All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:46
July 28, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mr. Sturdley, make sure we don't lose that guy on line four.
That's the question of the day.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back, El Rushbo serving humanity here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Our phone number, if you want to appear as 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
You know, I love to see this.
New York City, I think, is back.
If we're looking, if we're looking at signs, and we all are, that we're returning to normal.
If we're looking, a lot of us desperately reaching for normal.
We want normalcy return.
And the news out of New York may give us some hint that things are at least returning to normal there.
For example, a street performer dressed as Spider-Man in Times Square was arrested after punching a cop who told him he could not demand money from tourists.
It happened Saturday afternoon.
Junior Bishop, 25, dressed up as Spider Man, was overheard by a cop refusing a $1 bill from a woman, a tourist, with whom he'd taken a picture.
You got tourists in there, and they think it's really Spider-Man.
Junior Bishop posing, the woman offered him a buck, and instead he demanded more money.
A cop overheard this.
The police officer told Spider-Man, look, you can only accept tips out here, but you cannot demand money.
Well, Spider Man punched the cop in the face.
So then the cop told Spider-Man he was under arrest and he punched him again.
New York is back.
This was not the first incident involving a so-called costumed street performer running a foul of the law.
Last month, another Spider Man was fined $370 for a 2013 incident, which he punched a tourist who threw a snowball at him.
Spider Man couldn't get out of the way of the snowball, got embarrassed and beat up the tourist.
Fine $370.
Last year, uh a costumed cookie monster was arrested on suspicion of shoving a two-year-old child.
This is New York is back, folks.
The cookie monster shoved a two-year-old child whose mother failed to tip him.
And in 2012, a man dressed as Elmo was arrested after going on an anti-Semitic tirade.
It's so great to see this stuff starting to happen again.
I mean, this lets you know.
Am I not right, Mamon?
This means that New York is back.
I mean, the only thing they need to do now is open Studio 54, bring it back, and make sure Johnny Manzel's there every night.
Well, Halston can't go because he's passed away, and and Anne Warhol can't go because he's passed away.
So we need to restock studio.
Elaine can't go because she passed away.
Cher Cher can go.
It's right, she can bring her walker.
Do you mean the actual walker or an escort?
You're the actual walker.
I thought, well, you know, because down here, walkers are escorts for the uh the octagenarian crowd.
The old ladies that are invited to charity balls.
Twenty-five-year-old young men escort them and they're called walkers.
So when you said share can show up or walker, I know who you're talking about.
Down here in Palm Beach, that would be with a young guy, viral young guy.
By the way, you didn't know that.
Oh, yeah, there's a convention for the walkers every year.
I'm not gonna tell you what it is.
They don't call themselves that.
That's another name for them, but there's every New Year's Eve.
Oh, yeah.
Oh yeah.
No, Snurdley would not be a great walker.
Sturdly too old.
Snurley.
Well, some walkers get uh a guest bedroom for the season if they're used every day.
Uh some walkers uh are given you know free access to whatever is at the party that night.
Uh walkers are always given clothes to buy money to buy tuxedo or whatever the dress code requires.
Uh sometimes walkers are given money to rent a limo if the Old lady in question doesn't have one.
Or if the one she has is a 1947 rolls that's broken down.
Oh yeah, it's a whole subculture here.
You didn't know that?
You oh yeah, it's big, it's big.
It's never talked about it.
I'm probably blowing it big time here.
Dawn knows what I'm talking about.
She's nodding her head in there.
Now, in the Saturday incident, when Spider-Man beat up the cop, his name again was uh Junior Bishop 25.
He was charged with assaulting an officer, resisting address, criminal mischief, and disorderly conduct.
The officer was treated for his injuries at a nearby hospital and released.
New York is back.
CNN and a poll.
And everybody over the weekend was talking about this poll, but for the wrong reason.
In a rematch of the 2012 presidential election, if it were held today, Mitt Romney would beat Obama in a land slide.
Something like uh what what is the number?
It's uh 5344, nine points.
But that's not the news.
The reason CNN released the poll is because after they tell tell us that, they then point out that that doesn't matter.
That Hillary would beat Romney today by what is it?
Uh there's so many numbers in this.
Um Hillary would beat Romney.
I don't know, 55.
No.
Doesn't matter.
The point is that while Romney would clean Obama's clock if the election were today in a landslide, the real news that CNN points out is that Hillary would beat Romney today by a sizable margin.
Uh 50.
