All Episodes
July 17, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
July 17, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Holy cow, folks, have you seen the news?
A Malaysian Airlines flight has been shot down by a missile over Ukraine.
At least, according to an advisor to Ukraine's interior ministry.
The Interfax News Agency, which has nothing to do with fax machines.
It's what the uh the Soviets used to call their news agency, Interfax.
You didn't know that, did you?
They even had a hotel chain called Interfax, and everybody's like, what, what?
Fax machines?
And it had nothing to do with that.
Anyway, it's a Malaysian Airlines jet.
And can you?
I, you know, I've got the British Open on the top menu, uh the monitor.
I haven't had CNN on all day.
What do you bet?
They have broomed everything.
And are covering wall-to-wall, the Malaysian Airlines flight shot down by a missile.
This is a I mean, you talk about, I don't want to appear to be calloused here, folks, but you talk about an opportunity to abandon the bad Obama news at the border.
And no, I'm not suggesting anything other than how the media operates.
Anyway, it's eerie.
It is really eerie.
A Malaysian area was on the way to Kuala Lumpur.
Why would it be shot down?
Over Ukraine.
It was shot down by a missile.
This is uh that would lead one to believe that it is not an accident carrying 299 uh 95 people and obviously no survivors.
Anyway, greetings and welcome.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, as always, behind the Golden EIB microphone.
We are here at 800-282-2882, the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
You know, uh, Mr. Snerdley, we may as well do open line Friday today because I'm out tomorrow.
And you're out tomorrow.
Snerdley's going to some sort of spiritual retreat.
And I, ladies and gentlemen, have um this is my annual uh member guest golf tournament for charity, uh, obviously.
Yeah, I had forgotten that we had an open for this.
Yeah.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida via New York City.
It's open line Friday on Thursday.
Well, technically, yeah.
It's open line Friday on Thursday.
It just means that we relax the most stringent restrictions on callers known to exist in the free world.
Most shows are just happy to get callers.
They'll take anybody.
Well, it's true.
Most hosts will do anything to make the phone lines light up.
And that we don't do that here.
We have people waiting on hold hours before the well, not we don't answer, we have people dialing in hours before the program starts.
Anyway, whatever you want to talk about today, fine, doesn't have to be whatever it is that I am discussing.
And once again, we have uh another huge stack on what's happening at the border.
And how about Joe Biden?
Did you hear what Joe Biden said?
Joe Biden said there really hadn't been any change.
In hoping change.
He claimed Biden said that the change promised by Barack Obama didn't happen.
And uh Ron Fournier at the National Journal is calling this a really bad moment for the White House because it undermines the central premise of Obama's election in 2008.
Fournier was on CNN today to discuss Biden's inconvenient Admission yesterday.
And Fournier says, come on, he really didn't say this, right?
There's got to be a follow-up that we haven't seen where he says, hey, I'm just kidding.
But the vice president basically conceded that the original sin of the Obama presidency, which is we promised to at least start changing Washington and we failed.
Biden says there hasn't been any change.
It didn't happen.
Now I have, I'm there, there are two schools of thought on this.
Because note what Fournier thinks the change is.
Fournier thinks that the change is Washington.
Now, when Barack Obama promised hope and change, and the average American voter bought into it, what do you think the average American voter thought Obama intended to change?
Now, I will concede, as we all will, that there was a lot of anger at George W. Bush, some of it justified, but a lot of it manufactured, folks, over a four to five-year intense period of media hammering Bush on virtually everything.
And Obama did campaign on the basis that he could end partisanship.
We're going to be post-racial.
We were going to be post-partisan.
It was going to a new day, be a new day.
The world would love us, and there wouldn't be any acrimony anymore.
And I will acknowledge that some people might have think Obama meant he was going to change Washington in the sense that people are going to start getting along with each other.
And people are going to start cooperating with each other.
And it's going to be a kumbaya utopia.
But I never thought that's what Obama meant with hope and change.
I never for a moment thought that's what I've always known what I had to hear him say that he wanted to fundamentally transform the country, and you got to do more than change Washington to do that.
And that's, I always thought hope and change meant change the direction of the country, meant change.
