All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
August 27, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, well, I guess I'll just call him the gentle jihadi then.
Is that the way this guy is being portrayed?
Nobody can understand it.
The gentle jihadi.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine that we have somebody in this country named McCain who joins a terrorist group and that we wipe out?
Douglas Arthur McCain joins ISIS, gentle jihadi.
Pretty soon we're gonna get an audio tape of gunshots that wiped him out.
CNN will have it.
Greetings.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh and Hump Day.
It's right, my friends.
We find ourselves right here in the middle of the week.
Broadcast excellence all yours.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882 and the email address L Rushboard at EIBNet.com.
Folks, we have got the most delicious and delectable media stack today.
It's just incredible.
I have been looking so forward to the program beginning.
Before I get to that, though, there's a little headline on Drudge.
It's actually a link to a New York Times story.
And here it is.
Obama working to forge sweeping international climate change agreement, but without constitutional requirement for Senate ratification of traditional treaty developing.
Wait a minute.
Wait just a minute.
How can this be?
I thought Obama checked out.
I thought Obama lost interest.
I thought Obama didn't care about being president anymore.
I thought Obama was bored.
I thought Obama was depressed.
I thought Obama was fed up that he couldn't move his agenda and decided, you know what?
Just go play golf like Eisenhower.
That's what everybody's been telling me.
That's what the drive-bys have all been wringing their hands about.
We've been talking about it the past week or so.
How distressed the left is that they're golden boy.
They're president.
He seems like he doesn't care about us anymore.
It doesn't seem like he cares about the country anymore.
He just all he wants to do is play golf.
He doesn't send Holder to St. Louis.
He doesn't even capitalize on the one thing he was elected to do and race problem.
Well my god, he doesn't even care looking smiling after the terrorist thing.
It's oh gee.
And I told everybody.
He's not checked out.
He isn't bored.
He's not lazy, and he doesn't not care.
This is a structured, calculated political stratagem to appear detached, to appear as though he's not engaged, so as to lull everybody into a false sense of belief that nothing's happening.
So as to lull everybody into this almost like a safe zone that Obama's given up.
Oh, he doesn't even try anymore.
It's so bad Obama knows he can't get anything done anymore.
He doesn't care.
I mean, this has been going on for a week now.
And I recognized it from the beginning.
Well, maybe it took a couple days to figure it out.
But it started with all this talk of Obama being on vacation all the time.
And my theory, which I think is borne out, I think by reality, don't even need this New York Times headline.
The New York Times headline just proves it.
That it's that it's the limbaugh theorem on steroids.
Appear totally unengaged, uh, disengaged, and appear always opposed to whatever's going on that you're causing that you're making happen if you're Obama.
And the agenda moves forward.
I mean, we're not stopping with Obamacare, are we?
It continues to be implemented.
We keep getting news about Obamacare, but how disastrous it is.
The cost has now almost tripled from original projections.
The cost of healthcare.gov is twice what they said it was going to be, and it still isn't working.
But it doesn't mean that they've stopped implementing it.
It doesn't mean they're rolling it back.
It's moving on.
We found the IRS emails, but we can't go get them because they're off-site.
They're in an off-site backup, and where Everything's back to be impossible to track them down.
But the IRS is still doing and still did what it did to the Tea Party.
The Obama agenda is moving along at full speed here.
While Obama lulls everybody into a sense of belief that it isn't by appearing disengaged.
And here he is admitting, or the New York Times admitting that Obama is working behind the scenes to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement.
You know what that's going to be?
It's going to be a brand new set of taxes.
Carbon taxes, greenhouse gas emissions limits.
It's going to be punitive.
It is going to be disastrous.
It's going to be damaging.
It's going to raise everybody's energy bills.
It's going to make energy supplies scarce.
It's going to do the exact opposite of what Obama is promising it will do.
It will not make energy cheaper.
It will not save the planet from climate change because we can't.
There's no even proof that we're causing it.
All of this based on a series of myths.
And here's Obama working with the UN behind the backs of his own countrymen and his own Congress in order to get it done outside the treaty process.
While he supposedly doesn't care anymore, while he's supposedly disengaged, while he's supposedly bored, while he's supposedly just kind of thrown his hands up in utter despair.
Obama may go on vacation, ladies and gentlemen.
The Obama agenda never, ever goes on vacation.
The Obama agenda never slows down.
The Obama agenda doesn't even have very much in its way.
There was a story, let me just I I I didn't I had intended to already be into my media stack here because it's great, but something just struck me.
I didn't go into detail on it yesterday.
I intended to.
I just didn't get to it.
There's another thing I didn't get to yesterday.
There's a bunch of polling data out, and I've saved it for today, that the American people and African Americans think race relations are worse today than since Obama was elected, and even an Obama polster is admitting this.
And I've got the sound bites.
But there was another story yesterday that I touched on, spent a modicum of time on, but didn't delve into it.
That is that Larry Sabateau, who is the political scientist extraordinaire at the University of Virginia, alarmed many on the Republican side by saying, What wave?
I don't see any evidence of a Republican wave election victory.
Everybody's been talking about under the assumption that because things are so bad that people are so fed up that they're going to automatically vote for Republicans, that they'll keep the House, that they'll pick up enough seats in the Senate to control it and maybe even blow it out.
And then Sabato came along yesterday, so what wave?
That was any wave.
And that then caused Jim Garrity at the campaign spot at National Review Online.
It's a blog post, and Gardy said, well, you know what, where's the polling data on these Senate races?
There ain't any polling data out there in these Senate races.
No wonder nobody's talking about the wave.
The media's not doing any polling data.
On all of these Democrat seats in the Senate that are vulnerable.
There's no polling data.
That's why there's no report of a wave.
The media has stopped polling it.
Now, why would they stop polling?
Because they don't want to report the results.
Why do they care about that?
Why wouldn't they want to report the results?
Because the results apparently would not advance the Democrat agenda.
You see, polling is not anything related to news.
Polling is the creation of news.
Polling is all part of advancing the Democrat Party agenda.
Polling is designed To either uplift the psychology of the public or to depress the psychology of the public.
And in our case, most polling, there are exceptions, but most reports of poll results are designed to depress you.
They are designed to dispirit you.
They release a poll that shows you the exact opposite of what you think is going on in the country.
For example, Pugh did it the other day.
Pew released a poll which said that most Americans don't have a slightest problem at all with Obama playing golf so much.
Doesn't bother most Americans at all, not even on their radar screen.
Now you're supposed to see that, and you're supposed to get depressed.
And the way you're supposed to get depressed is you're supposed to, my God, what a dumb bunch of people in this country.
I don't even care.
Oh my God.
The president's checked out, he's not playing golf, he's that, and they don't care.
And you're supposed to go, oh, and get depressed and think it's over, and that you have no chance of your side prevailing or winning.
All of the same token.
If they've got some polling, if they did the poll on any of these Senate races where Democrats are vulnerable, and if the polling data showed that the Democrat incumbents in the heap big doo-doo, well, they don't want to report that poll because they don't want to depress the Democrat turnout.
They don't want to psychologically attack the Democrat base, and by the same token, they don't want to uplift you.
So they're just not doing any polling.
And that's why Sabas says, I don't see any evidence of a wave.
Now he wasn't talking about the fact there wasn't any polling.
That was Jim Garrity.
But let me ask you a question about this.
To illustrate, now I have been really, and I know you have too profoundly frustrated and puzzled by the utter absence of any pushback by the Republican Party.
There's none.
I have been, and we've talked about it, and I know you were the same.
I have been entirely totally perplexed that the Republican Party has yet to take advantage of the best opportunity they've ever had to contrast who they are with what the Democrat Party is and has become.
Back in the early 90s, when I would do this show, I would talk about the Democrats and liberalism, and I would say to you in the audience, if we don't stop it, then X is going to happen.
It was always a theoretical warning.
It was always sounding the alarm.
Hey, folks, let me tell you something, if this doesn't stop, let me tell you where we're going to end up.
Well, we've ended up there.
We're no longer talking theory.
Don't have to rely on predictions of what's going to happen.
We're living it.
And yet the Republicans remain silent.
The Republicans do not offer one ounce of pushback.