I'm trying to find the number here, folks, and I just there's too many numbers.
But that still's not the point.
There's another bit of news in this poll that I think trumps all that.
Because A, the election is not going to be reheld.
B, it's a second-term president in the middle of a bunch of mess.
It makes total sense.
Almost any president would be uh beaten in his at this point in the second term, historically.
The real news in this poll.
Do you remember the exit poll I told you about in 2012?
I got the first wave at 5 o'clock.
And there were two exit poll questions, and when I saw the results, I was pretty sure it was over, and that Romney was going to lose.
And I was disheartened.
I can't tell you.
It was the the air went out of my balloons instantly.
The first question was something like 61% still blame Bush for the economy.
No reason to vote against Obama here.
Then the second one was generic question, cares about people like me.
Romney lost that one 81 to 19.
In other words, 81% in the exit poll in 2012, 81% thought Obama cares about them, whereas only 19% thought Romney did.
The CNN poll that came out yesterday.
A record low, 46% say Obama shares their values.
That is nearly, and that's a different poll, That was an exit poll back in 2012, and it's a slightly different question here, but still, we have an almost 50% plunge from the premise that Obama shares their values, cares about them, knows that their lives are in bad shape and need to be improved.
50, yeah, that's what 50.
I thought it was 41 and Clinton beats Romney 55-42, if the election were today.
Hillary.
That's why CNN released the poll.
That's why.
They put the poll for that result to be trumpeted.
It's all part of the Keep Hillary's campaign alive.
But that's still not the news, because that's irrelevant too.
The election isn't today.
It's in November of 2016, and there's way too much that's going to happen between now and then, and that isn't going to happen.
Hillary's not going to beat Romney, 55, whatever.
What do you say?
I know Romney Romney says he's not running.
I mean, with Obama plunging nearly 50% in the cares about me category, that's the news in this poll.
That is today, and that's real, and that matters.
And that doesn't portend well for the Democrats in November of this year.
And in a similar part of the poll, 49% say, only 49% say Obama is sincere in what he says.
That's a record low.
So that's quite a plunge.
From 81% cares about people like me to 46%.
That's buried.
That's almost an afterthought in the poll.
That to me is big in the poll.
That is the huge news to me.
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Officials at some Denver homeless shelters are saying that the legalization of marijuana has contributed to an increase in the number of younger people living homeless on the street.
Why would that why would legalizing marijuana be a factor in that?
One of the things that's driving our increased numbers, and we're seeing it from shelters in other parts of the state in Colorado where legalized marijuana is taking place, retail sales, have driven people to Colorado.
And I think that comes from what we're seeing from other shelters.
The Salvation Army's men's shelter in Denver seen an increase in a number of 18 to 25-year-olds.
An informal survey found that about a quarter of the increase in homelessness was related to marijuana, including some who moved, hoping to find work in the marijuana industry.
Oh, really?
Give me a break.
People are going there to find work in the marijuana industry.
Yeah, only if they get freebies as payment.
You know, this doesn't seem to be a problem with men going to North Dakota to get jobs in the fracking business.
In the fracking, and there doesn't seem to be a bunch of homelessness there.
Why would people going to Denver, even if it is to pick up on some weed, why would they end up being homeless?
Is your is your theory that they there aren't the jobs for them and so they're homeless, or is it because they're just they're stoned all day?
All right.
Okay.
So they were they were bums already, and they're just going to Denver to get high.
So they were jobless when they left wherever they were.
They're jobless when they get to uh Denver.
They're bums in both places, so they're homeless.
That's the theory.
It's true.
They won't be arrested for being high in Denver.
And there is a steady supply of it.
Well, it Yeah, I know.
Well, isn't there some restriction on how much you can get if you're out of state?
Then the law says you can only get no no, they're not residents.
Uh I'm talking, you have to have a resident ID card of some kind to buy limitless amounts of weed.
If you're from out of state, there's a limit, I thought, I thought there was a limit of what you could buy.
Now that, of course, there's the matter of enforcement, and if we're going to look at it like immigration laws, what?
I mean, who's going to find them?
The thing I find interesting about it is usually you only see stories about increased homelessness when a Republican is in the White House.
See, that again, folks, it is I, Il Rushbow, seeing the news in entirely different ways than mere mortals.
So what explains this?
We never get stories on homelessness when the Democrats are in the White House, when the Democrats are in power.
We never hear about that.
But now all of a sudden, and why would the why would the left want to do anything and discredit legal legal weed?
