All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:29
August 22, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
America's truth detector, and America's Doctor of Democracy.
All here in one combined, harmless little fuzzball package on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Open line Friday, which differs from closed line Monday through Thursday, in that you don't have to talk about something I care about today.
Monday through Thursday, it has to be something I care about, or you don't make it.
On Friday, we throw that aside.
So it can be anything.
We have one big broadcast hour to go.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 in the email address.
Ill Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Dingy Harry, ladies and gentlemen, drew some laughter from an Asian audience on Thursday with a pair of Asian-themed jokes.
Dingy Harry was speaking at the Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce.
He said, I don't think you're smarter than anybody else, but you've convinced a lot of us you are.
The Asian crowd reportedly guffawed and laughed aloud.
And later, before walking off stage, Harry Reed quibbed, you know, one problem I've uh I've had today is keeping my wongs straight.
Wong being a common Asian name.
And he had met a lot of wongs.
And he said that's uh had a lot of problems keeping my wong straight today.
Don't know if uh if Leland Yi was upset about this.
I mean, Leland is a little busy right now with criminal charges, gun running and the like.
The uh the group, however, decided, even though they were yucking it up and laughing at Dingy Harry's racially themed jokes.
This is not politically correct.
The group decided against backing the Dingy Harry endorsed Democrat candidate for Lieutenant Governor Lucy Flores, and instead decided to support Republican Mark Hutchinson instead.
Hutcheson.
This is all in the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Uh Dingy Harry said in a statement to Time magazine after publication of the Las Vegas newspaper story.
My comments were in extremely poor taste, and I apologize.
Sometimes I say the wrong things.
No, he didn't.
He said the wrong things.
I just made it up.
I just met, but I he did say he couldn't keep his wongs straight.
And they reportedly were just guffling.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, in yet another example of how the human race is despicable and is a blot on the planet.
And if you doubt me, this is what the animal rights believement uh movement believes.
And the animal rights movement is leftist.
All of these movements are.
And this is the thing.
Liberalism has been so good at at disguising itself and trying to make itself look like it's apolitical.
I mean, what little kid would think an animal rights group has anything to do with politics.
What little kid would think an environmental group has anything to do with politics.
All they're trying to do is save the ice for the polar bears.
Godmom, stop destroying the planet.
You and Dad, you and Dad are driving these big cars, and you're doing all the things, you're destroying the polar bears.
Look at the picture.
And they flash a photoshopped picture of Al Gore's movie of a giant polar bear on three square feet of ice and making it look like that's all the ice left at the North Pole.
And of course, the polar bear is gonna die.
And we humans are killing the polar bear.
And there's no wonder no kid would consider that's political.
It's an animal rights group, and it's about love of animals and how we should protect them because they're so lovable, And they can't take care of themselves, and we have to do it.
But we're killing them, Mom, we're killing them.
You and Dad are killing them.
And this is how it starts.
And then after that, little kid goes, turns on Saturday morning cartoons and sees Captain Planet.
A feature popularized by Ted Turner.
And it's about a guy trying to save the world from evil corporations, companies that have big smokestacks and pollute things.
And to little kids, none of this is political at all.
And not even just little kids.
To a number of people who think they're brilliant, sophisticated, elite leftists is not politics.
No, no, no, it's just our superior humanity.
And our goodness.
Well, the animal rights people happen to think, and we've documented this over the 25 years of this program, that the biggest problem planet Earth faces is the human race.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich Ditto.
Many leftist scientists believe that the blight on this planet is humanity.
You see, we're not permitted to be considered a part of nature.
Animals, they're pure nature.
Insects, rats, plants, sharks, 15 foot-long alligators, all natural and all legitimate, and all justified in what they do, because they are inherently decent in goodness.
You know why?
Because they're not prejudiced and they're not racist, and they're not bigoted, and they're not destroying the planet either.
Not like we are.
And so the biggest blight on the planet is the human being.