And in many cases, such as immigration amnesty, they attempt to or glom on and seek the same position the Democrats have.
So in the absence of any polling data, and in the therefore absence of any prediction of a wave election, can you recall seeing?
And maybe I'm wrong, because I don't live in every city, and I don't watch TV commercials in every city, and I don't watch local TV anyway.
But so I need to ask you, have you seen any commercials run by any Republican candidates or the Republican National Committee that spell out what the Republican agenda is?
Have you gotten the impression, have you, by virtue of paying attention to the news and watching television, reading newspapers, whatever, have you seen any Republican messaging?
Have you seen the chairman of the RNC or anybody?
Anybody, potential presidential candidate, I don't care, anybody define what the Republican Party stands for at this moment.
Have you heard anybody say we have got to stop the spending?
Have you heard any Republicans say we've got to reduce the deficit, the national debt?
Have you heard any Republicans say we have got to continue to repeal Obamacare?
Have you heard any Republicans say we have got to secure the border?
We have got to stop this wanton invasion of illegal alien children.
We've got, have you heard any Republican stand up and say anything in opposition to what's going on now?
Have you?
I haven't.
It's to me striking.
And yet the Republicans, see people talking about a wave election?
How is that going to happen?
Are they really believing, they sitting there really believing that the only thing or the best thing to do is to shut up and don't become targets and let the Democrats commit harikari and come November people vote Republican automatically because they're so fed up with the Democrats.
Is that what the thinking is?
Is that they are so afraid of presenting any alternative agenda because they're going to be attacked as racist or criticizing Obama, which means racist?
Are they so PTSD'd that they are even wary of presenting an alternative, offering a contrast of spelling out their own agenda and what they stand for and what it will mean for the country if Republicans win the Senate?
Have you seen anything that says how it's going to change?
Have you?
Now you may talk to people you know in an individual congressman's office, and they may tell you, but have you seen any national messaging?
Well, I haven't either, but I just I needed to ask.
Because as I say, I don't live everywhere, and I don't watch local TV everywhere, so I don't know what people are seeing.
But I can tell you my sense is, I mean, I do omnivorous and voluminous reading, and I don't see anything that is in any way uh representative of a Republican agenda.
I don't see anything out there that voters can see and consume that will, or that does explain to them what'll change if the Republicans win.
How it's gonna get better, how all of this that most everybody disagrees with is going to be brought to a halt.
What's going to change?
How's it going to be better?
What are we going to do?
I don't see any of that.
So the discussion that Larry Saboteau brought up of wave election, now he doesn't see any evidence of it.
You may not even need polling data to explain why there is no talk of a wave election.
Granted, you would need it, but you also don't see, I don't, any Republican agenda that tells voters why they should vote for Republicans, how it's going to get better and improve.
I don't see it.
Now, in the midterms in 2010, there also was not a coordinated Republican message or agenda.
The Republicans were still in shell shock in 2001.
And I think the midterm sweep in 2000, it was a Tea Party.
I think that shocked everybody.
They uh retook the House.
I think it just bowled everybody away.
And what was interesting about it was it was a total anti-Democrat and anti-Obama vote, because the Republicans, they didn't have an agenda.
They weren't, they didn't have a candidate that could cause people to rally around the party or him or her.
It just happened.
And maybe they're relying on the same thing.
Maybe they're relying on just an attitude.
The attitude of we think you're going to win, you're going to win.
It's a midterm election, it's far different turnout than a than a uh than a presidential race.
But then on the other side of that, there's 1994 and the contract with America, where there was, after the first two years Of the Clinton administration, there was a full fledged agenda that was put forth nationwide.
All those house races essentially became national rather than local district races.
And every House Republican district, the candidate talked about what he was going to do in these national issues, and they swept it, took the house back for the first time in 40 years.
But I did think I just think that there's a little bit, it's not a little bit.
There's still a lot of fear about saying anything against Obama.
No matter, they still think people are going to rip them for it and blame them for it.
So maybe they're just doing the Hillary thing.
You know, the more she talks, the more people dislike her.
More silent she is, the better her numbers are.
Maybe the GOP thinks it's the same way.
But isn't it ironic?