And he was elected having helped convince people that the country was headed in the wrong direction.
Now, what if Biden is smarter than we think?
Because there has, look, let's make speak clear, folks, there has been abundant change.
There has been phenomenal change in this country.
None of it for the better.
Or very little of it.
I can't think of anything that.
I mean, if I honestly, if I had to sit here and somebody was put put a put a you know challenge in front of me and said, you gotta come up with something Obama's done good, I would be hard-pressed.
And I'm I'm I'm speaking partisanly.
The change has been overwhelming.
The change has been fundamental.
It has been significant, it has been disastrous.
So what if Biden coming out, nah, we really didn't change, we haven't.
Could that simply be a way of lulling people into believing that what's happening now is no different than what was happening when Obama took office, and there's nothing to see here.
And all these Republican clap traps who are talking about all this rotten says, we didn't really change anything.
You know, we kind of failed.
As a way of suckering people, into lulling people, into accepting this as the new norm, because it's not really change, it's just what is.
I don't think Biden's that smart, but an advisor might be.
Remember now we're talking about psychological ploys that would be utilized on a low information crowd.
And the thing to remember about the low information crowd is that none of them know that they're low information.
By definition, they can't.
They don't know enough to know they don't know anything.
In addition to that, nobody is gonna admit to being stupid and dumb when it comes to these things.
So the low information crowd literally has no members if you rely on a raise of hands to identify them.
Now nobody will admit it.
But we all know Who they are.
We all know where they are.
We all know what matters to them.
And the Democrats feed into it left and right.
And if the regime wants to sucker people, there comes Obama, hope and change.
Now it's not, look, it's a it's it's a problem because you're gonna have people like Fournier in the media say, what the hell is he saying?
I mean, come out, no hope and change.
Basically it didn't happen.
So they're interesting two words to describe hope and change.
Not saying that they failed to change anything.
He said it didn't happen.
I may be thinking this way beyond where Biden actually intends it to be.
I may be being too smart by half, which is my natural inclination.
But it wouldn't surprise me if this is a trick.
Why say this?
Why can't unless you're just a blithering idiot, which is something we must seriously consider when talking about Biden.
And I'm not joking.
I'm not trying to sound funny.
He literally is.
A guy hadn't been right about anything in 40 years.
He has not been right.
He's a great example when I was talking about uh either earlier this week or late last week about how Washington, Washington doesn't work, and he is the epitome of it.
Joe Biden's been in that town 40 years.
He hasn't done anything right, he hadn't been right about anything, and he's continued to climb the ladder.
The establishment types fail up.
So if he hasn't done anything right, if he hasn't been right about anything, and yet he can continues to gain and climb the ladder, upward mobility, how does it happen?
It's because he's been there.
It's just that's he's in the club, he's been there, he knows the people, he can network, and that's that's the explanation.
I mean, Washington doesn't work, and the idea that that the fix for what ails the country is going to come from a place that doesn't work itself is mind boggling.
It doesn't work, and he's the epitome of it.
So it's not an exaggeration to say he's a blithering idiot.
It's it's it's pretty accurate.
Now he may he may have knowledge, he may have an IQ, but he's wrong about everything.
I mean, we talk about what is smart.
I've always thought we needed to redefine smart.
How can somebody be smart who's wrong about everything?
Yet Biden is considered smart, and he's a gaff-prone smart, but he's still considered smart by the people in the establishment.
And he cares.
He's got the requisite amount of um apparent compassion.
But why come out and say that the change didn't happen unless you are attempting to psychologically manipulate people into thinking that what happening now, Obama hasn't been worse is the way it was.
Now, granted, you open yourself up for allegations of failure.
If you came in you wanted to change things, I'm not trying to cut him some slack.
I'm I'm trying, this is so stupid.
I'm trying to, there's gotta be, there's gotta be another another paradigm going, or as another member of this club that fails up, that's a blithering idiot, Prince Charles, it talks about externalities.
Does anybody know what one of those is?
The paradigm of externalities.
He gave that, he said that in his speech to a collection of elites inside the beltway somewhere, maybe it was over the European Union, he was talking about architecture and global warming.