Now, I imagine that some of you out there listening, maybe not be regular listeners, may tune in now and then, This guy's cock eyed.
This guy Limbaugh really is.
No.
Folks, I am just, I'm telling you, I'm a polymath, I'm omnivorous in what I read, and I'm telling you what I read.
I'm not making this stuff up.
Yeah, but Rice, those are just extremists.
No, they're not.
There's no such thing as in a leftist extremist.
Unless you want to say that all of leftism, liberalism is extreme.
I mean, these people that deny the Keystone Pipeline, the people that deny water to the Central Valley of California to protect animals.
Oh, have you heard about this, by the way?
The Hetch Hetchy Project is what provides water to San Francisco.
You've heard of Hetchhechi?
Well, that's a reservoir.
It's over near Yosemite.
El Capitan.
Well, it's not near Al Capitan, but it's a Yosemite.
And Hetch Hetchy, uh, there have they built pipes, if you will, and Hetch Hety water is diverted to San Francisco.
Well, it's also diverted to the farmers in the Central Valley.
The people of San Francisco are wild environmentalist wackos.
But they will not do with a reduction in the amount of water they get.
No, while everybody else is supposed to cut back, while everybody else is supposed to behave because of the drought, not San Francisco.
It's one of the biggest hypocrisies that you can find in America.
All of these leftists who publicly proclaim what all the rest of us must do to save the country, to save the planet, to accommodate the drought, you let them face one cutback, and Nancy Pelosi gets in gear and kills it.
By the same token, the Central Valley has had to do with 15% less water because of the drought, and they're in trouble.
Farmers are really hurting in the Central Valley.
San Francisco is not.
But one of the reasons that the Central Valley is also being impacted is that farmers are being told they can't farm as much as they used to because there might be kangaroo rat there, uh snail darter.
This is real.
Human beings, with liberals in charge, must take a back seat to nature.
We are never permitted to be part of nature.
Give you another example.
Life for all life forms is about adapting.
In order for a species or an individual to survive, that species or individual must adapt to whatever circumstances happen.
The idea of changing the circumstances, for example, if there if there is global warming, and nothing we can do about it, we have to adapt.
And those that fail to adapt will die out in terms of species.
It's just the way of nature.
It may sound cruel and mean, but it's just the way it is.
Now we humans have an amazing ability to adapt.
I once, in a conversation on this program, was talking to a guy who believed the idea that dolphins were smarter than we are.
Snerdley, you might remember this.
You might have screened this call, you might.
This guy was dead serious.
He really believed.
He had read it.
He had heard about it.
Dolphins, much more advanced intellectually than we are.
We just are unable to understand their language, but they have sonar, and they have things we can only dream of.
They're so beyond us.
They're so advanced.
I said, would you show me a hospital built by dolphins?
And this guy said, as as though that was the most ridiculous thing in the world.
He said to me, Rush, come on.
They don't have hands.
Oh, you mean if they had hands, they could build hospitals?
Well, they're handicapped, Rush.
They don't have what we That's precisely my point.
We said, Do you think if a dolphin, well, take it?
Do you think if a deer could find a shotgun and aim back at us, it would?
It shouldn't have to, Rush.
That's the whole point.
It's not fair that the deer doesn't have the shotgun and we do.
It's just not no, no, no, not the way to look at.
You know what the purpose of the deer.
Anyway, they get lost in these discussions.
We're not permitted to be part of nature.
All we do is plunder it.
All we do is destroy it, but we are not part of it.
According to extreme left, well, the not extreme.
You can find this in an in anywhere you want to look on the left, on the internet, on blogs, you'll find people who really do believe this.
So with that as a setup, here is the next story.
It's from the Daily Mail Online, and it is about a an engineer based in Amsterdam, a woman by the name of Nell Watson.
She was speaking at a conference in Sweden of fellow engineers and other highly trained, brilliant human beings.