The GOP, despite everything, still depending on the Tea Party for a huge wave victory in November.
Yes, sir, we bobkin.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting.
Okay.
Now we get to this media stack.
So yesterday we were sitting here, and I was uh I was watching CNN in the morning, and they had, they were breathless all over again.
They couldn't contain themselves.
They were so excited because you know what happened?
They discovered a new audio tape.
Yes, surrounding the gentle giant shooting in St. Louis.
Oh, and you know what it was?
Yes, some guy was having a sex video chat with some baby sitting at his computer, and they had the tape.
They got the tape, and they had audiologists on all day long, and they did say we are trying to authenticate it.
And after they said we're trying to authenticate it, and that the FBI is trying to authenticate it, they then spent the rest of the day reporting it as though it was real.
And they had experts come in, and they had analysts come in, and they wondered what this new development might mean.
And it turns out that today CNN is worried that the new audio tape is a hoax.
Now, to refresh your memory, we played the audio ourselves on this program yesterday.
We caught it off of CNN.
And it's some guy who's chatting with some babe, and he's telling her how beautiful she is and how much he loves her.
And then all of a sudden, six, what sounds like gunshots ring out.
Boom, and this guy's unfazed.
There's a two-second gap.
And then he keeps telling this babe what he wants to do, either to his computer keyboard or to her.
And he keeps salivating and keeps telling the babe whatever, and then four more shots come out after a two-second gap.
And this guy's totally unfazed by any of it.
He's close enough for his computer microphone to pick up gunshots, and he's not phased.
Here it is.
We have the audio.
This is what CNN played yesterday.
Well, they and they did.
They just they did a uh a very, very low intensity disclaimer.
Said they just got it, they're trying to authenticate it.
They haven't yet.
The FBI's looking at it.
We don't really know.
But and then they ran with it all day low, all day long as though it was real, and this is it.
You are pretty.
You're so fine.
Just going on with some of your videos.
Okay, I have to get.
I mean, there's gunshots all around this guy, supposedly.
And he doesn't miss a beat.
He doesn't react to them at all.
And nobody at CNN seems to make that connection yesterday.
Nobody seemed to stop and wait a minute.
This guy is in the middle of whatever he's doing, and there's ten gunshots, and he doesn't react at all.
So let's go to the audio sound bite.
This is Don Lemon last night on the situation room discussing the alleged audio of the Ferguson shooting.
The person had seen us out in the field, CNN.
He does not want publicity.
He was involved in the chat, which many red-blooded American men do with their sweethearts or women with their sweethearts.
Wait a second.
Stop the chat.
Stop stop the cue this badge.
So now this is great.
CNN.
Here we've got a guy involving is what what do you call sexting?
Here we here.
Well, okay, not yet on the Here's a guy involved in a sex chat, and he happens now to be a CNN source.
So of course the first thing we have to do is say, hey, hey, nothing strange here.
A lot of red blooded American men do this.
Ain't no big deal, audience.
So don't discredit our new source because you might think he was a reprobate.
No, no, no, no, no.
All kinds of like we even have some people at CNN that do this.
Well, he didn't say that, but I mean it's that's how that's how.
And they taped themselves doing it too.
This is so common.
It's just no nothing to see here on that score for don't be negatively affected by the fact that the guy is doing whatever he's doing to his computer.
Okay, here it is again from the top.
The person had seen us out in the field, CNN.
He does not want publicity.
He was involved in the chat, which many red-blooded American men do with their sweethearts or women with their sweethearts.
How are you, honey?
You send a selfie, you do whatever.
So he's a little bit embarrassed about that.
I don't see why he was embarrassed because any everybody, but not everybody, but many people do that.
He was trying to get in touch with someone who he thought was an authority figure, but most people don't just know how to pick up the phone and call the FBI.
Oh, is that why it took over a week?
The guy didn't know who to call.
CNN's probably walking by the house every day.
There, how many media people were there?
This guy close enough to hear the shots, right?
He and his computer are close enough for his computer to pick up the shots, and he can't find a media person.
He doesn't know who to call.
He doesn't know how to reach them.
He apparently can't look out the own the the window that picked up all these shots and see an army of media people out there.
He don't know what to do.
So somehow the guy finds CNN.
Now, we love Don Lemon here.
You just have to Don Lemon.
I mean, this guy's a gym.
We love him here.
We I I hope nothing ever happens to him.
He is the one reason I would never ban audio sound bites from CNN.
He's the guy who asked if a black hole might have swallowed up that missing Malaysian airline flight.
I mean, this is it's just a gold mine.
But I get a pressure is on me to start banning audio sound bites from CNN because they want the same thing to happen to them as happened to MSNBC.
We stopped highlighting things their MSNBC dropped off the radar.
Not that they were ever really on it.
So Don Lemon says, hey, nothing to see here.
Everybody, I mean not everybody, but a lot of people.
Let me ask you a question.
Let's say it was Mitt Romney who was engaging in a sex thing on his computer, and CNN got hold of a tape of it.
Do you think that they would say, hey, hey, hey, don't judge Mitt Romney?
All kinds of red-blooded American men do this kind of thing.
It's not there's nothing to see here.
Don't judge our source on the basis of that, because hell, every well, not every, but a lot of people do this.
If it were Carl Rove.
Better yet, what if Dr. Krauthammer was sexting on his computer and this happened and CNN got hold of it.
Would they treat it as, hey, don't be judgmental here.
Folks.
Anyway, the news is from Breitbart.
Even if the audio ends up being authentic, the fact that CNN is now concerned over its authenticity and laying the groundwork to claim they were always skeptical, tells you how irresponsible a network is.
The prejudicial audio should Have never been aired before it was authenticated.
But this is exactly the kind of incendiary behavior we've come to expect from the news network that disgraced itself more than any other during the George Zimmerman affair.
I don't know about that.
I don't know how you outdo what NBC did doctoring the 911 call in the Zimmerman story.
But anyway, the details of this are CNN is now worried that that audio is a hoax.
When they first broadcast the unverified audio of the shooting of the gentle giant, it was with all the strum and drang of breathless breaking news.
The audio led almost every hour, all day, just like when George Bush's poll numbers hit 36, and Wolf Blitzer could not tell people enough times.
CNN could not overdo this yesterday.
It did lead almost every hour.
It was the biggest story of the day.
They had an endless parade of audiologists, forensic audiologists, and other experts come in, listen to it, analyze it, and expert it, and then offer the kind of commentary CNN wanted to hear.
But now it's today, and it's a different day.
And now CNN hosts, such as Michela Pereira this morning, are asking, do you think it's authentic?
She asked two different law enforcement people.
And both of those law enforcement people in CNN today think it was a hoax.
But you see, I don't know that CNN's really worried.
They got what they wanted out of this yesterday.
There's so much involved here.
This is trying to save the story, trying to tamper with a grand jury.
There's a lot going on with this report yesterday of this tape.
And they they they did this on purpose.
They jumped the gun on this on purpose.
This is not unprofessionalism.
It's not inexperience.
It's not youthful mistakes.
This is agenda-driven decision making on the part of CNN to air this inauthentic or unauthenticated tape.
It was an agenda, not news related decision.
Because it's not going their way in in St. Louis.
It's not going their way in Ferguson.
And there's a couple of other things that are tied up into this.
The zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, and then trying to keep their audience happy and stay in good vibes with one segment of the audience.
Yes.
But it's it's just, it's typical of what's happening in the drive-by media these days.
It's just a glittering, glaring example.
Let's go back, in fact, Thursday, August 14th, 13 days ago, almost two weeks ago, Don Lemon on CNN's newsroom.
This is after you remember this.
The chief of police there, Tom Jackson had a press conference.
They named the officer, Darren Wilson.
And they then released the video of the gentle giant strong arm robbing the convenience store.
And remember how that caused everybody to blow up.
Because the media is, what's this?
Why are you releasing this today?
Why didn't you release this earlier in the week?
How long have you had it?
And all the while, the Department of Justice, Eric Holder had ordered the local cops to suppress it and not release it.
But anyway, remember this from Don Lemon?
Some of us had heard about it earlier, the possibility of a videotape of a robbery, and it was believed to be Michael Brown.