And the paradigm of well, I know it sounds intelligent, again to the low information credit, have no idea what a paradigm is, and no idea what an externality is, much less the plural of externality, externalities.
And here's this guy talking about him, and he looks smart, and he's got a good knot in his tie, and he's got a thin neck, he looks like an aristocrat, drinks a lot of gin, liver's still working fine, so what's the complaint about?
But it just you try to follow these people with logic and you and you get lost.
And you got a guy like Ron Fournier who said, What in the world is this the worst thing in the world?
He's coming out here and saying there hasn't been any change, it didn't happen.
Basically conceded the original sin of the Obama regime, which is we promised to at least start changing Washington.
And we fail.
They haven't failed at that either.
When was the IRS is getting away with whatever they want to do.
The EPA is getting away with whatever they want to do.
Change Washington.
The president is acting as though there's another Congress.
There's been dramatic change.
That's why I question what Biden is doing here.
There has been overwhelming change.
It has been stupendous change.
None of it for the better.
So what better way to not call attention to it than to go out and say, yeah, you know what?
We tried, there hasn't been that much.
So that the low information people simply say, oh, well, this is just the way it is.
Cool.
I got to take a break, folks.
Sit tight.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
You know, the left, the media is really hellbent on attaching me to the movement seeking to impeach Obama.
What did I just say yesterday?
I have never called for the impeachment of Barack Obama.
That in fact, quite the opposite.
I've never called for it.
And yet, no matter where you turn in the drive-by media, I am associated with this demand that Obama being be impeached.
Now, Sarah Palin has called for it, and maybe a couple of others.
My friend Andy McCarthy wrote a book about it, but he's not calling for it, at least until there's a political will among the American people to do it, because impeachment's not just a legal proceeding, it's a political act.
And if you don't have the people behind you, you're gonna fail and it's gonna blow up in your face.
Everybody under the sun that pays scant attention to this knows that.
I have never called yet, they really want to attach me to it.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
And we're starting last night, NPR's all things know.
Some things considered.
The uh political correspondent is Dan Gagne.
He's reporting about Republican calls for impeaching Obama.
And in this bite, you'll hear me in Palin.
Talk of impeachment is once again swirling around.
And while the general public is not very interested in the idea, a solid majority of Republicans say they support taking such a step.
Most prominent among them are those who do not hold public office, like Rush Limbaugh.
This guy needs to be impeached.
We impeached Nixon for less than this kind of stuff.
Limbaugh points to the IRS scrutiny of Tea Party groups.
Then there's Sarah Palin, who sees White House immigration policy as an impeachable offense.
She was on Fox News calling for Congress to act.
The one tool they have are articles of impeachment.
Let's get going on that.
Okay, so you heard me.
They got a soundbite there.
This guy needs to be impeached.
He we impeached Nixon for less.
But do you know I wasn't talking about Obama?
I was talking about that clown, commissioner of the IRS, John Coskin.
Let's go to the whole bite from which they pulled that little clip and took it out of context.
It was June 24th on this program, and here's the whole bite.
We're breaking the law every day, and then nothing you can do about it.
That's Koskinen.
That's exactly what he's saying.
That's exactly who he is.
The law doesn't matter to us.
Can't you look around, Gowdy?
Can't you see we're breaking the law every day, getting away with it every day?
I don't have to know what the law is, because there isn't any law.
We are the Obama administration.
And I demanded you stop us.
You can't stop us.
There's nothing you can do to stop us.
It is clear that there's no respect for this committee, no respect for the law, no respect whatsoever.
This is statist mentality.
This is utter defiance.
I mean, this guy needs to be impeached.
We impeached Nixon for less than this kind of stuff.
Nixon only dreamed about doing what this guy's done.
Nixon only dreamed about doing what Lois Lerner has done.
Nixon only dreamed of using the IRS to damage his political opponents, but he never did it.
But they wanted to convict him of a thought crime, nevertheless.
Well, these people have done it.
I was talking about John Koskinen.
And even talking about impeaching Obama.
And yet they pull the clip...
Now I have to, I have to grant that they might not even know because they probably didn't even listen to the whole bite because they got the excerpt from a biased media watchdog in the first place.
They were probably lied to or misled themselves.
