goods.
He got a story.
And it ended up not airing on the primary ABC newscast of the day.
ABC's World News tonight.
Let me take a timeout.
Find that uh Clinton era law that I meant to cite this yesterday and I didn't get to it.
Sit tight back with much more right after this.
Don't go away.
Couple of sound bites for you.
These are these are interesting.
We're gonna go back to May 10th, 2011, El Paso, Texas.
Obama went down there and in his typical arrogant, condescending way, mocked all of us who said the border was not secure.
This is one of the previous efforts that the regime and the D.C. establishment were engaged in to secure amnesty.
And the anti-amnesty forces, like us, were demanding that before you do anything, before you talk to us about amnesty or how to bring them out of the shadows, secure the border.
And Obama went down there to El Paso, which is right across the bridge from Juarez and mocked everybody who said the border wasn't secure.
We have two sound bites.
They wanted more agents at the border.
Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the Southwest border than at any time in our history.
The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents, more than twice as many as there were in 2004.
There's a buildup that began under President Bush and that we've continued.
Then they wanted a fence.
Well the fence is now basically complete.
Right.
So he goes down to El Paso.
He mocks everybody for wanting more border security and then starts bragging about how much more there is.
And now when you go back and look at this and compare his attitude and what he was saying to how well whatever he was doing or did back then is working, you find out it's pointless and minimal.
Here's the next bite.
All the stuff they asked for, we've done.
But even though we've answered these concerns, I've got to say I I suspect there's still going to be some who are trying to move the goalposts on us.
One more time.
They said we needed to triple the border patrol.
Or now they're going to say we need to quadruple the border patrol.
Or they'll want a hire fence.
Maybe they'll need a moat.
Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat.
They'll never be satisfied.
Never be satisfied.
You know, that could be our motto.
Never be satisfied as long as you're in charge of fixing things, because they don't get fixed.
So he goes down there, brags and mocks and talks about all this massive improvements, but no matter what he does, no matter how many fixes he engenders, no matter how many steps he takes to secure the border, we're never gonna be satisfied.
We're never gonna be happy.
We're always gonna be asking for more.
Now looked at three years later.
Who deserves to be mocked?
Certainly not us.
Here is Laura in Keene, California, as we start on the phones today.
Welcome and great to have you here.
Hello.
Oh, thank you so much for taking my call.
This is this is such a thrill for me.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Well, I was calling in regards to Dinesh D'Souza's book being pulled from Costco.
Yes.
And um, you know, I've been calling if you look at their Facebook page, you know, they're getting hit hard with with a lot of unhappy patrons.
And I've also contacted their corporate office, and they said they're supposed to be making a statement sometime very soon in regards to the feedback that they're getting.
But uh, I was curious about something because about two weeks ago I went down to purchase your book for my nieces and nephews, and it wasn't there, and I know I had seen it there before.
So I look and I look, and then I thought, well, maybe they're out, and I came back later and looked again, it wasn't there.
So then when I heard about being pulled, I was curious if yours was.
You're talking about at Costco.
At Costco, yes.
Well, this is the first I've heard that you are the first you're the first person to tell me that they haven't able to.
Pardon me, what was that?
I finally ordered it from Amazon.
Well, that's see what that's what you should do.
And if if I I'm gonna tell you if you can't find Dinesh D'Souza's book at Costco, you know, you know what I would do?
Honestly now, I wouldn't worry.
I wouldn't take the time to call Costco or write him a letter or any of that.
I just go out and see the movie and buy the book somewhere else.
That's the best thing you can do.
If you want to send them a letter, go ahead and do it, but it ain't gonna change this guy's mind.
It's not gonna change their mind.
They're gonna get your letter and they're gonna laugh at you, and they're gonna take great pleasure in how upset you are.
Because they I know I tried all morning long to get through to their corporate office and it rained dizzy, busy, busy, then finally I got through and I was on hold and uh got through to a wrap, and they're they're getting hit hard with this.
And if you look at their Facebook page, like I said, you know, they're getting a lot of negative feedback.
Oh, I'm sure they are.
I and I'm I'm sure they're I'm sure they're being pummeled.
I'm sure they're being beaten up.
I'm sure their phones are ringing off the hook, as it should be.
I don't know what their reaction is uh is is is gonna do uh or gonna be.
I I have I have no fran I don't frankly care.
You know, these these uh if if I were to sous, I'd say, good, I wouldn't want my book sold in your establishment in the first place.
Just go out and buy it someplace else, and then go see the movie.
That's the way you get back at these people.
This guy, here's the thing about this, Laura.
This guy, this this Costco Democrat loyalist has done more to spread the word and inform people that this book even exists than the best PR campaign paid for by money could do.
This guy has done more to sell the book than he could have if he just shut up and left it alone in the stores.
He has he has created more attention for this book than otherwise would have happened.
So use it and go buy it like you did at Amazon.
Go see the movie.
Uh and then learn and admit who these people actually are.
▲
Export Selection