All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
September 16, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hiya, folks, how are you?
Greetings.
Welcome.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh back at it.
Here at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies broadcast excellence, straight ahead for the next three big big hours.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address.
We read them.
Sometimes we even reference them here on the big program.
Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
Okay, very quickly.
So we let we let Allie the cat roam free.
We actually pulled it off, and I had nothing to worry about so far.
The cat was uninterested in the wedge or the banister on the second floor.
In fact, the cat is kind of like it's an interesting case study.
It's it's uh it's like when the uh Soviet Union busted apart and Russian citizens uh had their freedom after the Berlin Wall fell.
They didn't quite know what to do.
So you're not institutionalized, but she keeps she's going back and forth to the two rooms that we let her live in.
That's her home.
She goes back and forth to the bedroom in my office, going back then, and she's starting to sniff around, get curious.
But she's uh this cat's a lunatic uh and and gravitates toward people.
Uh pumpkin was an old soul and a loner and didn't need anybody except me.
But this one's all over the place.
And so it went well.
Everything's uh fine, it's fun to watch.
Uh, and I knew people are gonna be uh curious and asking, so there's the answer to that.
Um the situation in in the National Football League continues to deteriorate.
Major problem, and nobody can dare address.
I tried once and and got snuffed out.
Nobody can talk about what the real problem is there.
So everybody's skirting around the issue here as more outrageous acts committed by players are learned and discovered, such as Adrian Peterson of the Vikings, and nobody knows what to do.
Nobody has the slightest idea how to handle it.
The NFL, as we mentioned yesterday, has brought on four women.
Experts in women being beaten up by men and psychologists and others to assist the league office in dealing with this.
Uh, both structurally and marketing and brand-wise as well, because the NFL Shield is taking a hit.
Now, one of the women, now we mentioned this yesterday, one of the women who was hired is Cynthia Hogan.
Cynthia Hogan is a veteran Democrat operative.
Wait a minute now.
Wait a second.
Might be Anna Palmer.
I just got this, and I have it.
You know what?
Let me let me wait for the break and and read this.
All I see here is the headline.
I don't even have the website this came from.
So let me um let me double check this.
But I'm not surprised uh that that the women they've hired are are leftists and might even be Democrat Party operatives.
That's who they would gravitate to in a circumstance like this.
Now there's a fascinating story.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
In the Washington Post today, I don't know if this is an op-ed or if it's an actual story.
You can't tell anymore.
If it's not specified that it's an op-ed, you really don't know.
Because front-page news stories read like op-eds.
It's by somebody named Ed Rogers, and the headline, The Insiders is their mutiny brewing around Obama.
Washington Post.
Is there a mutant?
Let me tell you something.
There is sheer panic.
I am telling you, I know this, it hasn't been reported, but I'm telling you, I know it to be true.
There is sheer panic in the Democrat Party over these upcoming elections.
There is sheer panic.
You know, we're deploying more troops to fight Ebola than we are that we are deploying to fight ISIS.
I didn't know you could shoot Ebola.
And I have details on that coming up in just a second, but I want to set the table Here is a mutiny happening around President Obama.
It appears possible that the president may not have made two of his most recent decisions with complete free will.
The announcement that he would delay his immigration initiative until after the election, and his formal announcement that the U.S. would take military action against the Islamic State could have been coerced.
What this guy, Ed Rogers is saying, is that somewhere in the White House there are some adults who were able to get to Obama and shake him and give him the lay of the land and tell him that it isn't about him anymore.
I really do believe, you know, you watch Obama, he makes a speech, does an appearance, uses terms like my military and my I really do believe that this messianic complex still exists.
I believe he is it's never left him, and I think that he thinks that all of us are totally focused on him, just like he is.
He is totally focused on himself, so he thinks everybody else is focused on him.
He misses the point that everybody else is also focused on themselves.
They don't have time to focus on everybody else.
But he believes that everybody's focused on him just like he is.
And he thinks that this is a that the the the existence of the United States while he is president is nothing more than the story of Barack Obama.
Not the story of Barack Obama's presidency of the United States of America, but rather the story of Barack Obama.
I think a lot of people are worried about this.
I'm guessing.
I'm purely guessing.
I'm relying on what I would hope would be a reservoir of common sense somewhere in that town.
And I know it's a long shot, and I may be hoping for something that doesn't exist simply for something to grasp onto.
But it was crystallized when I saw this piece in the Washington Post.
The announcement that Obama would delay his immigration initiative after the election, and the formal announcement the U.S. would take military action against the Islamic State could have been coerced, maybe, says this piece in the Washington Post, maybe Democrat leaders in Congress and a few members of the Obama team have had it.
Could it be that after Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan that they balked?
Maybe the president was told that if he waived in millions of new illegal immigrants before November, that there would be an open revolt against him within the party.
Now again, we don't know if Ed Rogers has any inside information or if he is just speculating.
I think the reason people are doing this is that there is still, even within the circle of people closest to Obama, I still think there are a lot of people that don't know the guy.
They still look at him as they would look at any president, and they assign to Obama the same interests and focus points that any president would have, they believe in similar circumstances.
And so somebody might say, okay, Obama wants to bring in via Amnesty five to six million illegals before the election.
That'd be horrible for the Democrat Party.
We've got to get, we can't, we we can't let this happen.
The Democrats have got to get to say that it's not going to help us.
But then on the other side, that doesn't dovetail with what we know the Democrat Party and Obama both want.
They want amnesty.
They want a flood of immigrants.
They need a permanent underclass, they need subservient, loyal, dependent voters.
They need them and they want them.
Immigration amnesty is a huge thing.
Now, I happen to believe, and I've mentioned this to you on a couple occasions, maybe more, that I don't believe Obama ever was going to do amnesty before the election unless he could get the Republicans to go along and take the hit.
He's purely political.
He is through and through 100% political, and that means ideological.
I don't think he really much cares about the impact on the Democrat Party.
He's more interested in transforming the nation.
But let's stick with this piece just to show you the kind of thinking going on inside the beltway.
Maybe, writes Ed Rogers, and I'm sorry, I don't know who he is.
There's no slug line at the end of this piece.
I'm I'm sorry to be so ignorant here, but I have no idea who this guy is.
And I'm only reading this to you because it's in the Washington Post.
Maybe Democrat leaders in Congress and a few members of the team at the White House have had it.
Could it be that after Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan they balked?
Maybe the president was told that if he waved in millions of new illegal immigrants before November, there'd be an open revolt against him within the party.
Um that doesn't kind of jibe with what Luis Gutierts was doing the last three weeks.
The Congressman of Illinois could not wait for this.
He's running around trying to get everybody ready for it.
I mean, this was Christmas morning, Obama waving in these illegals via amnesty.
Well, it that's another why why would this be bad for the Democrats?
By the way, by the way, folks, by the way, I knew it.
This is another pardon the part, pardon the diversion here, but I had a story yesterday, didn't get to it.
It's from the politico, and it's about a poll.
GOP has edge on immigration in midterms.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second such story on this in the past six weeks.
And let me set the table on this again, just just so you remember.
For who knows how long, longer than any of us can remember.
What have we been told?
We have been told that comprehensive immigration reform is the only way the Republican Party can save itself.
Correct.
We've been told by Republicans, by people like John McCain, uh by the Republican National Committee by the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal at a Toby.
You I don't care who we have been told for who knows how long that if we don't make tracks and build up a positive relationship with Hispanic voters, we are toast.
We are never ever again going to win the White House.
Chuck Schumer has even worried that we will never win the White House if we don't get this right.
And so we've been told that we've got to sign on for amnesty.
We have to sign on for comprehensive immigration reform.
If we don't, that's the end of it.
This is the second story I have seen that shows the Democrats have lost their lead on the whole subject of uh of immigration in the polls.
Now, how in the world can that be?
If what we've been told for the last five years is we will never ever win the White House unless we sign on for Amnesty and build a bridge to Hispanic, how can it be that the Democrats have lost their advantage on this issue?
And the only answer to that can possibly be that it was never true that the Republican Party's only hope for winning the White House was to sign on to the Democrat plan of amnesty.
It was a lie, it was a trick.
Um it was a it's a foolhardy thing that a lot of people were participating in, trying to convince elected Republicans in Washington who are afraid of their shadows right now, and that was the only hope they had, and then they were trying to convince as many Republican voters as possible that that was the only hope they had.
When Obama had the House and Senate for the first two years of his administration, he didn't do amnesty, did he?
My point all along is there is no credit to anybody who does it.
Because the American people don't want it.
The American people don't want five, six million, eleven million illegal citizens granted amnesty overnight.
They don't want that to happen, and they never have supported it.
And yet, what we're treated to in the Daily Soap opera is that it's a fate accomplished, that it has to happen to save our country.
It has to happen so that the Chamber of Commerce continues to support the Republicans.
It has to happen so the Republicans can win the White House again.
It has to happen because of demographic.
And a fact of the matter is, the reason Obama didn't do it in the first two years is because there was no credit to a crew from doing it.
It was always something the American people have opposed.
And that's why Obama hasn't done it.
And that's why he's been trying, and the Democrats have been trying to rope the Republicans into joining them on it.
So there are Republican fingerprints, so there is no credit to the Republicans for opposing it.
Because that's the only way any politician can get any credit from voters on a stand on immigration is to oppose amnesty.
So I've I've I've thought for a while that Obama was never really going to do this.
But it was made to look like a fate accomplished to scare the heck out of Republicans and to get them to sign on for it.
Now, because of you and other Republican voters, and Jeff Sessions, who has spent practically all of his waking time educating the American people about this.
Washington has been inundated with phone calls from people warning members of Congress and the Senate that you had better not do this if you like your jobs.
And as such, it hasn't happened.
Amnesty hasn't yet happened, despite all the threats, despite all the attempted tricks.
Well, now that that takes us to the next point.
Would Obama do it in the lame duck?
At some point he will do it because the real objective of this is not party politics, as far as he's concerned.
Obama's objective in doing this is the transformation of America.
I mean, there's no common sense reason to even contemplate this, folks.
This is one of these.
There's no common sense reason to do this.
And there never has been.
I don't care what I don't care what the Chamber of Commerce says.
I don't, I don't care what Zuckerberg says about needing high-tech.
There's no common sense for doing this.
Not one bit of common sense that anybody could muster to say do this.
And yet Obama's on the verge or precipice of doing it, and he's got a totally totally different reason.
He's not doing it to help the country, he's not doing it to help businesses.
He's not he's he's got a whole different agenda when it comes to transforming this country.
So the public is furious.
What we're to believe here in this Ed Rogers piece The public is furious at Obama's decision to put off doing amnesty by executive order until after the election.
They still believe that the people writing this story that it is a fait accompli and that Obama is gonna do it.
It's so convoluted.
But it all adds up to something.
If you know how to read the stitches on the fastball, let me take a quick time out here.
We'll come back and continue this.
Do not go away.
Okay, the political story on the NFL hiring a Democrat operative.
I said that it was Anna Palmer.
I'm sorry it's wrong.
That's who wrote the story.
It is Cynthia Hogan who uh used to work for Biden.
More on that as the if we get into the NFL segment of the program today.
Ed Rogers is a Republican strategist.
He worked in the Reagan White House.
He founded a PR firm with Haley Barber and both of them are pro-amnesty.
And Ed Rogers is who has the piece here in the Washington Post called Is There a Mutiny Brewing Around Obama.
And here is the uh the the relevant second paragraph.
Maybe Democrat leaders in Congress and a few members of the team have had it.
Could it be that after Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan that they balked?
Maybe the president was told that if he waived in millions of new illegals before November, there'd be an open revolt against him within the party.
Similarly, a few members of the administration who have independent stature and an adult disposition may have told the president he must act on the Islamic State or else they were out.
I'm thinking of at least John Kerry and Chuck Hegel.
Is it possible they couldn't stomach doing another or doing nothing any longer?
And told the president they would quit in protest if he didn't take action.
Stranger things have happened.
It's total speculation piece.
And I must admit it doesn't carry as much weight with me now that I find out Mr. Rogers is a Republican.
He's just openly speculating.
See, what's happening here?
Leave it to me to clean up the mess.
What's happening here is that Obama is behaving in ways that people ought to be able to explain to themselves don't understand.
Obama talks and talks and talks about amnesty and doing it around Labor Day before the election.
All of a sudden, one day decides not to.
And the inside the Beltway experts are scratching their heads.
Why?
What changed?
What happened?
They don't know Obama.
They refuse to admit who they're dealing with.
And does anybody I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound.
The smart people in this administration are John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
Only career establishment Washington people would think that for crying out loud.
Okay, I finally figured this out, and I apologize, folks.
I should have figured this out before the program started, but I had incomplete information.
So we've got a piece in the Washington Post.
Uh it's actually a blog post.
It's not in the in the print paper.
I was wrong about that.
But it's insufficient information.
Second thing is, it's written by a Republican who does not, who has is curious why Obama abandoned amnesty before the election.
And so as a piece speculate, maybe the adults got hold of him.
Maybe, hey, don't do this before the election is going to hurt Democrats running for re-election.
We want to hold the Senate.
Uh, so don't do this.
And maybe some adults got to Obama.
Clearly, the belief is that Obama is not sufficiently equipped to make these correct political decisions himself.
Somebody had to get to him and say, no, don't do this, some adults.
I I think that this kind of speculation, I don't mean this to be critical of anybody.
So don't anybody call Ed Rogers and say I'm dumping on him.
I just I think I've thought this from the get-go, and I think it's still true.
I think there are a lot of people, establishment Republicans, establishment Democrats, establishment types of all stripes inside the beltway, who really to this day have no idea who Barack Obama is and what motivates him and what his real agenda is and how he is uh going about it.
He's still viewed as just an average ordinary Democrat president, maybe a little more liberal than most, maybe a little bit more radical here or there, but that's about it.
The truth of Obama is either unknown or unaccepted.
This Obama's objective is the elimination of all opposition, which then greases the skids for anything that he wants to do.
And the fastest way to get rid of opposition is to discredit them and to impugn them and ruin their base of support.
And one of the best ways to do that is to trick your opponent into believing that you want to help them.
You want you working together with them to help the country, and ergo we get amnesty.
You tell the Republicans the only thing you can do to save your party is to get on board with this new demographic shift.
And despite all this, it still hasn't happened.
And the people have had the ability to make it happen haven't done it.
Obama were about to wrap up six years and he's not done it.
He could have done it with no opposition the first two years.
He had the Democrats in full control of the House and Senate didn't do it.
He'd been threatening to do it every year to varying degrees of intensity since, really ratcheted up the intensity in this summer, threatening to do it before Labor Day, poor old Luis Gutierrez, Democrat Illinois believed it, was running around getting everybody ready.
They were salivating over La Raza and all over Telemundo and Univision.
They all thought it was going to happen.
They were getting ready to throw the big party and then Obama at the last minute.
You know what?
I'm gonna wait.
I'm gonna wait till after the election.
So wait a minute, what just happened here?
Everybody said, What just happened?
Well, we he was getting ready to do it, and we were Republicans were alternately salivating at the chance to benefit from it electorally, and some of them were honestly upset they weren't going to be a part of it.
I kid you not.
And it's real simple.
Obama could not massage this in a way that would uh force the Republicans to take the blame for it.
Because as I say, there isn't any credit.
There isn't this is the real nub here on this, the only thing you really need to know is this political story.
Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in battleground races this fall disapprove of Obama's handling of immigration, according to a new politico poll.
A public rebuke that comes after the White House grappled with the border crisis and reversed on a pledge to take executive action on deportation.
See, the political wants us to believe that the reason the public is fit to be tied at Obama in the Democrats is because he did not do amnesty.
And I'm sorry, public opinion doesn't work that fast.
The second reality is the American people have not been sitting on pins and needles.
They have not been sitting on the edges of their seats, their chairs, hoping for amnesty.
They have been fearing it.
The vast majority of the American people have been frightened.
They have been scared that Obama was going to do it.
And the poll that the this battleground poll, two-thirds disapprove of Obama's handling, that is, I'm convinced, is a poll result on their belief Obama was going to do it before Labor Day, and they they profoundly opposed it.
This is the second such story in six weeks.
Remember the last one was the first poll result that showed Democrats had lost their lead in emigration.
And I remembered making a big deal out of that because there was an appropriate question to ask.
How can that be?
We've been told for how many years in a row that the only hope the Republicans have is to sign on.
That it's been a slam dunk issue for the Democrats from the get-go.
Amnesty.
5 million, 6 million, 11 million granted amnesty overnight, and if the Republicans didn't do it, they were toast, and then all of a sudden, here came a poll which showed the Democrats had lost their lead, lost their lead.
This is way before Obama started threatening amnesty in uh in in September Labor Day.
And I concluded six weeks ago, what I'm concluding now, it's never been an issue that the Democrats were universally loved and supported over.
It's never been an issue that the Republicans had to do it if they wanted to survive.
It's been the exact opposite, in fact.
How can you how can you go from from years and years and years of Democrats owning an issue to all of a sudden losing their edge in polling data on it?
And the only way that can happen is if the mass overwhelming poll support they supposedly had was never true.
So that's where we are on this, essentially.
So Obama has refused to do it because he can't get the Republicans somehow blamed for it or sharing the blame with him.
And inside the Beltway types are stunned and trying to figure it out.
And so many of them are concluded, well, maybe the adults got hold of Obama and said, hey, bud, you can't do this.
And by the same token, maybe some adults got hold of Obama like Kerry and Hagel said, hey, you're gonna have to do something about ISIS.
You just can't sit here and go play golf after journalists are beheaded, man.
You got to.
And again, you know, the troubling thing about all of this analysis is what?
The belief that Obama's not engaged.
The belief that Obama is detached, which is exactly what he wants.
All the vacations, all the all the time away from Washington, all of it's it's made to look like Obama's gotten bored with the job.
Look at how many people apparently believe it.
When nothing could be further from the truth.
This guy is as in touch and is as focused on moving his transformative agenda forward as he ever has been.
But you may not believe that if you think that some adults can finally get to him and get his mind right.
I just I find it all fascinating because I I don't believe Obama's hard to understand at all.
If you're if you're just able to honestly admit to yourself what liberalism is and all of its offshoots, you know, whatever you socialism, communism, I don't care what you want to call it, but it is a specific thing.
It's a specific set of beliefs, and the more radical you get, the easier it is to understand it, may be more difficult to admit it to yourself, but it's easy to understand, maybe frightening to admit.
But it's it's easy to understand, and yet so many people remain remain distant from it.
Okay, quick time out.
We'll come back and um the smart people are Hegel and Kerry, right?
These are the guys that finally got to Obama and uh made him shape up and start looking at ISIS finally like an adult.
Well, we'll examine that.
So sit tight, my friend.
Just getting warmed up here.
On the cutting edge, Rush Limboy having more fun than a human being should be allowed.
You're listening to the five-time winner of the prestigious Marconi Award for excellence in syndicated and network programming broadcasting is awarded by the National Association of Broadcasters last week.
In fact, I have it right over there.
I forgot to bring it to the I'll I'll grab it during a break and put it up and show it to you on the uh ditto kit.
Looks like the Washington monument with a picture of Marconi on it.
It's glass.
I think it's sapphire, the sapphire Apple didn't use for the new iPhones.
Anyway, um what's remarkable about it is that I'm a five-time winner, and there's only one other.
And that at Paul Harvey.
It's it's really an honor, and you all made it possible, and I thank you.
Now, it's official.
I've got the audio sound bites coming up, but I wanted to tell you Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel told a House hearing this morning that we are gonna bomb ISIS safe havens in Syria.
Now, those of you who are old enough, you might remember all the grief Richard Nixon got from bombing the North Vietnamese safe havens in Cambodia, and for bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
Now, I can't wait to see the media's outrage over this.
I'm kidding, there won't be any outrage over it.
Chuck Hagel told a House hearing that we're gonna bomb ISIS safe havens in Syria.
We have told Syria, hey, don't shoot down our airplanes.
We are also gonna put what is it, uh, 3,000 boots on the ground in West Africa.
We're sending 3,000 soldiers to fight Ebola.
We are sending more soldiers to fight Ebola than we are sending to fight ISIS or other Muslim terrorists.
Snartley, I didn't I didn't know you could shoot a virus.
Did you?
This is the first I've heard that that is possible.
Now, apparently we're also told that there is absolutely, don't worry about it, there's no risk of any of these 3,000 soldiers contracting Ebola, and there is no risk of any of them bringing the virus back to the U.S. with them.
Otherwise, Obama surely wouldn't be sending them over there if there were any risk at all.
So now we are, in addition to the world's policeman, we are the world's doctor.
After we've apologized, how many times by President Obama in the last six years?
Where does the world still turn for solution to crisis proportion problems?
Where does the world still turn for help and solutions in disasters?
I ran across a stunning statistic the other day.
I think I knew it.
I just had never thought of it in these terms.
Tell me about American exceptionalism.
Do you realize the United States of America is responsible for 50% of the world's wealth?
And I don't mean rich people.
I'm talking about we are responsible for 50% of the world's wealth.
That's how economically superior our system has been to any other ever devised.
In other words, half of the world's wealth is the United States of America.
Now, granted, it's under assault.
And this is a great point because the current regime resents that number.
It's exactly the point.
The current regime resents that the United States is that big, that powerful, that successful.
In their view, and I'm speaking of Obama, that isn't fair.
That can't be legit.
I mean, there's no way, particularly under capitalism, capitalism itself is inherently unfair and biased and prejudice.
It can't possibly be.
So it's it we've had to steal it from people.
We've had to purloin it.
We've had it cheat people.
There's no way in their worldview that that can be legitimate.
But it is.
Now I said yesterday, uh, toward the end of the program, you would you would think that a community organizer.
And Obama was a great one.
By his estimation and by those who know the work of community organizer.
Obama was said to be one of the greatest community organizers ever.
And thus you would expect a great community organizer to at least be able to organize a coalition of nations against ISIS.
But he apparently can't do it.
He doesn't even seem to be able to organize a coalition against Ebola, much less ISIS.
How's China helping to fight Ebola?
How's China helping to fight ISIS or any other nation?
Saudi Arabia, are they in uh involved in any of this?
Why is it always us that has to do all the heavy lifting?
And the answer is we are pretty much it.
We are pretty much the only ones who can.
And that fact is why so many of you and me, so many of us, are cringing over what's happening to this country.
It's it in a nutshell.
The attack on the U.S. economy, economic system, the attack on the American institutions and traditions which have created this greatness.
The assault is unending.
We are the only ones who can do anything that really matters for lots and lots of people around the world.
And yet, how many Americans look at this country with disgust?
And blame this country and suggest that America is the problem in the world and not the solution.
Back to uh back to Iraq for just a moment.
Chuck Hagel told that same House hearing that U.S. troops could reach a total of 1,600 under Obama's plan.
Then General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of chief joints of staff, said that he may well recommend we send in ground troops if the airstrikes don't defeat ISIS, which they won't.
And that's not to put down airstrikes, it's just a fact of military warfare.
It is ground operations that secure it.
Well, unless you're going to drop nukes, which we are not going to do.
That would win it in a manner of speaking.
So we are going to be sending in ground troops.
And the takeaway is that we're going to be sending in ground troops once the Obama plan is shown to be ineffective.
And does it work?
Now, both Dempsey and Hegel asked Congress for authorization to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.
Okay, fine and dandy.
But didn't we train the Iraq army for 10 years?
We gave them the best military equipment money could buy.
And they still couldn't beat ISIS.
What makes anybody think a bunch of moderate Syrian civilians are going to be able to win a two-front war against ISIS and perhaps Assad if they have to.
But anything, anything so that Obama can say we're not going back to Iraq.
Anything, so Obama, oh no, no, we're not sending troops back to Iraq.
No, no, no, we're not going back to war.
Don't think that.
No way.
The news continues to swirl in the National Football League.
And we are up to speed on the latest.
Audio sound bites, of course, that are quite fascinating to listen to regarding what's going to happen in Syria and Iraq with our no boots on the ground war, so sit tight, my friends.
▲
Export Selection