We did not get confirmation from police on that.
So it was not reported.
That was just a rumor.
But now we're finding out from the Ferguson police chief that they do believe that they have video, and they think that in that video that it is Michael Brown stealing cigars, punching the store floor.
Wait, wait, wait, hold it just a second.
So Don Lemon two weeks ago told him, Oh, yeah, yeah, we in the media, we heard about that tape.
We knew that video existed.
We we'd heard rumors about that.
We couldn't authenticate that tape.
There's no way we were going to report it.
Really?
You heard about that audio tape of the gentle giant holding up the cigar store, or the convenience store, but you couldn't authenticate it, so you weren't gonna run anything.
But here you have a sexting video chat audio with ten shots.
Something no autopsy has even shown.
And you don't wait for it to be authenticated, like you did, the video tape of the gentle giant robbing the convenience door.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushball serving humanity.
I just got a note from Coco up at Rushlinbaugh.com, and he said if CNN really wants to authenticate this sex chat tape, they need to have Anthony Wiener come in and listen to it.
Because if there's anybody who is an expert in that, it's Anthony Wiener.
There's another thing about this, though.
The guy is sex chatting, or sex chatting, video sex chatting with uh, well, we assume it's a woman.
He's a baby, you look great, whatever.
There are ten gunshots.
The guy's computer clearly picks up, I mean, if it's real, and the babe doesn't once ask, hey, honeybunch, what going on where you are?
What happened?
Are you okay?
I mean, Don, if you were sex video chatting with a guy, and you heard gunshots on his indicator, would you s would you react to, hey, hey, hey, are you okay out there?
But this guy's babe and this guy didn't even pause.
They did not one shred of a reaction.
Okay, I'm gonna go to the phones, but folks, we've only scratched the surface of the funny out of this world media stack today.
Sit tight, hang in or be tough.
Here is Ed in Colorado Springs as we head to the phones.
Hello, Ed, great to have you here.
We always lose energy here.
Ed, are you there?
He's not there.
Okay, so where are we going next?
Uh let's try.
Uh, Chris in Jacksonville, Florida.
You're next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
Longtime listener, first time caller.
Uh, I'll try to be succinct.
Uh, I wanted to call and say that I occurred, concurred with your opening assessment because uh due to my assessment, the establishment Republicans' desire for power uh over improving things, they're sitting, uh they're letting you're taking conservative voters for granted uh because they know that uh voters know that they're the only uh choice between them and insane Democrats.
Uh they aren't trying to inspire or motivate.
Uh Romney's advisors had him uh play a face.
And Bonner went on a national program, Leno said nothing to Florida converse conservative ideas.
Um so they've got a history of doing this type of thing, which is exactly what you said.
Well, that's the thing.
That's they don't have a history.
I mean, recent, yeah.
But in the in the not too distant past, the Republicans were unafraid to present an alternative agenda.
And they had some people who could do it well.
It is really you might trace it to the to the Bushiers, George W. Bush, and the and the and that administration choosing not to respond to any of the criticism, but they still announced their agenda.
They still were pretty uh pretty public about what they intended to do.
Look, there's a there's a piece by Chris Siliza today in the Washington Post, I think it's today, uh, and he addresses this.
And he he he talks about the positive implications of thinking you're going to win.
Specifically in midterms, that if the attitude is that positive that you think you're going to win, that it has some sort of an impact on on voters, and sometimes it's enough to carry it.
And they think there's also basically there's a there's a pew poll.
It's not really a yeah, it's I guess you'd have to call it a poll.
It's a survey.
And the upshot of it is, I'm really out of time here.
Let me just get to the cut to the chase on it.
The upshot of it is that the electorate seems to be in the identical mind that they were in 2010, maybe even more so, anti-Democrat than they were in 2010.
So it could well be, I'm not defending them.
I'm explaining.
Could well be they see this and they've just made a calculated decision.
Speaking would upset the apple cart and shut up.
This pew research survey is actually about voter expectations and how the Republicans has opened up a huge expectation gap on the Democrats ahead of the midterms.
And I'll explain what all this means when we get back after this top-of-the-hour timeout.
▲
Export Selection