All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:57
July 14, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, now we have dead children washing up on the border of the Rio Grande River.
We have 17-year-old children already members of drug cartels and gangs crossing the border.
The news media keep telling us that these illegal aliens are coming to the United States to escape government corruption.
If that's true, can you imagine how misinformed they are?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800 282-2882, and the email address.com.
Pope uh Pope Pope Francis called for a worldwide ceasefire during yesterday's World Cup final.
Did anybody check?
Was there indeed a worldwide ceasefire?
Anyone know?
I mean, the Pope called for it last week.
It didn't happen.
Oh no, you're not.
It it didn't happen.
The ceasefire didn't work.
Well, Vatican on Friday called for a truce in wars around the globe during the World Cup final.
And they even took the social media the hashtag out there.
The Vatican got into the hashtag business.
It was pause for peace.
Another hashtag bites the dust.
Another hashtag bombs out.
How much more of this can Twitter take and still maintain credibility?
In fact, the leader of Boco Harum in a video made fun of and mocked the bring back our girls hashtag.
Oh, yes, he did.
His name is Abu Baker.
They're Abu Bakr.
What's Abu Bakr?
Chical.
Release a new video mocking the social media campaign and highlighted the kidnapping of these schoolgirls taken by his group.
We have just a little 16-second excerpt of the soundbite.
It's number 20.
It's audio soundbite number 20.
Brimback again.
Oh's our army.
Turn up done.
Gilgel Gilgel Gil Christan.
Brig muck our army.
Oh no, my friends, Boko Haram is mocking Twitter, mocking the hashtag, the Pope's hashtag didn't work.
The Boco Harem bring back our girls hashtag has there a hashtag associated with the illegal immigrants that are crossing the border.
I don't know.
You got to hear this again.
This is the Boko Haram leader.
Abu Bakar Shirkow making fun of it all.
Again.
Oh, bring back our army.
Bring back our army.
Jonathan.
Turn up done.
Gilgel Gilgel Gil Christan.
Brig our army.
Jonathan, of course, the president of Nigeria, uh Jonathan Good Dream.
What is his name?
Jonathan Goodluck?
Yeah, it's good.
It's good luck, Jonathan.
It's good luck, Jonathan.
Can you imagine?
What were his parents thinking?
I'm not criticizing the name.
I'm just waiting.
You're in a hospital.
You've just given birth, and you're talking with, in this case, your husband, about what shall we name our little bundle of joy here?
How about good luck?
Okay, fine.
Good luck is the name and Jonathan's the name last name, and there we go.
And now he's being mocked by Boco Harau.
I, you know, I don't do hashtags.
I wonder what people who do.
How they're going to react to this.
Being made fun of.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's go to the audio sound bites uh to Houston.
Eyeball News, Fox 26 Friday night, Houston.
This is bouncing off the video of Bernadette Lancelin that went viral.
Uh Fox Eyeball News claiming I caused her video to go viral.
Since then, a YouTube clip of her appearance on Fox 26 has gone viral.
Tweeted and retweeted, blogged about, even Rush Limbaugh has been talking about her.
She basically said, look it.
We just we can't fix everybody.
It's not our role.
Somebody's got to take care of themselves here.
We spoke to Bernadette over the phone because she's a working grandmother.
She works ten hour days Tuesday through Thursday and eight hour days on Friday and Saturday.
Has had the same job for 17 years.
Bernadette pays taxes on the house that she owns and shares with her 83-year-old mother.
She says she's not done fighting for her neighborhood yet.
And this is what she said, and she stayed on the roll that she started last week.
It's not right.
Now billions of dollars want to be borrowed from the White House to help feed and house them.
What about the f kids there?
In our neighborhood, in our country.
Not just in this neighborhood, but in our country.
All these kids.
Really?
Why can't they go back?
I'm sorry that that the parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever's going on out there.
I don't care.
I care about what's going on right here in my own backyard, my neighborhood.
Am I the only one in this community that's out here that watches the news in the f morning?
Oh my God.
I feel alone right now in this.
And I'm very saddened by it.
Tell me, don't you feel just like her?
Sunday, don't you think you're the only person watching the news?