Most reporters are lazy and don't actually try to go to the source if they are fed information that fits their prejudice.
And in this case, Dan Gagnier was.
Now it is clear, ladies and gentlemen, by trying to attach me to this mythical move, and then there is there even a serious effort underway to impeach Obama right now.
There isn't.
There are some people who are calling for it.
There are some people commenting on those calls.
There isn't any official preparation of articles of impeachment.
Not even on the front burner anywhere.
And proof positive is that drive-by's are trying to manufacture news that doesn't exist.
I think this is a little indication of how frightened they are.
They're having to make up news in order to turn out their base in the November elections.
They don't have any issues they can run on, quite obviously.
So they uh they've they're throwing the race card every day.
So here they go.
They're trying to they're trying to jack up the base.
Look at this limbo.
You already know how mean he is.
He's such a meanie.
And now, and now, Limbaugh wants to throw a bomb out.
And they're hoping that that news alone will awaken the apathetic low information voters who are worn out with Obama and get them to the polling place one last time.
Save the Democrat Party from the utter disaster that it looks like they face in November.
Another publication talks about how immigration has failed and bombed out as a big issue for the Democrats, backing me up yet again.
Sit tight.
That's coming next.
Music expressed by the host on this program.
Documented to be almost always right.
99.7%.
Percent...
Of the time.
And a quick telephone call.
This is Rod in Minneapolis.
Uh greetings.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
God, it's great to talk to you.
I have never gotten through before.
This is amazing to me.
Well, congratulations, sir.
You sound really happy, and I'm happy that you're happy.
Well, I just want to let you know what an externality is.
I spent a lot of time learning that in law school when I had a torch professor who tried to explain to us the law in Eco.
But an externality is simply a cost that is not borne by somebody who profits from a venture.
So in the global warming community, there would be somebody who doesn't pay for the cost of cleaning up their CO2 emissions, for example.
And so Prince Charles, when he talks about externalities, is talking about economics, you claim.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Explain that again.
It's uh it's a cost not born.
You mean a cost nobody's paying for.
Right.
So it's uh I don't want to go to the law aspect of it because I'll take it in a different direction.
But uh in the in the uh global warming people, they would say that if you are not remediating or somehow fixing the damage to the environment yourself, and you are earning a profit from polluting the environment, there is a cost that is paid for by somebody else that you should be paying for because you are profiting uh from polluting the environment.
I see, and that is what the externalities are that have his underwear in uh in a wad.
I don't know about his underwear, but yeah.
Well, it's a figure of speech.
He's he's upset about it.
I don't think we talked about the pr the prince's underwear, but that's okay.
Yeah, I can't.
Okay, so but so basically an externality is uh is a is a it's a side effect or um uh well, just it's somebody does something and that they should pay the cost of and they don't, and there are a whole bunch of those in global warming.
There's a whole lot of externalities if you want to define it that way.
Oh, it's fun at that.
That's what the whole industry is based on.
All right.
Well, I appreciate the call.
Thank you, Rod.
Uh very much.
You know, it's very rare that uh that a caller is is able to tell the host something on this program anyway that the host didn't know.
No, I did, I did not know that that I had heard of the word externalities, uh, but I didn't know the economic definition of externalities.
I mean, it there's a externalities is a misuse of people who talk about external effects.
And I thought that's what the Prince was doing, because I think he's basically a quad.
Uh and it turns out he was talking about global warming and economics and people not paying for things, which he knows a lot about, too.
So I was never going to meet the Prince.
What do you mean one day I was going to meet the room?
Oh, one day I am going to meet No, no, no.
I will.
No, it'll never.
He won't, he won't.
You think that I'm going to meet the Prince and he's going to know that I called him a quad and an idiot, and it's not going to happen.
I mean, you may find out.
I don't think.
Do you think he even knows that there is that there are talk shows on the radio in a you think he knows that?
Uh, maybe, maybe.
I just I don't I don't think Prince Charles has the slightest idea who opponents of global warming are in this country.
I I I just so beneath, you know, what happens on the radio in America is so beneath the day-to-day existence of a monarch.
I just can't, I can't fathom it.