She said that we need to be very careful as we invent and create robots.
Because the day will come where robots could decide the greatest compassion to human beings as a race would be to wipe us out.
If we're not careful, artificial intelligence will end up being superior to human intelligence.
And when that happens, when artificial intelligence, i.e., made by us, computer chips made by us, whenever man-made artificial intelligence in robots and computers, when the inevitable day comes that our machines are smarter than we are, they will conclude overnight that the best thing they could do for us would be to wipe us out.
To eliminate the human race.
Ms. Watson, you've seen this movie.
How many, yeah.
Yeah, iRobot, there's been a bunch of them based on this premise.
Now, this woman, Nell Watson, said that computer chips could soon have the same level of brain power as a bumblebee.
And when that happens, look out, because then computers would be able to analyze social situations.
And you know that if the bumblebees could, they Would wipe us out.
But they can't.
But it doesn't matter.
They would if they could, because we deserve it.
Don't you see the point?
We deserve to be wiped out.
And the machines are going to figure this out.
We're not careful.
We deserve to be wiped out because we are plundering and we are destroying.
We are agents of destruction.
Look at we're polluting the oceans.
We got ten years left or we're all going to die.
We're destroying the climate.
We're doing all these horrible things.
We're destroying species.
It's terrible what we're doing.
And if we make the mistake of creating artificial intelligence that becomes smarter than we are, those machines are going to realize what reprobates and what damage we cause, and the only solution would be to wipe us out, and they will do it.
So that the machines will be able to have the whole planet to themselves, and then it'll just be the machines and the animals, and everything will then be pristine and perfect.
Now, lest you think that this is obscure, her comments follow several tweets by the founder of Tesla, the electric car, name is Elon Musk.
He tweeted earlier this month, said that artificial intelligence could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
But I'm just, it's this latest example.
This is at an engineers conference.
That twenty-five years ago, I'd see a story like this and we would make a parody of it, and we would laugh at it, make fun of it, never realizing that a lot of people someday would actually believe it.
So much of what we laughed at 25 years ago, just extreme ludicrous stuff now has become mainstream liberal thinking.
And this is another one.
I'm just human beings, and this isn't new that we're the problem.
This isn't new that we're the scourge of the planet.
It's not new thinking, and also the solution, wiping us out is not new.
It's just the mechanism by which it's going to happen now is going to be computers.
Machines, when they get smarter than we are, are gonna figure it out real quick to save themselves and the planet, humanity has to go.
And we go back to the phones because it's open line Friday, and let's see.
Mike in St. Louis.
I guess we'll go to you.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Well, uh, Jerome in uh Wachung, New Jersey.
We'll try you.
How are you, sir?
Fine.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Well, you bet, Jerome.
Great to have you here, buddy.
Well, you know, uh, about 20 years ago we were driving uh through Utah, and I turned the radio on, I went on a scanner, and yours is the only voice that I got.
And I thought, well, I don't want to listen to this.
I I went through another scan and bingo, same voice, and I listened to you, and I thought, you know, this fellow's saying a lot of the things that I believe in, and I'll tell you, we've been listening to you ever since.
It had to be, I guess, more than 20 years ago, 25 years ago.
Probably 20.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you very, very much.
I'll tell you why I'm calling something that's really got me a little buffaloed.
Uh, I guess 1994, when Newt Gingrich uh was in the speaker, was the speaker of the House, he was he was able to uh put a line out of veto uh to allow the president to veto uh you know certain legislation that came before him, and he said uh President Reagan said, give me this and I will balance the budget.
And so sure enough, he was able to get that enacted.
But I'll tell you, it took the Democrats about uh uh a week to take it to the Supreme Court uh because they said that this was not the within the authority, the constitutional authority of the president.
And so the court ruled, uh uh, you know, the court said, listen, uh the president uh doesn't have this right, the Congress writes the laws, the Senate approves it, the president carries it out.