You only person that knows what's going on.
You feel like you're the only person that cares.
What's uh what's going on?
Just uh just a man.
And the left is still a Twitter, ladies and gentlemen.
This is Sunday PBS Moyers and Company.
I did not know.
I thought Bill Moyers retired.
Maybe he did.
You know, when leftists retire, they still have shows.
You know, I was I was I folks, uh brief departure, just remember so I I was I had the news on today.
I've got two monitors on here in the studio each and every day.
One of them is tuned to Fox.
That's the bottom one.
What what are these?
Are these 55 inches, Brian?
55?
Yeah.
That's why they look so small.
Um and then uh up on top.
Well, they they look small compared to what I have at home.
That that's I don't know if these are 32s or what, they're 55s?
All right.
So on the bottom of this Fox, and up on top, I used to have PMSNBC, but as you know, they're banned and I couldn't care.
That's it's that's an asylum.
So it's CNN, and it's barely much better.
But at least it's another cable news source.
And occasionally I turn the audio on.
Just to stay in touch, folks, is part of the job.
It's not that I really care about what anybody said, just got to stay attuned.
So I happen to have the monitors on, and Mr. Snurley walked in, say hello, talk about some things, and I happened to look up at the monitor on CNN, and it was the usual predictable back and forth on the latest immigration problem at the borders, and I hit the mute button.
I looked at Mr. Snerdley, and I I said, Do you remember the days when it was really a big deal to be on TV?
There were so few networks, and then so few shows on networks.
You had the Sunday shows, the Sunday morning shows, and you had the evening news, and then occasionally have a syndicated Sunday morning show.
That was it.
Other than the primetime, but we're not talking about that.
There just wasn't there just weren't that many opportunities, and therefore, the fact that there were so few, just the fact that you were on TV automatically granted you gravitas and expert status because it was hard.
There were just as many people back then who wanted to be on TV as there are today, but it was it was it was like winning the lottery to end up on television.
Today Anybody, anybody can be on TV, and you don't have to have done anything to get on TV.
You don't have to have what no, no, no, no, I'm not sour grapes.
What do you mean sour grapes?
I could get on TV every day.
That's not about me.
I could be on TV all day, every day if I wanted to be.
I don't.
And you know why?
I'll tell you what, I've I've I've I've done both.
Well, yes, I hate to make up.
I really do.
I I can't I know this all sounds like I'm just trying to be funny, but I'm not.
I literally, it's a distraction.
Uh it's it's to me, it's artificial.
Everything about television is artificial, and I know I'm an oddball because it is the medium of the day.
I understand all this.
But for me, you know, I started in radio, basically when I was 15.
And I've done both.
And during the four years of the TV show, there were a lot of people who really liked it.
They thought it was really good.
Um but I finally figured out what it is.
Aside from the makeup and the there's other things too.
I mean, it's it's it's totally collaborative.
You have to be able to collaborate to be on TV, and I can't.
I'm not interested in it.
I don't even like interviewing people.
And the the collaborator, you've got to sit down and have meetings.
You've got to plan what is going to happen when.
Each segment has to be blocked out.
It's got to be hit just exactly at the right time.
You've got to within each segment, the director and the producers have to know everything you're going to do.
So they can make sure cameras and video inserts are ready to go, and there's no flexibility in it.
Like I couldn't on TV say, hey, cookie, would you grab what we did yesterday and go and I'd have to wait till the next day to get it.
There's no there's no what?
There's no chance for spontaneity.
I've got people agreeing with me on the IFB.
They're just, it it limits spontaneity, and I don't plan.
When I start this program at noon, I haven't, I literally don't know what I'm what's going to make up these three hours.
I I decide mere minutes before this program starts what the first thing I'm going to talk about is.
And the uh but but here's what I really finally realized about why I don't like it.
And why I also think radio done well can have much more impact.
That camera is always a long ways away.
Visually and actually, it's it's a long way away from the microphone, however, is right here.
I mean, it is mere inches.
And the camera is you and the microphone is you.
This is intimate.
I mean, this is really intimate.
I just have no doubt here that I am closely connected and talking, but I don't feel that way, do it.
It's just me.