Why?
This this discredits the whole notion of legal weed.
Legal weed equals homelessness in Colorado.
That's not a good theme.
New York Times yesterday editorialized.
Make it legal, get rid of all federal restrictions on Mary uh Mary Jane, marijuana, and let it be legal.
New York Times.
Interesting.
Anyway, I gotta take a brief time out.
And ladies and gentlemen, just again to uh remind you, I don't know for sure that I'm gonna get to this.
But if I do, you will have ample warning, which is what this is.
There is a story out of Baltimore today involving thousands of women that involve pictures and a lawsuit, and I'm calling it vagina justice.
That's as far as I'm gonna go now, and a couple other things related to it.
I don't know that I'm gonna get in there and talk about it, but if I do, you will have ample warning.
We'll do the usual countdown, because I know that you have some of you have your kids listening with you out of school today, which interestingly is part of the story in a way.
So be right back.
Hey, let's head back to the phones.
This is uh this is a Robert in Houston.
Robert, thank you for waiting, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Mega diddos, Rush.
It's a real honor to talk to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Really appreciate that.
Um, just uh a quick one.
I'm uh I was born and raised in Passaville, just east of Sacramento, and I remember listening to you when you were on, I think it was uh KFBK.
KFBK, it's exactly right, 1984 to 1987.
You're exactly right.
Yeah, we listened to you up in the up in the mountains up there and just loved you.
Uh listen, uh what I wanted to call about is I was part of Reagan's deployment of the uh the nuclear missile system, in particular the Pershing II, and um there's a lot of people who don't know anything about the Yeah, the the Pershing II is what was in Western Europe.
Yeah, that's right, that's right.
And uh I originally was on the Pershing 1A, which is a real archaic system.
So when we got the Pershing II, it was almost a point and shoot type weapon system, and we loved it.
But um there was a whole lot of pressure on President Reagan coming from the citizenship of Europe.
Uh I went through several protests of of you know that whole nuclear missile system and deployment, and it my perception was that the Germans at the time were going through their 60s.
You know, the peacemakers and the and uh the their version of the hippies, and it was it was something really to see the.
No, that's exactly that's exactly right.
I'm glad you mentioned this.
It wasn't just the the Democrats here that were opposing the deployment of the Pershing II.
And remember, they were in response.
The Soviet Union had put uh their book service to air missiles.
I mean, I remember Brezhnev running around joking about nuking France if they got out of line.
I mean, this kind of stuff was happening.
The Soviet Union was deploying missiles very near borders in the eastern bloc, and not to mention establishing beachheads in places like Nicaragua and Grenada, beefing up Cuba.
They were they were on the march and bragging about it.
And Reagan wanted to deploy the Pershing IIs as an equalizing measure to neutralize the threat.
And not only was he opposed domestically, but the left, the the nuclear free was a worldwide movement, and the nuclear freeze movement in Europe, I mean, it was mobilized, and it was Loud and it was threatening.
And this is where Lady Thatcher was heroic.
Margaret Thatcher was unw and Pope John Paul VI, they were they were unwavering in their support for Reagan and the policy.
But I're you're right, the uh particularly the uh uh the West Germans.
Forget the East Germans, they were they were communists.
They they lived, they're the ones that lived on the other side of the wall.
They're the ones that couldn't get out.
The wall was in Berlin.
Brandenburg Gayton all it.
Anyway, the anti-war movement was huge.
The hate America movement was huge, and Reagan basically.
He did not cave, he did not wither, he didn't care what they thought, didn't care what he said.
This was about defending and protecting freedom, which is what Reagan's view of the United States was.
And in so doing in Europe, he was defending and protecting freedom here at home.
And it worked.
That's the bottom line.
The Berlin Wall came down.
You ought to, you ought to see some of Obama's uh Matthew Continetti in his piece in the Weekly Standard that I cited at the beginning of the programs, even got some quotes of Obama's uh writings on on Star Wars.
Obama and the typical anti-war thought Star Wars was the most argumentative, was the most provocative thing, destabilizing thing we could ever have done.
He despised it.
And everything Reagan did undeniably worked.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, disaster, open borders.
By the way, a question about it.
If if we're gonna have open immigration and borders, and then Jeff Sessions, God bless Jeff Sessions, is begging everybody to call their congressmen and senators to stop what Obama is planning on doing, just with a stroke of his pen legalizing five to six million immigrants.