A that he would know, B that I would ever encounter either Prince Charles or any member of the uh of the royal family.
Anyway, nevertheless, Rod, I appreciate the phone call.
National Journal.
Now it was earlier this week, and it was the Hill.com.
And I know you'll remember because I spent an inordinate amount of time on this.
It was a story that had a headline, which essentially said that amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform has fizzled as an issue, as a winning electoral issue for the Democrats.
And I spent a lot of time asking how in the world can that be.
We have been told for how many years now, consecutive years, that the only hope for the Republican Party, if they ever want to win the White House again, they're gonna have to somehow convince Hispanic voters that they don't hate them.
And that the only way they can do that is to change their minds on amnesty and put forward legislation that they sponsor.
Essentially authorizing comprehensive immigration reform, i.e.
amnesty.
The Democrats were all saying if the Republicans don't do this, they're never ever gonna win the White House again.
Chuck Schumer actually made it sound like he wants the Republicans to win the White House.
It sounded like he was very, very worried that the Republicans might be blowing it forever unless they get right on comprehensive immigration reform.
And we've had the Chamber of Commerce guy who's told the Republicans, if you don't do it, you may as well not even nominate a candidate in 2016 because we're not gonna have anybody give you any money.
So the Republicans have, and they've bought it, the Republicans believed it, just like they believe every other trick the Democrats and the media play on them.
So the Republicans got it in their heads, and don't doubt me.
I have been I have been pitched by them, folks.
I've been to secret dinners.
I have been asked to take secret meetings with elected officials who try to tell me, Not try.
They have told me that it is crucial.
The Republican Party cannot survive unless it gets behind comprehensive immigration reform.
And they've also told me if you call it amnesty, which it isn't, you will kill it.
And we can't afford for this to be killed.
The Republican Party cannot survive without this.
Okay, you know that.
You've heard it for years.
And then all of a sudden, all it takes is whatever is happening at the border right now, the influx of illegal kids, and that number is anywhere from 250 to 300,000 and climbing.
And all of a sudden, the whole thing has fizzled for the Democrats.
How can that be?
When all that's happening at the border is what will happen anyway if we pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Now I'm speaking facetiously because the truth of the matter is I have never believed it.
Not a not for a day.
I have never believed that the Republicans' only salvation, their only hope is to get Hispanic votes.
I reject that, number one.
Number two, I reject the idea the only way to get Hispanic votes is to sign on for amnesty and basically get rid of borders.
I just I just have never bought it.
But I'm one of uh few.
Well, there are many of us outside politics that didn't buy it, but the inside the beltway elites establishment, the Republicans all did.
And yet, here we are now, what, three months from the election, and it's fizzled as a winning issue for the Democrats.
Now, my point is here's a second story saying it.
This one is the National Journal.
The first one last week or earlier this week was in the Hill.
Immigration isn't a slam dunk issue for Democrats anymore, is the lead headline.
The subhead is polling shows the public is divided on immigration reform while divisions within the Democrat Party are worsening.
And there should be a third subhead which should say, what if Rush Lindbaugh has been right all along?
There are nuggets throughout this article that make my case on the political dangers of this issue, and they go directly against the conventional wisdom.
It's by Josh Creshour.
Polling the public on policy preference is an inherently tricky issue.
And by the way, there's a Gallup poll out today, and this has everybody in the in the pro-immigration that just they're just they're bamboozled.
U.S. most important problems.
What do you think is the most important problem facing this country?
Immigration, illegal aliens, number one at 17%.
You know what's not on the list?
Climate change, global warming.
Not on the list.
And there are one, two, three, four, five, well, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, seventeen different answers to the question, what do you think is the most important problem facing the country?
Climate change, global warming, not mentioned.
It was not multiple choice.
You had to think of something off the top of your head.
They didn't give you a list of things.
Number two is dissatisfaction with government, Congress, politicians, poor leadership, corruption, abuse of power.
16%.
Number three, the economy in general, 15%.
Number four, employment slash jobs at 14%.
Number five, poor health care hospitals, high cost of health care, 8%.
Federal budget, the debt, 6%, on and on.
Lack of money is way down to the bottom, taxes at the bottom, crime and violence, race relations, racism, second to last, lack of respect for each other at the very bottom, nothing to do with climate change.
Anyway, this poll, most important problem facing, but not in the way the Democrats and the beltway establishment think the people responding in this poll are not saying we have a problem in immigration because we don't have amnesty.
They're saying we have a problem because there's too much of it.
It goes against in every way what the establishment is trying to ram down our throats.
But the point is there is a second story now about how this whole issue, which not only was a guaranteed win for life for the Democrats, it was an issue that was going to wipe out the Republican Party if they didn't sign on to it.
Just a month ago, a year ago, two years ago, five years ago.
That has been the conventional wisdom.
If a Republicans don't glom onto this, if they don't sign on to this, if they don't get on the right side of this, if they don't support Amnesty, the Hispanic are going to hate their guts, the Hispanics are never going to vote for them, and if the Hispanics never vote for them, never going to win the presidency.
And now all that's gone.
And the whole advantage the Democrats had has withered away.
The only way that can be is if it was a lie and a phony false premise to begin with.
And back to the phones we go.
This is Samuel in uh Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.
Thank you for calling.
It's great to have you here.
Hi.
Hey, Russia.
May I say Mr. Big?
Mr. Big, yes.
Mr. Big of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Malaysian uh airliner shut uh shot down will be a pretext for Putin to invade the Ukraine.
Explain.
Well, he could give the uh missile to some of his thugs over in the Ukraine.
They fire one off, shoot down the airliner over Ukrainian territory.
Who gets the blame?
The Ukrainians.
Oh.
Oh, I see.
Are you in a are you in a hurricane out there?
No, sir.
It's a good so your theory is that Putin has given.
Putin gave a missile to his trying again.
Putin gave a missile to his associates who f who bring down an innocent, harmless uh commercial airliner that is blamed on Putin's enemies, correct?
That's the key to this.
Yes.
Which then greenlights Putin to go in and take out these bad mean people that shoot down innocent commercial airliners, right?
Perfect straw dog, yes.
I see.
Well, uh just a thought.
Yeah, no, it could it could it could well be.
Uh let's whenever whenever someone dies or is near death, Fox News brings out Heroldo.
That has happened.
The Grim Reaper appeared moments ago on Fox to discuss this.
He was asked by Harris Faulkner.
I don't quote Harris Faulkner.
I'm I'm not given to quoting Harris Faulkner, but don't hold it against me here.
But she said, it was flying at 34,000 feet, and if you want to think about it this way, a surface to air missile probably wouldn't be able to take out a plane that far away.
So what might it have been?
That's what they're looking at.
What about it, Grim Reaper?
Vladimir Putin has the blood of these airline passengers on his hands.
The Russian leader has been supplying increasingly sophisticated weaponry to the pro-Russian anti-Ukraine activists in eastern Ukraine.
I believe, as I sit here today, that what happened is Russia supplied that weapon system so that those rebels could shoot down Ukrainian helicopters and Ukrainian warplanes attacking them, and they saw this aircraft in the sky, these undisciplined pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels shot down that innocent passenger debt, I believe.
All right, it was Harris Faulkner, who I I look, don't don't blame me.
I she was there.
I couldn't avoid it.
Don't quote her much, but uh she had to move in and stop Heroldo.
But Haraldo basically saying the same thing in our first caller, a second caller said here that uh this is a an attack that Putin actually engineered to make it look like his enemies brought this plane down, thereby giving him credibility to go in and take out his enemies by blaming this on them.
That's if you have a trouble following, that's what the Grim Reaper.
Uh and his point was.
But it's it's uh it's just regardless.
An innocent commercial airline that in no way can be perceived as anything offensive or militaristic was shot down out of the sky by somebody.
And there is a reason for it.
It didn't just happen.
I mean, it wasn't as though somebody ended up with their finger on a button over there and just accidentally pushed it.
So there is a lot to learn about this.
We'll be back.
That's it, ladies and gentlemen.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence is in the can.
Soon to be on its way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
And if you haven't seen it, you you really it's the the virtual reproduction of the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum is at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's just a just a superb website with content and value way beyond what anybody would expect.
Sit tight.
Export Selection