I know I'm an oddball on this.
Uh started, well, how do I explain the TV show was so good?
The video clips that we used, it wasn't me.
It wasn't me.
I got more comments on my neckties and the videos, or why do you waste two minutes introducing a show?
Why don't you just get into it?
You only have a 30-minute show.
I got more complaints, more dissatisfaction, more people being critical on TV than I've ever had on radio.
And the criticisms all had nothing to do with the content of the program.
Studio audience looks cheap.
How much are you paying?
I mean, this kind of stuff.
At any rate it and I'm not doing the old fuddy duddy thing.
I'm I'm just, it's actually comment on modern day media and how corrupt it has made everything because so many people on it have no clue.
They're just dumb.
And back in the, and I'm not even calling it the golden age, because I think this is actually the media golden age, because it's the age of me.
But it still strikes me that it was such you if you think if you were alive and paying attention back then, virtually anybody on TV, just the fact they were there was automatic credibility.
Because it was so rare.
There were so few TV operators.
Now everybody and their uncle has a TV show, has a radio show, and it's been broken.
Everything is niche niche programming now.
It's fascinating to end to keep up with it.
It's a it's interesting and fun to do, trying to challenge, but it just struck me, and the reason it struck me is because there are so many people who have no idea what they're doing or talking about, who are presented as experts.
It's all part of the recipe that leads to dumbed down people.
And I just it it's sometimes I have these reflective thoughts.
And I just it it just sometimes I have to comment on it in terms of just how it was what is what is it what spawned this?
There was some.
Oh, oh, I know what it listen, here it is.
The soundbite I was going to play.
Dahlia Lithwick.
Is that her name?
Glasses on, Dahlia Lough.
It's Dahlia Lithwick.
She's uh she's a journalist from somewhere.
Moyer's in company.
That's right.
I couldn't believe he's still on the air.
Uh Bill Moyer's oh, Moyers and Company on his website.
Okay, Web Extra extended continuation of the interview he had with the senior editor at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick.
And Moyer said, you wrote recently that this is the most politicized and polarized Supreme Court ever on these five, four decisions.
But is that any different from the way Congress is polarized or the country is polarized?
Listen to her answer.
It's not simply politically polarized, it's experientially polarized.
Some of the justices are very proud of the fact that they get all their news from AM radio.
Some of the justices are very proud of the fact that they don't read any newspaper of record.
They some of the justices are proud of the fact that they only speak to audiences who agree with them.
Uh more and more the justices only hire clerks who agree with them.
Gone is the era where justices would reach across the aisle and try to find clerks who would challenge them.
So this court is as polarized in terms of who they interact with, who they see, who they confer with, I think that we have ever seen in history.
I have to take a break, but of course we have some analysis coming.
After this, don't go away.
Now I wonder who she could be talking about.
You know, there's some justices very proud of the fact they get all their news from AM radio.
That's not what the justices have said.
There's some justices who have said that they really enjoy talk radio, not that it's their only source of things.
And there are some justices who have said that they don't bother reading the New York Times.
It's not that they don't read newspapers, it's that they don't read the New York Times.
What does that have to do with what these guys do?
They are dealing with legal issues and the uh events that are related to cases before them, they're not supposed to take into account the social concerns of things.
They're not supposed to look at election returns, although it has long been thought that they do.
But how many of you have believed, like Ms. Lithwick says, and these don't even hire clerks to disagree with them?
They don't even count it themselves.
They just hire a bunch of people to agree with them and they sit there and they pontificate, and that's why there's a partisan divide.
And of course, she's talking about the conservative justice.
She doesn't think the Libs have uh ever hired right-wing clerks to argue with them?
It's absurd.
How many of you have have grown up or otherwise believe that when the Supreme Court first takes a case that they sit in a room and discuss it and try to persuade each other That they're right and that they should agree with their take.
How many of you believe that happens?
I used to think that's what happened.
I used to think that the Supreme Court was collaborative.
That after oral arguments or at some point during the decision making period in a case that they would sit down and chat about the case and they would share their points of view and try to persuade each other.
I had the chance one day to ask a judge, a justice, an actual justice of the U.S. Supreme Court how that process worked.
And he looked at me and laughed.
He said, Does it?
There's no such process.
I said, You're kidding.
No, we don't try to change each other's mind.
We take a vote, and that's it.
We write the assent, uh, the dissenting opinions are assigned, and the uh uh majority opinion is designed, and that's it.
I mean, you don't you don't you don't try to persuade one of the liberal justices, no, I won't even waste my time.
I'm not gonna change their mind.
They're not gonna change their mind.
I don't gonna waste my time.
It doesn't happen.
Gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Sit tight.
Now I've mentioned this before, and you ought to see my email explode it.
What do you mean they don't debate?
What do you mean that justices don't discuss cases with either with each other?
And then somebody said, What about what about after the Obamacare vote?
Because people read that the conservative justices did everything they could to get Roberts to change his mind.
And then that was reported, and I distinctly uh recall it.
Now, all I can tell you is what I've been told, and it was some years ago.
Another email said, Well, what about oral arguments?
I hear justices disagreeing with each other, and sometimes their questions seem to be aimed at other justices rather than the lawyers that are arguing before the court.
That may well be.
All I'm telling you is that if you believe that there is this collegial round table discussion of each case where each justice or as many justices as wish offer their point of view and try to persuade disagreeing justices to change their minds.
And if you agree that each Supreme, if you think that each Supreme Court decision is the result of debate in chambers around the conference table, and a consensus being arrived at, I've been told that that doesn't happen.
The original when the caseload or a case is presented to the court, they're all there to discuss the you know whether to accept it, take a vote on that.
But but I can just tell you that I have I've been told on more than one occasion that the assumption that this is what takes place behind closed doors is wrong, that a case is presented, oral arguments are heard, uh, and a vote, just like in a jury room is taken, except there isn't any change in any conversation.
And then there may be further votes.
Uh don't know about that.
They're ultimately at some point's a final vote.
But it isn't collaborative, and it and certainly it may happen uh on a rare basis, but but not according to what I've been told.
And the other look at the only reason I'm bringing this up is because Dalia Lithwick here is in her soundbite, tries to portray only the conservative justices as closed-minded, and uh and only the conservative justices as ignorant, because hey, they've got some admit they proudly listen to AM Talk Radio,
and they proudly admit that they don't read any newspapers, and that somehow is supposed to equate or equal ignorance or stupidity or closed-mindedness or what it has nothing to do with what they do,
what their news sources are and what they enjoy to access in the media, and it only applies, of course, to the conservatives, because there's no way that she would demand that a liberal justice have a clerk who disagrees with him or her to challenge her and present points of view that she might not otherwise consider, because that's just that's not the way the left Looks at things anyway.
They're not interested in the other point of view.
They're not interested in being open to it and perhaps having their mind change.
They're not interested in that.
That's a totally different mindset.
Victory is what matters.
They already know what they believe.
It's etched in stone.
It's like a like a religion.
I want to take you back, folks.
As we stay with the audio soundbite roster, I want to repeat something you first heard on this program on February 22nd, 2008.
One month.
Oh no, I take it back.
This is a year, eleven months before Obama will be immaculated as president.
This is during the campaign, February 22nd, 2008.
If Obama gets elected president, wouldn't it be good to just get this done, Russia, and we can end the civil rights squabbles that we're having.
It wouldn't do that.
Folks, it wouldn't do that.
It might even exacerbate them.
Let me explain how.
It takes somebody like me who can read the stitches on the fastball.
Let us fast forward to January of 2009.
Obama has been inaugurated president.
And he proposes his first bit of legislation.
And let's say that it's I don't know, some civil rights-oriented thing, and a bunch of people start howling.
Any criticism of Obama, the first black president, is going to be met with charges of racism by the likes of the Reverend Jackson and Sharpton.
It will make their race business all that much more prominent.
And I said it a number of times during the campaign.
And the reason I did was because we all knew that there are a bunch of people are going to vote for Obama, hoping to end forever.
Racial strife.
There were people that voted for Obama for only one reason.
They wanted it shown that the country was no longer racist.
And how best to prove that?
There's no better way to prove that than to elect a black man president.
And that's why they voted for him.
Didn't care about anything else.
And my point, I was trying to reach him.
I was trying to say it's going to make it worse.
It's not going to solve anything.
Because any criticism of Obama is going to be immediately tagged as racist, and it's going to be disqualified.
There isn't going to be any criticism of Obama permitted.
This was a year before the election.
Well, a year before the uh inauguration.
And once again, ladies and gentlemen, I have been proven prescient.
It has been that in spades, in fact, it has gotten worse.
It's not just that any criticism of Obama would be labeled or tagged as racist.
What has happened is the Republican Party has by and large been shut down.
Their reluctance to be critical of anything Obama is doing is rooted in the fact that they don't want to be called racist by the media.
And this is why the Democrats are salivating at Hillary or Elizabeth Warren being the next president, because it'd be the same thing.
Any criticism of the first woman president would be sexist.
And it would be, therefore, unqualified.
And then they'll, after that, if they succeed, then they'll go out and recruit the first Hispanic.
And it'll be the same thing.
No criticism of the next two or three Democrat presidents will be tolerated because it will all be said to be sexist or racist.
And the blueprint is what we're living through now.
And let me offer you some further evidence of this.
Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday that he and President Obama have been targets of a racial animus by some of the regime's political opponents.
He was on this week on ABC.
Pierre Thomas interviewed him and said, You've talked about the fact that you and the president are sometimes treated differently.
Those were your words.
What did you mean by that, Mr. Holder?
There's uh a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me, directed at the president.
You know, people talk about taking their their country back.
I I can't look into people's hearts, look into people's minds.
Um, but it it seems to me that uh this president has been treated differently than others.
There's a certain racial component to this for some people.
I don't think this is the thing is a main driver, but for some um there's uh there's a racial animus.
It's interesting to me that for whatever reason um Republicans decided early on that this was a president they would just simply not gonna cooperate with.
Not true.
The Republicans the Republicans bent them sh themselves into as many shapes as they could to agree with this president.
They went out of the way to praise Holder's nomination.
I'll never forget that.
All of these so-called conservative media types praising the nomination of Eric Holder, and that all they were doing.
They didn't mean it because it wasn't a good nomination, but they were simply trying to curry favor and say, see, we're not racist, see, we're not bigots, see, we're not uh prejudiced in any of this stuff.
They were trying to manufacture an image in the media that was contradictory to what they thought the conservative media image is, and it didn't work.
Uh Newt Gingrich praised Obama and his choice of national security director, forget who it was.
Oh, it was James Jones, I think.
And I remember Newt running around and said, Well, I you'd have told me that this president would have chosen somebody like this.
I would not have believed you.
And then we had these conservative media columnists who were, oh man, this guy is so smart.
Why look at the crease in his slangs?
I knew then he was gonna the Republicans were bending over backwards to support this guy.
They were bending over backwards to not be seen as racist, and yet here's Holder saying the Republicans decided early on they were not going to cooperate with.
But this notion of, or this technique of smearing straw men, and playing the role of victim.
President of the United States, Attorney General of the United States, oh, poor guys, poor victims of a mean racist America.
We are being governed by the most divisive, and some would say the most lawless president and attorney general ever, and they accuse everybody else of despicable motives.
Notice they don't name anybody.
They point fingers at these mysterious evil forces and then claim not to know what's in their hearts.
And then they talk about, oh, yeah, when I hear I want my country, but or when I hear take back our country.
That's code language, said Holder.
I know I'm listening to a racist bigot.
Let's listen to some people who've said this.
Let's go back.
2004, the Democrat primaries, a montage of former Vermont governor, Howard Dean.
We are taking our country back piece by piece from the Rush Limbaugh.
You have the power to take back our country so that the flag no longer represents solely Rush Limbaugh.
You have the power to take back our country so that the flag never again is the sole property of Rush Limbaugh.
You have the power to take back our country, so that the flag of the United States is no longer the sole property of Rush Limbo.
This country does not belong to Rush Limbaugh.
Move over.
I want my country back again because the flag of this country does not belong to Rush Limbaugh.
You have the power to take back the flag, so it is no longer belongs solely to Rush Limbaugh.
Howard Dean 2004 going crazy on the stump, talking about taking his country back.
Eric Holder said when he hears that, that's code language.
By the way, not a single Republican senator opposed Eric Holder's nomination.
And we'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
John Kerry, 2004.
Theresa and I would like to ask you and Elizabeth John Edwards' talk, but John Elizabeth and I would like to ask you to join us on our ticket to take back our country.
That's announcing John Edwards as his VEP.
Take back our country.
Democrat fundraiser 2003, Hillary Clinton pledged to work on behalf of a campaign to take back our country, quote unquote.
And after the election 2005, Clinton declared we are ready to go forth and fight to take back our country.
Al Gore said.
Oh, speaking of which, you know, it is uncanny.
It is uncanny.
Al Gore, ladies and gentlemen, goes down to Australia to make a big presentation, climate change, biggest crisis our civilization faces.
And while he's there, they have record cold.
It is uncanny.
Wherever he goes on a global warming mission, it snows, it blizzards.
Record cold in Brisbane, Australia.
Something like a hundred and nine-year record.
I mean it's it's it's just hilarious.
Anyway, let me grab a quick telephone call here before we run out of time in our busy broadcast hour.
Matt in Columbus.
I'm glad you called, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Twenty-one-year-old listener, uh, first-time caller here.
We're just calling because I read a New York Times article stating that the youth vote doesn't remember the 1990s and doesn't remember the early 2000s.
The only memory they have is of Obama and the Democrats ruining this country, so it's going to switch from the youth vote of the Democrats to the Republicans.
And I was wondering if you believed this and what's your thought on that one.
You know, Matt, I'm glad that you called and asked.
We we talked about this last week, and it it was in a in a big mumble jumble of a bunch of things.
There was a uh a pew center research study on the millennials, uh, which is uh is people between 18 and 29, 18, 31 years of age.
And this survey was fascinating because it in practically every category, by 55 to 45, 57, 43 percent.
Millennials said they believed in smaller government, uh lower taxes, the Reagan agenda, without knowing that's what they were doing, that's what they were voting for.
And then later in the in the poll, it said that despite all of that, they still planned on voting Democrat.
Now, the age group you're talking about is not millennials.
That was another story.
It was a and I I was uh I was kind of struck by it just like you are.
And the point of the story that you saw in the New York Times, and having a metal block remember the uh do you remember the writer's name?
Do you have it in front of you?
Unfortunately, I do not driving at the moment.
Well, it it was fascinating because uh, and I think the point that he made is valid.
And I said so at the time.
You're gonna have some people who are able to vote in 2016 for the first time, maybe 18 years old.
And they do not have a memory of George Bush as a reprobate, like the millennials do.
Uh, the millennials image of Republicans is forged by the way the media treated George W. Bush.
And of course, they hammered Bush and they crucified Bush.
They ripped Bush to shreds, and Bush never responded to any of it.
And so they've been Bush, the worst president of Bush caused the economic crisis, Bush and the war in Iraq, Bush was horrible, Bush and Katrina, Bush didn't care about people.
Democrats care about people, and that's who the millennials are.
But the people you're talking about, uh, they weren't alive or old enough to remember any of that.
They are coming a voting age in a period where the country is in a massive state of decline.
It's in a state that they do not wish to inherit.
And so the point of that piece was that they are likely to be very disgruntled with the current Democrat Party and President Obama and unlikely to vote for it.
Uh, meaning the Democrats in uh 2014 and in 2016.
2016 is when they're going to be 18.
I think it's a valid point.
Uh now they they have been treated to a sycophantic medium covering for Obama, saying great things.
But the fact of the matter is the country is a mess.
Uh and uh there there isn't any upbeat, positive, inspiring news or events anywhere that they are exposed to, unless it's happening in their private lives, because media that they access is not reflecting any of that.
And I think it's a valid point.
I think it has to be worked.
I don't think you sit by and take a chance and wait for it.
But it has to be worked, meaning people who want the votes of those people are going to have to go out and actually seek them.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, that's because I, your host, am doing what I was born to do.
And there's more of it on the other side of our obscene profit timeout here.
▲
Export Selection