Just that that this border crisis now.
Just thing the hell with it.
Just granting amnesty.
Sessions claims that Obama is effectively going to end immigration enforcement in for he's going to nullify immigration law.
Just wipe it out.
And in the process, fundamentally change, transform the United States.
Now stop and think about something.
All over the world, at U.S. embassies, there are visa sections, and there are people that are showing up in lines every day, trying to get various kinds of visas.
In other words, they're trying to get here legally.
They're coming trying to come in a student visa, uh, six-month uh uh uh visa that would allow them to uh go to college, learn a business, but they've got a promise to go back home.
This is not permanent status in any way, shape, man, or form.
And look at all the number of people who are in line.
Why even have these visa sections?
Why even go through the motions?
What is the point here?
Why not just close these visa sections down at these embassies and instead have a sign if you want to get to the United States, go to Arizona or Texas.
And it used to be a joke, but it's all too often is the case.
What we tell as jokes about the left actually becomes policy.
Why even have checkpoints?
If Sessions is uh is right about this.
He's uh he's gonna give a floor speech at the Senate on Obama's planned executive amnesty at 245 this afternoon, about nine minutes from now.
And it it comes on the heels of uh LA Times story that ran three days ago, White House pursuing plan to expand immigrant rights, even as Obama grapples with the crisis of immigrate uh immigrant children arriving at the Southwest border, White House officials laying the groundwork for large-scale expansion of immigrant rights that would come by executive action within weeks, and we're talking five to six million.
So uh from the LA Times article, roughly five million of the estimated eleven million people who entered the country illegally would be granted amnesty.
Now some say Obama's just doing this, try to goad the Republicans into impeaching him, that he'll never actually pull the trigger and do it.
Others think he's dead serious about doing it because that's what he wants to do and happen in order to transform the country.
Jeff Sessions is taking him seriously.
Here's Lucas in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, Lucas, thank you for waiting.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh a lot of food for thought today.
Uh I was just thinking about what you were saying about uh a world with one or two superpowers and which world is safer, and I think it's an open question.
Political scientists have debated it for some time, uh, and of course we in the world get to experience it.
Uh are we safer with the number of nuclear weapons we had in the nineteen eighties, or are we safer today?
Does terrorism threaten us now more than it used to threaten us?
These are all interesting questions.
Uh what I want to get at, I think though, is what you were talking about about Reagan.
Uh you were discussing Star Wars.
It's a system I was a huge fan of in the nineteen eighties.
It is a great idea.
We could shoot down ballistic missiles and forever end the fear.
Wait a minute.
Wait, hold on, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Lucas, let's not get Star Wars yet, because I mentioned that as an afterthought.
Let's let's stay focused on your really good question.
Are we safer than because the question that you're asking the question in the nineteen eighties or are we safer today?
Right, but let's give the qualifiers though.
Madeline Albright and the leftists believe that the world was safer when there were two great nuclear powers.
She believed the concept that there were no good guys, that we were both the same, there was no difference, and that the existence of two superpowers effectively nullified them both.
In other words, the existence of the Soviet Union kept us from nuking the world or expanding and taking over the world, whatever.
And she worried when the Soviet Union went to put in the wall fell, she worried that we were the only superpower because why would you worry about that if you have a notion of us being the good guys?
But if you think that the world was more unstable because there's only one superpower in relation to nuclear weapons, then you must not think much of the United States.
So your question's a really good one.
Were we safer with two competing superpowers and mutually assured destruction, or are we safer with the Soviet Union having gone kaput, albeit rebuilding, and just one superpower.
How would you answer the question?
Well, first I would say, Rush, I think you have asked about four separate questions in there because we could have a world with two super nuclear weapons.
So it doesn't have to be a question of whether we have a world with two superpowers armed to the teeth with 50,000 nuclear weapons each or not, because we experienced a world with two super few years in the late 1980s with a declining number of nuclear weapons, and that is one of cheaper time.
Lucas, I'm I'm having trouble following because you're cell c uh uh uh uh is is crapping out on me.
So I don't really know what you're saying.
So I'm gonna be forced to tell people what I think you're saying.
You said I asked four different questions when I posed the two, and then you got into the numbers of nuclear missiles and so forth.
Uh uh I he did say that he thinks we're safer today, right, with just one superpower.
But here's you you can't just talk about numbers.
Let me tell you something, in terms of nuclear Holocaust, there is no comparison to today and then.
