All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
July 30, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, so let me see if I have this straight.
Frank DeFord and the cognicente and the intelligentsia of the American sports drive-bys want to impeach the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell.
And they want to impeach the commissioner of the NFL because he's not bringing us together.
Well.
That's what DeFord said.
He wants to impeach Goodell.
He's not good enough to lead the NFL in today's divided America.
So obviously Goodell is not bringing us together.
Well, substitute B. Hussein O for Goodell and see how it sounds.
Has B. Hussein O brought us together?
Could it possibly be said that Obama not good enough to lead America during this era of our class and educational and racial and ethnic spectrums?
I think it's patently obvious that B. Hussein O cannot and does not unify us and all of our spectrums.
But no, we can't touch him.
No way that we got to get rid of Roger Goodell because he's not good enough to lead the NFL.
And he didn't come down hard enough on Ray Rice, who's also scum.
Ray Rice is also a reprobate.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a hero and sits on the highest pedestal of the Democrat Party.
And there isn't any alleged in front of what Clinton did.
is there isn't it amazing how old and stephen a smith throw him in there and he's gotta go Because even though ESPN wanted opinionated comments, they didn't want those opinions.
You ever wonder who are these politically correct people that manage to get their way all the time?
Who are these people?
Where are they?
Just who is everybody afraid of?
Okay, so take your pick of any incident that happens.
The feminazis get mad or what have everybody, corporations, individuals, political parties, they're all scared to death of political correctness.
Yet everybody I hear criticizes political correctness.
Everybody I hear rips it to shreds.
Everybody I know thinks political correctness is a bunch of crap, and yet everybody's afraid of it.
Who are these people?
Who's ESPN afraid of?
Who got to them?
No, I'm serious.
Are they nameless, faceless citizens sending an email?
Who are they?
Who are these people that everybody lives in such abject fear of, offending?
And why?
It'd be one thing if everybody was supportive and an advocate of political correctness, but everybody I hear decries it.
Everybody I know thinks it's BS.
And yet everybody reacts to it.
Everybody's scared to death of whoever these people are.
And I don't know who they are.
Is it one person?
Is it 10?
I'm not making myself clear.
I'm being serious.
Who is it?
Who got to ESPN and scared him to death over what Stephen A. Smith said?
Who did it?
Was it the media?
Well, they are the media.
Who got to them?
Who gets to any of these people?
Or is it just an assumption that's being made at upper-level management that this is the wise thing to do?
Do you think, folks, that the vast majority of people in this country are of the political correctness movement and are running around offended at virtually everything said or done and spend all day letting people know?
Or is it a relative few number of people able to make themselves look like they're hundreds of thousands?
I mean, I'm genuinely serious here.
I mean, I see all this reaction to political correctness, but I never see, well, it's not really true.
I mean, the media has got its share of social warriors.
They're always dumping.
That's probably it.
It's the media.
It always comes back to the media.
Anyway, other things in the news, folks, before we get back to all of this, because I still got some stuff in the illegal immigration stack, but I've also got things like this.
Port St. Lucie is back in the news.
Now, we who live where we live have known of Port St. Lucie for a long time.
The Mets spring training is there.
And there's a fairly good PGA complex there.
But it's most known for the fact that a woman who walked into a McDonald's there found that there were no McNuggets and called 911, expecting to reach Obama and complained that there were no chicken McNuggets.
And that made the news.
There have been a couple other similar incidents in Port St. Lucie and in other parts of the country.
But now this.
A mother faces a charge of child neglect after she allowed her son to go to a local park alone.
She says that he's old enough, but the police in Port St. Lucie disagree, and now she is fighting back.
Her name is Nicole Gainey, and she says that she's dumbfounded by the whole thing.
It began last Saturday afternoon when Nicole Gainey gave her son Dominic permission to walk from their house to Sportsman's Park.
Honestly, I didn't think he was doing anything wrong, and I was just letting him go play.
Like all of our moms kicked us out of the house to go play for the whole day.
And then we came back and we weren't dirty.
She was suspicious of what we'd done.
The park is a half mile from their Port Lucie estate, a home.
Dominic says it only takes him about 10 to 15 minutes to get there.
During the walk, he's seven years old.
During the walk, he passed a public pool.
And somebody at the public pool asked him where his mother was.
They asked me a couple questions, and I got scared, so I ran off to the park, and they called the cops.
So it was a busybody at the pool who saw an unaccompanied seven-year-old and asked him where his mommy was.
And he got scared because you're not supposed to talk to strangers and ran off, and they called the cops.
Dominic was playing peacefully in the park when the cops pulled up.
Dominic said, the cops asked me, where does your mom live?
The police took him home, and that's when his mother was arrested and charged with child neglect.
Nicole Gainey says she was shocked.
My own bondsman said my parents would have been in jail every day.
My own bondsman?
In Port St. Lucie, you're known by your bail bondsman.
Most people, yeah, my accountant told me, and my lawyer told me, in Port St. Lucie, yeah, my bondsman told me.
Jeez.
Anyway, she paid nearly $4,000 to bound out or bond out.
The officer wrote in the report that Dominic was unsupervised at the park and that numerous sex offenders reside in the vicinity.
He just basically kept going over that there's pedophiles, this and that, and basically the park wasn't safe and he shouldn't be there alone, said Nicole Gainey.
But she thinks that her son is mature enough to go to the park alone during the day.
She adds that her son always has a cell phone, which she calls to check on him.
St. Lucie County State's Attorney's Office says there's no law that specifies how old a child has to be before he or she can go somewhere unsupervised.
So it's done on a case-by-case basis.
The only thing that scared this kid was the busybody at the pool.
Now, here's the thing.
Now, look at this contrast.
We are being, I don't know, invaded.
There are thousands of unaccompanied seven-year-olds, nine-year-olds, 13-year-olds, 15-year-olds crossing the border every day in America.
Their parents aren't with them, and many of them are unaccompanied.
Are we going to try to track down their parents and jail them or arrest them for child abuse?
I mean, this mother let her kid go a half mile to the park.
A busybody at the pool scared the kids.
Where's your mom?
Where's your mom?
You ever run any busy bodies at the grocery store who give you static for what's in your shopping cart?
You ever have that happen?
You ever have a busybody give you static for your dogs being in the car outside for two minutes?
These are the people I'm talking about when I say, who are these people?
Who are these busybody, perpetually, constantly offended people who seem to scare the hell out of everybody?
Because political correctness is rooted in fear.
No question about it.
All right, get a brief time out, my friends, as we return with much more and your phone calls.
So do not go away.
Yes, I have.
I have.
Snerdley just asked me a question.
And I probably ought not to announce this, but I did.
You know, over the course of, I've been a huge NFL fan, as you people know, especially those of you in the Stick to the Issues crowd.
And over the years, I've gotten to know a lot of people in the league, and I have gotten to know my share of owners and general managers and so forth.
And Snerdley wanted to know, do you talk to them about stuff?
And I said, yeah, I know what he meant.
I have a couple of them I know fairly well, and I've cautioned them, warned them, whatever.
I've said, you guys, I don't think you know just how big a target you have become.
I don't think you know.
Some of you may not even know that you're a target at all.
And I have a feeling that that's still the case, although it has to be changed.
They have to become aware now of the fact that the American left has targeted them as the next behemoth that must be corralled for whatever purpose,
either get a lot of money from them, use them to institute social policy that they want replicated throughout society.
I said, your days of being just a sport that is not connected to anything going on politically in the country.
I said, those days are over.
And the reason I told him is because they're always of a defensive, no, it's not a defensive posture.
It was, it's hard to explain.
It was just a willing, almost blindness to what liberalism is.
And now it's all being borne out.
And when you call for the impeachment and get rid of the commissioner because he's not good enough to lead the NFL in a divided America.
What does that have to do with it?
So the purpose of the NFL is to what?
Reflect society as the left wants it to be.
And if it doesn't, there's going to be hell to pay.
So we need a commissioner who is good enough to make sure that the league represents all the things the left thinks are important, that doesn't know beans about football.
Anyway, I could go on, but I got to get to the phones because people have been patiently waiting.
I'm going to go to Max Creek, Missouri.
This is Dave.
And thank you for waiting.
It's great to have you, sir.
How are you?
I'm well, Rush.
God bless you.
And point, counterpoint, dittos.
And I'm sure glad that I'm not debating the mayor of Davis.
You remember those days?
I'm sorry.
Oh, my gosh.
You were in Sacramento then?
I was.
Sacra Tomato, yes.
Just so you know, back when I lived and worked in Sacramento, I was hired by local TV, the ABC affiliate at the time, to, in their 5 o'clock news, I think it was two or three days a week, debate a liberal.
They found the mayor of Davis, California.
And it was quite fun.
It was on that show, by the way, during that newscast that I came up with the line.
I love the feminist movement, especially when walking behind it.
Just left the mayor kind of speechless.
Didn't know whether to be offended or laugh.
But anyway, you have jogged some memories here.
That's something I hadn't thought about in a long, long time.
Well, good.
I think about that all the time because that's when I first found you on the radio and I found somebody that agreed with me.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
It wasn't you were a mind-numb robot.
You finally found somebody validated what you believe when you couldn't find that very much in the media.
Well, that's exactly right.
Well, anyway, what I was calling about was these Republicans In Washington, D.C. act like they're up against a juggernaut.
And listening to the conversation today, I think that the Democrat Party, or let's put it this way, liberalism has become a juggernaut and that the mainstream Republican Party doesn't know how to go up against it.
Although everything that they've been trying on the Democrat side, such as moving these immigrants into California, matter of fact, they're moving them into my old hometown around West Dover Air Force Base there in Massachusetts.
They're dropping them everywhere.
Yeah, they are.
And although it's backfiring for the Democrats or for the liberals, I don't think that the Republicans are seeing it and they are actually afraid.
And it could be a lot of racial animus that they don't want to be seen as racist.
That's part of it.
That's a huge component.
Not only the race of the immigrants, but Obama's race as well.
That does have them quite paralyzed.
No question about it.
But it seems now that it's not the Democrat Party itself, but it seems to me that it is liberalism in general has become a juggernaut that nobody knows how to fight against or afraid to fight against it.
I know what you mean.
I have a great idea what you're talking about.
I know you're drawing a distinction with Democrat Party and their ideology.
And I know what you mean.
Basically, even people that are not political seem to be liberals.
Even if people don't know what liberalism is, seem to be liberals.
The low information crowd, they all seem to be liberals.
It seems like everywhere we look, where we used to find common sense and independence, we now find sheep.
And that's what you mean by juggernaut.
Everybody just blindly accepts it, not even knowing what they're doing.
And I get the same feeling.
There's a reason for that, if it's true, if that's an accurate portrayal.
The reason for it is exactly what you say.
There isn't any pushback.
It wasn't that long ago where Republicans would routinely tell people X is a liberal and explain what that meant.
And they hated it.
It used to be the kiss of death to be called a liberal at election time.
Now the Republicans are afraid.
There's no pushback policy-wise or ideologically, particularly ideologically, at all.
Couple of fascinating stories here, back-to-back, polling data on the American people's attitudes toward the illegal immigration of all of these children that are coming in.
First from Reuters headline.
Most Americans see unaccompanied immigrant kids as refugees.
Now, isn't that handy?
By the way, our last caller, the juggernaut liberalism, it really is just the media.
The media is why, like when I said, seems like even people who don't know what liberalism is are liberal.
It's the media.
It's the power of persuasion of the media, particularly pop culture media, not just news media, but pop culture, entertainment, celebrity, star media.
Because everybody wants to be famous.
Everybody wants fame.
Everybody wants to know who they are.
Everybody wants to be on a red carpet opening or something.
Everybody wants to be in a movie on TV or what have you.
That media, very liberal, makes it look hip and so forth.
That's the juggernaut.
I guarantee you, if the media in this country were conservative, that would be the juggernaut.
Guarantee you.
Now back to Reuters.
Isn't this handy?
Most Americans see unaccompanied immigrant kids as refugees.
Now, up until a week ago, nobody ever thought of claiming that they were refugees.
Then somebody got the bright idea.
Call them refugees.
And that takes a whole illegal immigrant thing out of the mix.
And then they're just, they're lost children fleeing poverty and war-torn countries and seeking a better life in the great United States.
And they're just refugees.
And therefore, they don't count as illegal immigrants and they're not part of the number.
And it just opens the floodgates of compassion.
But now, out of the blue, everybody agrees they're immigrants, Reuters tells us.
Yes, some 70% of Americans think the United States should provide support and housing for unaccompanied Central American minors who illegally cross into the country while their cases undergo review.
But then there is the next story.
And the next story is from an outraged Associated Press.
The headline says, poll, Americans cool to border crossing children.
Okay, so who did this Reuters poll?
Well, let me look.
The poll was done by the Public Religion Research Institute.
Oh, yeah, we've heard of them.
You ever heard of the Public Religion Research Institute?
I haven't either.
But they did a poll.
Reuters published it.
70% of the American people think that they're not illegals.
They are refugees and they deserve to be supported and housed.
Okay, AP, different poll.
Americans are wary of granting refugee status to children crossing the border to flee strife-torn countries in Central America.
And most in the AP poll say that the U.S. does not have a moral obligation to accept asylum seekers generally.
Now, this headline, this is one of the most misleading headlines.
Remember now, AP, this is where they're going to see it at Yahoo News.
That's where a lot of the low information people go to get their heads up on what's happening at Yahoo News.
So you have two completely different stories.
One Reuters, one AP.
The Reuters story, 70% of the American people just love these kids.
They're immigrants.
No, they're refugees.
Yeah, and we should do everything for them.
And the same day, AP, the exact opposite.
Americans are wary of granting refugee status to children crossing the border, should not and do not have a moral obligation to accept asylum seekers.
Now, when I first saw this headline, I thought it meant something entirely different.
And in pop culture, it does.
When I read this headline to you, what do you think the story is going to say?
Poll, colon, Americans cool to border crossing children.
Yeah, it's hip, man.
It's cool.
Hey, it's all right.
Americans are cool with it.
Americans are hip.
Hey, man, it's okay.
Americans dig these border crossing children.
No.
Because the poll, the headline leaves out the word R, A R E.
An accurate headline would be: Americans are cool to border crossing children.
This headline reads like, Americans are cool with border crossing.
But that's not what the story says.
They're not hip to it.
The American people are not in favor of it.
But the AP is hoping.
Nobody reads the story.
The AP is hoping all anybody sees is their headline.
Americans cool to border crossing children.
Not Americans cool off to border crossing.
Not Americans not cool.
No, Americans cool.
Put the word to in there makes it really ambiguous.
No question what they're trying to convey.
Here's Michael in Birmingham, Alabama.
As we head back to the phones, thank you for waiting, Michael.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, I really appreciate you having me on.
Today, I had a quick question.
I wanted to ask you about the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
I noticed recently a bunch of Hollywood celebrities are coming out, particularly liberal celebrities like Bill Maher, you know, Howard Stern.
They've actually come out in favor of Israel, and they've been just land-blasting Hamas and really defending them.
However, you have the mainstream media who's slavishly supporting Hamas.
And I just can't help but notice you got these liberal celebrities that are doing this, that have the common sense enough to support Israel.
You've mentioned two.
Right, yes.
And I was watching Bill Maher on a clip really supporting Israel.
And I was almost thinking, wow, Bill Maher, he kind of sounds like a conservative.
You could see him, you know, like standing beside him, you know, supporting Israel.
But then I see all these other clips and MSNBC just dogging Israel and supporting Hamash just slavishly.
And I've been trying to figure out why the media ignore the fact that rockets are in schools, ignore the fact that they put rockets in civilian houses.
But yet when I watch Bill Maher, he actually brings that out in the open and exposes it.
And he calls out other liberal people.
And I've seen Howard Stern support Israel.
Joan Rivers, I don't know if she's really liberal or not, but I've seen her come out totally in favor of Israel.
And I was wondering what your thoughts are on why the drive-bys are so gung-ho for Hamas.
Well, they always have been.
Number one, there is an anti-Israeli bias that has always existed.
I mean, it's even in the New York Times.
I've had people ask me over the years, Rush, so many people in Hollywood are Jewish.
Why are they so against Israel?
Because they're liberals first.
Liberals are always liberals first, whether they're women, whether they're Jewish, whether they're actors, whatever they are, they're liberals first, and that defines everything.
There's also a factor here that Netanyahu is considered a right-winger, and there isn't a right-winger in the world that the media is going to support.
Every right-winger, every so-called conservative, may as well be the Tea Party as far as they're concerned.
Right, right.
And that's something I've been noticing, too.
There's another thing, too.
You've got Obama, who is clearly, well, it's an open question just how much Obama considers Israel an ally, right?
And the media is not going to do anything to embarrass Obama.
They really can't.
I mean, Obama means everything to them.
They are Obama.
Obama is them.
They got him elected.
They believed all this stuff.
If they turn on Obama, they're admitting that what they believe doesn't work and what they believe in doesn't work.
And they're never going to do that.
So it's always going to be a blind support for Obama.
He's going to lead it.
All the other factors, nothing.
Yahoo being a right winger, it's just, and it's conventional wisdom.
I also think that part of the answer here, Michael, is that there's some genuine ignorance and stupidity on the part of some of these media people.
We think of them as being in the media that they know more than we do and that they are closer to all of these stories because they're actually covering them and talking to the people who make these news stories.
And yet, they all seem to operate according to a formula that I call that whatever the conventional wisdom is.
I mentioned yesterday David Gregory.
They wonder at NBC why his ravings are plummeting.
They wanted to send his family to a psychiatrist to analyze him and his family or whatever, try to get to the bottom of why nobody wanted to watch the show.
And then I saw a little excerpt this past Sunday where Gregory had some Israeli guest on just raking across the calls for killing children.
Now, anybody paying scant attention knows what you just said.
Hamas is putting children in the targets.
Hamas wants the children casualties.
They want the news that that will produce.
They want to create news that makes Israel look like child killers.
So why don't these independent thinkers in the media see this, understand it, know it, and react to it instead of accepting the party line?
Well, part of the answer has to be they're not curious.
They're a little arrogant, but maybe it is no more complicated than they're not that smart.
There are all kinds of factors to explain this.
But, you know, you name a couple of so-called liberal celebrities and how that might signal a change in things.
It obviously doesn't, but I can't explain it.
I don't know either of those two guys.
Never met them.
Couldn't begin to tell you what they're thinking, doing, or why.
But I do know about the drive-by media, and I do know how they act formulaically.
I do know how they're slaves to conventional wisdom.
I know what they're going to be for and against and why.
And you could have every celebrity that you think is important in Hollywood do a 180, come out, support Israel.
It isn't going to change a drive-by media.
They're going to think something's wrong with celebrities.
They're going to think the celebrities are sold out if they care about it.
But they're not going to be moved by it.
They're not going to change their minds by it or because of it.
I appreciate the call.
We'll be back.
Do not go away.
Okay, let me say this one more time, too.
Because the caller said, why does the media always support Hamas and never support Israel?
Folks, it's no more complicated than this.
Israel is seen as the big, bad, powerful majority.
Hamas, Palestinians are the poor, disadvantaged minority.
Israel equals the big superpower that's always had their way.
They've got much more than the Palestinians have, and their means.
It's no more complicated than that.
They view the U.S. the same way.
Obama and his buddies thinks the U.S. need to be cut down to size.
We're rich because we've taken what we have and stolen it from everybody else.
It's no more complicated than that.
It's powerful, unfair majority versus put upon simple, little, disadvantaged, victimized minority.
Pure and simple.
That's how they see the world.
Israel in that conflict happens to be the unfair bad guy.
Give you an example of this.
Jake Tapper, CNN, last night speaking with the spokesman for Netanyahu, Mark Regev, about the conflict.
And Tapper, no matter what you know, Tapper's accusing this guy of killing children.
It just, it's, it's, it's predictable.
Here it is.
Israel has, in the last three weeks, killed more Palestinian children, more than 200, than the total number of Israeli soldiers killed in military operations since 2006, which includes the Second Lebanon War, Operation Cast-led, Operation Pillar of Defense, and now Operation Protective Edge.
That is a lot of dead children, especially relative to the number of soldiers that have been killed in Israel in Israeli military operations in the last eight years.
At what point does the Israeli government say enough?
We're killing too many innocent children.
See?
See, Israel, evil, big, bad guy.
It doesn't even enter his mind that Hamas is putting those kids in their prime target areas.
But you'll notice, Israel, big, bad murderer of children, poor victimized Hamas.
Here's the reply he got.
We don't want to see innocent civilians caught up in the crossfire between us and Hamas.
Mark, it's not just a crossfire, though.
It is.
Hamas is responsible for all deaths on their side and on our side because they were the ones that kept this conflict going.
But Netanyahu said no to the ceasefire.
We would have to carry proposals.
Not true.
Let's be clear here.
People are fighting.
People are dying because Hamas has repeatedly said no to a ceasefire.
Hamas has adopted a deliberate policy of endangering Gaza's civilians, using them as human shifts.
There's no question about that.
Yet, it makes no impact.
It doesn't get through.
At the end of the day, Israel is killing children.
Doesn't matter why, doesn't matter how, doesn't matter who's ultimately responsible.
Israel is doing it.
And why?
Why more children have died than Israeli soldiers?
And they start counting it up and so forth.
Folks, the explanation is right in front of our faces here.
It's just a question of accepting it.
The answers may seem simplistic, but that is the simplest explanation for something is usually the right answer.
Unfortunately, for, well, yes, you and me both.
We have run out of busy broadcast time for today, folks.
I always hate it when that happens, as I've always got more to say.
But then I realize there's always tomorrow.
And I will never run out of time to say what I want to say.
May take a few days, but I'll get it in.
I appreciate your being there as always.
Thanks so much.
And we be back tomorrow with whatever big happens.
▲
Export Selection