Now, my question is this lawsuit that's that's been put into place by the speaker is gonna go nowhere.
I mean, it's it's a silly thing.
Why didn't they take this to the Supreme Court?
Ask for a fast track hearing because it it's a violation of the Constitution.
Take which?
The line out of veto?
No, the fact that this president, the current president has has rewritten the health care law 2016.
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
Well, that look.
The lawsuit was just announced so that conservatives would think, and Republicans would think that the Republicans were engaging Obama.
But they're not.
And they they're not going to because they are afraid to rally Obama's base for the November elections.
That's why they're not doing any criticizing.
You know, I just got an email during the break.
Uh I'll paraphrase it.
I'm really glad I got it.
There are days, more and more days, where I feel like I'm starting this program all over from scratch, in the sense that I get the sense there are people listening for the first time, a lot of people for the first time.
For whatever reason.
The question I just got was, Mr. Limbaugh, I just started listening to you, and you make a lot of sense, but you lose me with this talk that machines are going to wipe out the human rape.
You actually why why even talk about that?
That's so silly, nobody's going to believe that.
And I love that email.
Because it gives me an opportunity to bring people up to speed, like you all have been listening 25 years and have all the context necessary to understand the things we talk about in this program.
Somebody is just tuning in, whoa, what the hell does this guy believe?
Here's the point.
If the email question is something that resonates with you.
The point is, whether you want to believe it or not, there are a sizable number of this woman that made this statement is a highly recognized and educated engineer at a worldwide engineering conference in Sweden.
She's not some kook weirdo that tweets she is a she's got several education awards and and uh uh citations in the field of engineering.
She actually said it.
You know, I don't make things up here, and I don't exaggerate.
My the way this manifests itself is that one day your kid might come home from school and say something to you that sounds the cockamamy that you mommy, mommy, why are we destroying the planet?
Why will someday the world be better off without humans?
And you'll say, What the hell are you talking about?
And then the kid will tell you that the teacher was talking about it today.
Now, this kind of stuff happens routinely.
This is part of the political landscape of the country.
This is who left-wingers or liberals are.
And it's not new, the fact that humanity is the scourge of the planet.
And they are not an obscure small, minor, oddball kook population.
These are mainstream, highly celebrated engineers like Paul Ehrlich, who wrote a book back in the 70s called The Population Bomb, which has been, by virtue of time, proven to be totally wrong.
It was all about by the time we got to the year 2000, we would have to start killing off large swaths of humanity because there would not be enough resources to feed, to house, to clothe, and to quench the thirst of as many billions of people.
There were simply too many people, there weren't enough resources, and it was gonna get really bad, and it was gonna be dystopian.
Now, this guy's still a professor at Stanford, and he's still a hero.
He is still cited as an expert.
And he is still lecturing.
I don't know if he still lectures.
But he still has influence with a bunch of young impressionable minds.
And it's a romantic notion that human beings are destroying the planet.
It's a romantic notion to want to stop that.
It's a romantic thing.
It gives your life meaning to say I can do something to save the world.
And this is what the left gloms on to as a means of offering people meaning in their lives.
But what they have to do, they have to first admit that by virtue of their own existence, they are helping to destroy the planet or the climate or whatever, the polar bears.
But then there's absolution for this.
If they simply vote Democrat, believe in big government, pay higher taxes, that is how they give their lives meaning.
That's how they make amends for all of the mistakes they've made, innocent though they may have been in destroying the planet.
This is not tiny.
It's not way out of the mainstream.
It may sound kooky, but there are people being educated to believe this all over this country.
And they end up being teachers.
And they end up trying to teach your kids this stuff.
And that's why I mention it.
Is to try to just alert everybody.
I think we so much better off if everybody understood who liberals are and had an automatic distrust of what they say as the starting point, rather than an automatic belief.
But the liberals have made it, they've been pretty smart.
They have couched every belief they have in compassion, fairness, equality, what have you.
Premises which are impossible to oppose.
The environmental movement's classic.
Mr. Sturgley, the reason like I feel I'm starting all over from scratch, because I explained all this stuff 25 years ago.
But I get emails from people who don't know what I'm talking about.
So it's it is a major recycling going on out there.
And it may be called for.
But for example, the environmentalist wacko movement.
They set themselves up as being for what?
Clean air.
Clean water.
Who opposes any of that?
So if you come out and oppose the environmentalists, they can easily say, what are you afraid?
You oppose clean water, you oppose clean air.
And they they totally disguise themselves and mischaracterize themselves and their opponents.
But all leftists have one agenda.
And that is basically summed up, the government must be big and bigger, must be growing.
Individuals must have as little freedom as possible so they will be as uh less destructive as possible.
The elites must run the world.
Average people are incompetent and incapable.
Leftists, real committed top-tier leftists have an overall contempt for average people, while claiming to be the primary defenders of average people.
They claim to be the ones looking out for average people.
When in truth, they don't want you having power or control over it.
Well, as little as they can see to it that you get.
It's a, it's an anti-liberty, anti-freedom, big government, high tax belief system.
The people that create the problems then set themselves up as the only ones capable of fixing them.
And it repeats and repeats so that we're now 17 trillion dollars in debt.
We have mess after mess after mess.
We have people at war with each other consistently in this country.
And it's all because, primarily because there are people who are simply unwilling to let people live their lives the way they want to.
You must comport To the way leftists demand that you live.
And that's how you are absolved from the sins other humans are committing out there.
Anyway, here's uh here's Mike in St. Louis.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey Rush, it's an honor to be on your show.
Thank you, sir.
I'm a police officer in the St. Louis area, and I'm pretty fed up with the way that uh police officer are being portrayed right now in the media.
Uh I've got two points real quick, and I want to make them on your show because in a week and a half of media coverage, I haven't heard any of these points being made.
Uh the first is in reference to the militarization of the police departments.
I don't know if you remember in 1997 when two bank robbers with bulletproof vests and assault rifles held the entire LAPD at bay for two or three hours.
Are you familiar with that?
Not only.
Not only, Mike, do I recall it, we were we just mentioned that last week.
I don't say that to to to to disagree with you.
I say that to confirm what you're saying.
The reason we have militarized police officers is because in LA and a couple of other places, the bad guys had AK 47s, and everybody was talking about how ill-equipped the cops were with their pea shooter handguns to deal with this stuff.
And that's why they were ramped up.
That's exactly why I called.
In our police academy, they actually show that video, and the LA police department had to go to local gun stores to buy rifles because they didn't have any.
They also had to use uh armored bank trucks because they didn't have any armored vehicles to deal with these people.
Exactly right.
Uh my second point real quick is uh shooting an unarmed person.
If you do a quick Google search, you'll find that in the last ten years, fifty-three police officers have been killed with their own weapons.
That means that some unarmed suspect took away a police officer's gun and killed that officer with their own gun.
Right.
You know, there are situations when we have to shoot unarmed people.
I understand that we have tasers and we have batons and we have pepper spray.
Those are tools, and they're also tools that can be used against us.
And it only takes one good punch from a suspect before we're knocked out, laying on the ground unconscious, and they have access to all of those tools.
So until the media or any of these people that say that we can't shoot unarmed suspects, rides along with us or maybe does our job for a month or two and realizes any time we knock on a door, there could be an assault rifle on the other side of that door.
Until they ride along with us, I'm a little tired of hearing about how we should do our jobs.
Amen, bro.
I couldn't agree with you more.
And you you guys face an institutional prejudice and bias.
Like this story in St. Louis is a myth.
It's a myth that people like you shoot innocent black kids all the time in St. Louis or wherever.
It's a total myth that was created in St. Louis.
And the reason they're able to create it is because they've done a good job of negative PR on the police in general.
And so the police, I think the police, the police are just as aware of political correctness uh as anybody else is, and they're automatically on defense.
Is it true?
Is it true that whenever, in any circumstance, whenever a cop uses his firearm, he's immediately put on suspension for a while where they investigate it, look at it, and make sure he's okay psychologically and all that.
That is true.
Um the first thing that happens is our firearm is taken away from us so it can be used in for evidence if necessary, and then we're immediately placed on suspension.
Some departments require a minimum of three psychological evaluations before you can go back to duty.
Right.
So it would seem to me if I were a cop, the last thing I'd want to do is is is discharge my weapon.
The last thing I well, I I wouldn't want a perp to get it, but uh given what's going to happen to me after I discharge it.
I don't want to uh that the last thing I would hope would happen in any circumstance is to have to fire that gun.
Well, the biggest deterrent uh shooting someone is the fact of shooting someone.
I don't know anyone on my department that signed up to shoot someone.
You know shooting someone affects an officer's life for the rest of his life.
If you look at the rate of police suicide, police officers killing themselves.
So why do you want to become a cop?
We want to become a cop because it's A, it's a stable job.
B, we want to help other people.
Uh the camaraderie of working with other guys, you know, I'm former military, so I kind of fit right in with the police department.
There's a camaraderie that you have with your other officers, and when you see someone uh like the poor officer in Ferguson, you know, if that was an unjustified shooting, and it should be held accordingly.
But you never hear any of the evidence on his behalf.
All you hear is the evidence against him.
And from what I understand, you know, there are several witnesses that did observe that subject assaulting the officer.
There are about that.
That's right.
That that's why the myth is uh is is beginning to fall apart.
Well, Mike, look, I appreciate your call.
I really do.
I'm I'm way beyond time here for this segment, and I've got to go.
But I do appreciate you taking the time uh to call here and and uh share your thoughts with us.
I must take a brief time out, folks, constraints of the programming format, and we'll be back.
Don't go away.
We keep on heading down the tracks.
It's open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh.
We try to take many more phone calls on Friday, and we put the burden of entertaining the audience on callers and see how that works.
And we continue here with Seattle.
This is Alan.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
Uh, as one of your addicted listeners, I appreciate what you do and how you do it, but most importantly, Rush, I appreciate why you do it.
Well, thank you for your service.
Appreciate.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Hey, Rush, as we all know Washington is corrupt and dysfunctional.
And Americans, everyone I talk to, they're mad, they're sad, and unfortunately, they're embarrassed.
And so I have kind of a quick question and a couple thoughts, if I may.
Rush, this is more rhetorical, but I asked this of a lot of people.
Who should own the future of the American way of life?
We the people or government.
Well, if it's a rhetorical question, I don't have to answer.
That's true.
But would you?
There's no question, we the people should own the future.
We do own the future.
That's the point.
And our Fallon fathers put that as the first three words of the Constitution.
So Maha Rashi, seriously, we need collaborations like the one between you and your wife with Rush Revere and the Brave Programs.
Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments, and of course the Tea Party and all the great things they do.
In my opinion, to end this dysfunctional government rush, we need a collective support that's beyond impressive.
It needs to be awe-inspiring, right?
And only then will true conservatives that are going to be our leaders will step forth on our behalf.
I mean, heck, the Constitution was written to protect the free man, our free society, our free market, and capitalism.
So here's a thought.
And I haven't heard it before.
Why don't we have a brand strategy around an American revival movement incorporating everything that you've done, Lavin has done, the Tea Parties do.
I mean, brand strategy works.
So if we had something that was intelligently simple, that ideally represented the fight for our survival, would the American people support it?
Well, we're witnessing whether they will or not right now.
The effort is underway.
There's much more to say on this, but I've got really no time.
I let you have most of it.
That's it, folks.
We are out of busy broadcast time for today.
And we have the weekend, and then we'll be right back here on Monday.
▲
Export Selection