It was a far greater reality, even with MAD, because of who the Soviets were.
I don't think anybody wants to go back To two competing superpowers, each with a giant nuclear arsenal, doesn't mean we get rid of ours.
We are the good guys.
We do not attack.
We defend and liberate.
This must be part of the question, and it never is, when discussed in the left, in classrooms, in poli sci courses, by the way.
We are never the good guys.
And in my mind, you can't talk about this without the concept of good guys and bad guys.
And the reality was the Soviet Union was the bad guys.
The Soviet Union was an expansionist state built on spreading communism, built on oppressing people, building walls to keep people in countries.
The Soviet Union is where people were mass murdered in order for the regime to stay in power.
That's never been the case here.
There is no moral equivalence between a two superpower world where one of them is a U.S. one Soviet Union.
There was never any moral equivalence.
The left attempted to establish one.
So now we have the United States as a lone superpower.
But that's even debatable with the Chikoms.
They have a nuclear arsenal, they've got a robust economy.
We don't know how solidly built it is, but they do have expansionist tendencies, and they've got a big problem.
They can't feed their population.
They just can't.
And they got another problem.
They got to keep their rural population in the rural areas.
They cannot let the rural population migrate to the cities or they're finished.
They don't have food for them, they don't have jobs for them.
You'll notice all of the factories that are being built in uh in China are not in the cities.
These factories that are employing hundreds of thousands of people are built in rural areas.
ChICOM leader got to keep his people out there.
By the same token, they can afford to lose a hell of a lot of soldiers in a war because of their population.
But we don't really put them on a level playing field yet, even though they they should be.
But they're not outwardly expansionists, but they do aid and support America's enemies.
Iran, to name one.
Now, if the Soviet Union rebuilds and is able to establish once again its superpower status with a nuclear arsenal, then we've got a big problem because then you'd have effectively three, with two of them being the bad guys.
And the bad guys would be defined as aggressors and expansionists, and that's not us.
And we liberate people who are oppressed.
We do not try to oppress people.
We do not try to put people in in bondage for the uh purposes of empowering our regime.
I know, I know, but we don't.
Um and we never have.
But the left is never acknowledged the good guy-bad guy concept.
And I know they never will.
They never will.
But I don't think I mean Lucas is right.
There's no question it's much, much in terms of nuclear holocaust.
It's much safer now than it was.
And we wouldn't be in this position if it hadn't been for Reagan.
There wasn't anybody else that was going to do it.
He was even shellacked by fellow Republicans for uns instability and and unpredictability.
And when he gave his evil empire speech, you ought to see what Obama wrote about that.
And you ought to see, you remember what the leftists thought.
They literally, they were scared they were quaking in their boots, because to them that was the kind of provocation that would make Yuri Andropov launch his arsenal.
They never understood that what kept Yuri Andropov or Brezhnev or any of them from launching was our own stockpile.
They never understood it.
They really thought that Reagan was going to go nuts one night and push the button in the White House while making jokes about the evil empire.
They always thought Reagan was the bad guy.
And they still do.
That's the point of Obama.
He still thinks that the U.S. is the problem when it comes to foreign affairs around the world.
And I don't care where you go, it's patently obvious.
Now the Chicoms are developing a blue water navy.
Well, no, blue water means ocean.
So it's a blue water navy.
A brown water navy would be little skiffs on their rivers.
A blue water, don't bother me with this stupid questions like.
All right, I look.
I did not mean to tease you with this stuff and then hold it over.
It's just it's worked out that there's not time to do it all today.
And there's there was also, quite honestly.
The little voice that we all have that says, don't do that.
That's kind of been whispering to me.
So I haven't been really fully committed to this, even though.
I mean, it's half of it is fairly harmless.
The other half, well, it's all harmless, but it's I don't think it's stuff that you would want your children asking you about if they're listening with you.
So it would require an ample warning.
So let me promise this, in lieu of the tease here, because it I was not intending to tease you for 21 hours.
I really wasn't.
I don't want to make too much of this, because when I do do it, you're gonna go, what was the big deal?
So we'll just leave it there.
Might do it tomorrow, probably will.
You will have ample warning for vagina justice.
Well, that's it, my friends.
Sadly, we're out of busy broadcast time for today, but there's gonna be so much still on the docket, still on the agenda.
We get back tomorrow in 21 hours.
Typical household income, now a third less than it used to be.
New York Times can't figure out why.
Just can't understand it.
I'll have the answers tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection